Courts and Tribunals Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Report on the effect of the Act on prosecution of rape and serious sexual offences—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of this Act on proceedings of cases involving rape and serious sexual offences.

(2) The matters the report must consider include—

(a) the effect of the Act on the time taken to dispose of cases;

(b) the effect of the Act on witness participation in proceedings; and

(c) the effect of the Act on the experience of victims during proceedings.

(3) The report must make recommendations to improve each of the matters set out in subsection (2).

(4) Recommendations may include—

(a) recommendations about how the Act is implemented, and

(b) recommendations about further provision necessary to improve each matter.

(5) In this section, serious sexual offences are such offences as the Crown Prosecution Service may from time to time specify.

(6) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—

(a) a copy of a report under this section,

(b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.”

This new clause would require a report on the effect of the provisions of the Bill on the progression of RASSO cases, and require the Lord Chancellor to respond to these recommendations.

New clause 2—Fast-track courts for rape and serious sexual offences—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations make provision for specialist court capacity for cases involving rape and serious sexual offences (“RASSO”).

(2) Regulations under this section must include provision for the prioritised listing and progression of RASSO cases.

(3) The Lord Chancellor must take reasonable steps for any necessary judicial, administrative and support resources to be made available to operate such court capacity.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that specialist court capacity is made available for the fast-tracking of RASSO cases.

New clause 3—Extended sitting hours for Crown Court Proceedings—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor may, by order, designate specific Crown Court locations or individual court rooms as extended capacity courts.

(2) Proceedings in any court designated under subsection (1) must consist of—

(a) a morning session, commencing at 09:00 and concluding at 13:00; and

(b) an afternoon session, commencing at 14:00 and concluding at 18:00.

(3) Any court designated under subsection (1) will not have a limit on the number of cases that can be heard on the same day.”

This new clause would restructure the court sitting day to introduce a morning and afternoon session, to allow two different cases to be heard in the same courtroom on a given day.

New clause 4—Review of the Feasibility of Two Court Sittings per day—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act comes into force, lay before Parliament an independent report into the feasibility of conducting two trials per day in designated court rooms (“the Scheme”).

(2) The scheme would allow for proceedings in a Crown Court to consist of—

(a) a morning session, commencing at 09:00 and concluding at 13:00; and

(b) an afternoon session, commencing at 14:00 and concluding at 18:00.

(3) A report under subsection (1) must assess the impact of the scheme—

(a) on the efficiency and timeliness of court proceedings;

(b) on the availability of judges, legal practitioners, and court staff;

(c) the potential impact on defendants, victims, and witnesses; and

(d) the cost and resource implications of the scheme.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must, within three months of the laying of the report under subsection (1), publish a response.

(5) The response must include proposals for a pilot scheme based on the findings of the report including the proposed scope and duration of any such pilot.”

This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the feasibility of introducing two court sittings per day in designated courtrooms, including an assessment of its impact on efficiency, resources, and court users, and to set out the Government’s intended next steps.

New clause 5—Targets for Backlog Reduction—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, set and publish annual targets for the reduction of the Crown Court backlog in England and Wales.

(2) There must be a target for the—

(a) overall reduction of the Crown Court backlog in England and Wales, and

(b) reduction of the backlog in each HMCTS region.

(3) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament an annual report on progress against these targets.

(4) Any report under subsection (3) must include any steps taken to address the failure to meet the targets.”

This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to set and publish targets for reducing court backlogs and to report annually to Parliament on progress.

New clause 6—Victim-led Intensive Case Management—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the implementation of Victim-Led Intensive Case Management in proceedings in the criminal courts (“The Strategy”).

(2) The strategy must outline steps to prioritise the experience of victims in relation to proceedings in the criminal courts.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to lay before Parliament a strategy for victim-led case management in relation to criminal court proceedings.

New clause 7—Judicial training: anti-discrimination—

“(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to discrimination against individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds.

(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—

(a) the identification and prevention of racial bias, including unconscious bias, and

(b) the impact of discrimination on access to justice and judicial outcomes.

(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”

This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on discrimination against ethnic minorities, including racial bias and its impact on judicial decision-making.

New clause 8—Judicial training: violence against women and girls—

“(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to violence against women and girls.

(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—

(a) the nature and dynamics of violence against women and girls, including—

(i) domestic abuse,

(ii) sexual violence,

(iii) coercive control, and

(iv) so-called honour-based abuse;

(b) best practice in hearing cases involving violence against women and girls, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings.

(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”

This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on violence against women and girls.

New clause 9—Judicial training: domestic abuse—

“(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to domestic abuse.

(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—

(a) the nature and dynamics of domestic abuse, including physical, emotional, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse, as well as controlling or coercive behaviour;

(b) best practice in the management of cases involving domestic abuse, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings.

(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”

This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on domestic abuse.

New clause 10—Pilot of trial allocation reforms—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations bringing sections 1 to 7 of this Act into force unless—

(a) he has first made arrangements for a pilot scheme for the provision of those sections in accordance with subsections (2) and (3),

(b) a statutory instrument containing regulations for the commencement of sections 1 to 7 of this Act has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2) A pilot scheme may—

(a) be for the purpose of trialling all provisions of sections 1 to 7 of this Act,

(b) be for such a period as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify, provided that the period does not exceed 24 months beginning with the day on which this section is brought into force,

(c) take place in at least one location in England and Wales as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify,

(d) apply to proceedings in the criminal courts as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify.

(3) Before the conclusion of the pilot scheme under subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor must—

(a) commission an independent review of the pilot scheme, and

(b) lay before Parliament a report on the assessment under paragraph (a).”

This new clause would require the Government to pilot the removal of the right to elect trial by jury before national implementation, and to report to Parliament on its impact.

New clause 11—Access to free court transcripts for victims—

“(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—

(a) judicial summings-up, and

(b) bail decisions and conditions,

which are relevant to their case.

(2) HM Courts and Tribunals Service must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.

(3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”

This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of judicial summings-up and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case.

New clause 12—Report on the effect of the Act on public trust and participation in the criminal justice system—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of the Act on public trust and participation in the judicial system.

(2) A report under this section must—

(a) include consideration of the effect of the provisions of the Act on—

(i) witness participation;

(ii) the effect of these reforms on public confidence and trust in the criminal justice system; and

(iii) the effect of these provisions on BAME engagement with and trust of the criminal justice system,

(b) contain recommendations for further provision, or changes to delivery of provision under this Act, to increase the levels of each criterion set out in sub-paragraphs (2)(a)(i) to (2)(a)(iii).

(3) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—

(a) a copy of a report under this section,

(b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to commission, lay, and respond to a report on the effect of the Bill on public trust in the criminal justice system.

New clause 13—Duty to provide trauma-informed training—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that appropriate training is made mandatory for members of all court staff working in the criminal courts on best practice in relation to victims' trauma.

(2) Training under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the nature, prevalence, and impact of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and rape and serious sexual offences (“RASSO”);

(b) the dynamics and psychological effects of trauma on parties and witnesses involved in proceedings;

(c) the identification and appropriate handling of cases involving domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and RASSO offences;

(d) the ways in which trauma may affect memory, communication, behaviour, and engagement with court proceedings;

(e) best practices for reducing retraumatisation within court and tribunals settings.

(3) Training provided under this section must—

(a) take place on initial appointment to a role within a court, and at regular intervals thereafter;

(b) reflect current best practice and be informed by up-to-date research and guidance; and

(c) be developed in consultation with appropriate experts, including specialist support organisations and persons with lived experience of abuse and trauma.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must keep the training under review and revise it as appropriate.

(5) The Lord Chancellor must publish guidance on the implementation of this section.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that members of the court staff working in the criminal courts receive mandatory, consistent training on trauma-informed practice to improve understanding of how trauma affects victims’ evidence, behaviour, and engagement with court proceedings.

New clause 14—Review of Efficiencies in the Criminal Justice System—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 24 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the efficiency of the criminal justice system.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider the impact on the efficiency of the criminal justice system of—

(a) the provisions of this Act;

(b) the wider criminal justice system;

(c) the standard of delivery by court contract providers, including PECS contractors;

(d) the condition of the courts estate; and

(e) the use of technology.

(3) In considering “efficiency”, the review must consider the impact on—

(a) delays,

(b) backlogs, and

(c) the experience of victims and witnesses.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review before Parliament.

(5) The report under subsection (4) must include recommendations for further legislative or administrative changes to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review and report on whether the Act has improved the efficiency of the criminal justice system, including impacts on delays, backlogs, and the experience of victims and witnesses.

New clause 15—Expiry of sections 1 to 7 in specified circumstances—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of the provisions contained in sections 1 to 7 of this Act.

(2) A report under this section must be laid—

(a) within 24 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, or

(b) within 24 months of the latest date on which any of sections 1 to 7 is commenced,

whichever is the later.

(3) The report must describe—

(a) any time saved in court as a result of the measures included in those sections;

(b) any change in the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court since this Act was passed;

(c) the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court at the time at which the report is prepared; and

(d) any other effect of the provisions of sections 1 to 7 on the criminal justice system.

(4) The report must provide a conclusion by the Lord Chancellor on whether the reforms have been effective in reducing the number of cases awaiting trial at Crown Court.

(5) Where the report concludes that the provisions have not been effective, the Lord Chancellor must make regulations providing for the immediate repeal of sections 1 to 7.

(6) Where the report concludes that the provisions are effective, the Lord Chancellor must make regulations making provision for repeal of sections 1 to 7 subject to the condition in subsection (8).

(7) The condition is that the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court has in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor reduced to a sufficient extent.

(8) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause introduces a sunset clause requiring a report on the effectiveness of the provisions. If the report finds that the measures are not effective, the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations to repeal them. If the report finds that the measures are effective, the Secretary of State must set a deadline for their repeal and a return to fully jury trials.

New clause 16—Remote Court Participation: Strategy—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backlog (“the strategy”).

(2) The strategy must include—

(a) an assessment of the current use of remote proceedings;

(b) an evaluation of the impact of remote proceedings on the speed of case disposal and the overall reduction of the outstanding caseload;

(c) recommendations on how the principle of open justice can be upheld with the increased use of remote proceedings;

(d) criteria for determining the suitability of proceedings for different forms of remote participation; and

(e) provisions for the security, reliability, and resilience of digital systems used in remote proceedings.

(3) The Secretary of State must, at intervals of no more than 24 months following the laying of the strategy, lay before Parliament a report on progress made against the strategy.

(4) The progress report must consider—

(a) the extent to which the strategy has been implemented;

(b) the impact on the criminal case backlog, including any measures by which that impact has been assessed; and

(c) any further legislative or budgetary provisions to ensure the effectiveness of remote proceedings.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “remote proceedings” means any proceedings in which one or more participants attend by way of live video or audio link.”

This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to publish a formal strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backload in the criminal justice system.

New clause 17—Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration—

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

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

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

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

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

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

(i) the Crown Court, and

(ii) the magistrates’ courts;

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

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

(7) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 19—Commencement of Part 1: Independent Reports—

“(1) Sections 1 to 7 of this Act may not come into force unless a draft of regulations providing for their commencement has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may not lay a draft of regulations under subsection (1) unless they have first laid before Parliament a report, produced by an independent reviewer, based on published Crown Court data, establishing that—

(a) delays attributable to trial by jury are a primary cause of delays to cases being heard in the Crown Court; and

(b) all possible alternative measures that could reasonably be implemented in criminal courts in England and Wales have been so implemented and found by the independent reviewer not to have reduced the Crown Court backlog.

(3) Alternative measures under subsection (2)(b) may include—

(a) increased funding for sitting days,

(b) holding two trials per day in specified court rooms, and

(c) developing and implementing specialist courts to hear cases relating to sexual offences and domestic abuse.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must appoint the independent reviewer to produce reports under this section.

(5) A person may not be appointed as the independent reviewer if they are a Minister of the Crown, a civil servant in the Ministry of Justice, or an officer of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.

(6) A report under subsection (2) must be published without redaction, alongside its supporting data, at least three months before a draft of regulations is laid under subsection (1).

(7) Sections 1 to 7 expire 12 months after coming into force unless a further report under subsection (2) is laid and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament prior to the end of that period.”

This new clause requires an independent report demonstrating that jury trials are a primary cause of Crown Court delays and that alternative remedies have failed before sections 1 to 7 can take effect by affirmative resolution of both Houses.

New clause 20—Court service providers: performance—

“(1) HM Courts and Tribunals Service must make provision for the collection of data where a Crown Court has reported that a trial has been—

(a) adjourned,

(b) vacated, or

(c) delayed by more than 30 mins

due to the failure of a court service provider.

(2) Court service providers under subsection (1) include—

(a) prisoner escort and custody services;

(b) language and interpretation services; and

(c) video-link and information technology services,

and any other private company that provides a service to a court.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report (a “court contract performance report”) setting out—

(a) the number of trials or hearings delayed due to failures by private service providers; and

(b) an assessment of the impact of such delays on the backlog of cases in the Crown Court.”

This new clause would require all new contracts for court-related services to include a performance-related penalty clause for cases where a failure related to those services impacts the completion of proceedings.

New clause 21—Impact of sections 1 to 6 on domestic abuse victims—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of sections 1 to 6 on the experiences and treatment, within the courts, of victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

(2) The impact assessment published under this section must include an assessment of levels of uptake of relevant training among trial judges on the experiences of domestic abuse victims and survivors.”

This new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of the Bill’s provisions on jury trials on victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

New clause 22—Immunity from suit: conduct of police officers in preparation for criminal court proceedings—

“(1) Except while acting as witnesses, no immunity from suit applies to acts or omissions by police officers where these occur in preparation for criminal court proceedings. This includes—

(a) the fabrication, concealment, improper alteration or destruction of evidence;

(b) conduct connected to criminal court proceedings involving dishonesty, bad faith, or negligence;

(c) the reckless or deliberate disclosure, in preparation for criminal court proceedings, of confidential information relating to victims, witnesses, or vulnerable persons; and

(d) breaches of duties owed under the Human Rights Act 1998.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulation make further provision under this section.

(3) Regulations made under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would restrict immunity from civil suit for police officers in relation to certain conduct in preparation for criminal court proceedings.

New clause 24—Determination of domestic abuse allegations and related presumptions—

“(1) There is a rebuttable presumption that any reluctance or refusal by a child to spend time with a party against whom the child, or a party representing the child, has made allegations of domestic abuse constitutes a reasonable and justified response to the domestic abuse.

(2) The presumption in subsection (1) may be rebutted only where the accused party demonstrates, on the balance of probabilities, that the child’s reluctance or refusal cannot be reasonably attributed to the domestic abuse.”

This new clause provides that, in family court, where a child refuses or is reluctant to spend time with one party as a result of an allegation against that party of domestic abuse against the child, the court must presume the reluctance or refusal is reasonable.

New clause 25—Expiry of sections 1 to 7—

“(1) Sections 1 to 7 of this Act expire three months after the date on which the condition in subsection (2) is met.

(2) The condition is that the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court has been below pre-pandemic level in each of the previous four quarterly reporting periods.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court is that which is calculated by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.”

This new clause sunsets sections 1 to 7 of this Act so that they will no longer be in force once the court backlog has been resolved.

New clause 26—Unduly lenient sentences scheme: application to the magistrates’ courts—

“(1) Section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) after “Crown Court” insert “, or the magistrates’ court where the sentence is in respect of an either way offence,”.”

This new clause would ensure that those affected by any case that was triable either-way before this Act was passed shall still be subject to the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

New clause 27—Review of jury composition—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of the methods used to determine the composition of juries.

(2) The review under this section must include an assessment of whether there are appropriate safeguards in place to prevent verdicts being returned which are influenced by jurors’—

(a) political views,

(b) religious beliefs, or

(c) other demographic characteristics,

in a way that conflicts with the interests of justice.

(3) If a review under this section determines that there are not sufficient safeguards in place, the Secretary of State must publish proposals aimed at introducing sufficient safeguards.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of jury composition, with a view to avoiding juries returning verdicts influenced by their politics, religion or other demographic characteristics.

Amendment 1, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.

Amendment 47, clause 1, page 3, line 20, at end insert

“except where subsection (10) applies.

(10) Where—

(a) an offence is triable either way;

(b) the court considers that, if convicted, the accused would be likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months but not more than three years;

(c) the accused is of good character; and

(d) the accused has not previously been convicted of an offence,

the accused may elect to be tried on indictment.”

This amendment preserves the right of a defendant of good character with no previous convictions to elect Crown Court trial where the likely sentence is more than 12 months but not more than three years.

Amendment 2, page 4, line 16, leave out clause 2.

Government amendment 3.

Amendment 21, clause 3, page 5, leave out line 27 and insert—

“(4) The trial is to be conducted without a jury in any other case only if—

(a) the prosecution has made a written application to the court requesting that the trial be conducted without a jury, and

(b) the defendant has given explicit written consent to be tried without a jury.

(4A) Where the prosecution does not make an application under subsection (4)(a), or the defendant does not give consent under subsection (4)(b), the trial is to be conducted with a jury.”

This amendment states that a case can only be tried without a jury following an application from the prosecution and where the defendant gives written consent.

Amendment 17, clause 3, page 6, line 25, at end insert—

“(4A) A trial conducted without a jury will be heard by one judge and two magistrates.”

This amendment implements the recommendation of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to have cases heard in the Crown Court Bench Division by a judge and two magistrates.

Amendment 16, clause 3, page 9, line 17, leave out “no” and insert “a”.

This amendment entitles a defendant to appeal against a judge’s decision to allocate the case for trial by judge alone.

Amendment 51, clause 3, page 9, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) Where a court has determined in accordance with section 74A that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the court cannot pass a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years on a person convicted of an offence.

(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court considers that the appropriate sentence is more than three years’ imprisonment or detention, the court must refer the case for retrial by jury.”

This amendment prevents a judge sitting alone from sentencing a defendant to more than three years in prison, and requires that if this is the likely sentence, the case must be remitted for trial by jury.

Amendment 10, clause 3, page 9, line 28, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

This amendment would prevent the provisions on trial on indictment without a jury applying retrospectively to cases where the defendant has elected trial by jury before these provisions become law.

Amendment 4, page 10, line 5, leave out clause 4.

Amendment 52, clause 4, page 10, line 16, leave out “one or more of the offences is an offence” and insert “all of the offences are”.

This amendment would limit judge-only trials to situations where all of the offences are listed in Schedule 3ZA.

Amendment 53, clause 4, page 10, line 34, at end insert—

“(3A) A court may not make an order under this section if it considers that it is the interests of natural justice for the defendant to have a trial with a jury.”

This amendment prevents a judge-only trial in complex and lengthy cases where it would be in the interests of natural justice for the defendant to be tried with a jury.

Amendment 54, clause 4, page 11, line 1, leave out from “is” to end of line 2, and insert

“a right of appeal against a decision to make an order under this section on the grounds of natural justice

(5A) where an appeal is made under subsection (5), it must not be heard by the judge who made the original determination.”

This amendment would add a right for defendants to appeal against the decision for a judge-only trial for lengthy and complex cases.

Government amendment 24.

Amendment 57, clause 4, page 12, line 27, leave out subsection (5)(a).

This amendment would prevent the court unilaterally overriding a reason to issue a revocation order so that a case allocated for judge-only trial under this section could be tried by jury.

Amendment 55, clause 4, page 13, line 11, at end insert—

“(g) the interests of natural justice for the defendant.”

This amendment would ensure that the interests of natural justice for the defendant are relevant to the decision to revoke an order for a judge-only trial for the offences listed in Schedule 1.

Government amendment 25.

Amendment 56, clause 4, page 13, line 30, leave out “trial beginning on or” and insert

“cases whose first hearing in the magistrates’ court takes place”.

This amendment prevents the provisions in section 4 coming into effect retrospectively.

Amendment 6, page 14, line 7, leave out clause 5.

Government amendments 26 and 27.

Amendment 59, clause 5, page 14, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) The judgment must be given at the time of conviction, except where an adjournment is necessary for preparing—

(a) pre-sentence reports,

(b) psychiatric or medical reports,

(c) victim personal statements, or

(d) further legal advice relating to sentencing.”

This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment.

Amendment 60, clause 5, page 15, line 8, at end insert—

“(5B) It is only permissible not to give judgment at the time of conviction if adjournment is necessary for—

(a) pre-sentence reports

(b) psychiatric or medical reports

(c) victim personal statements, or

(d) further legal advice about sentence.”

This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment.

Amendment 61, clause 5, page 15, line 16, at end insert—

“(4B) It is only permissible not to give judgment at the time of conviction if adjournment is necessary for—

(a) pre-sentence reports,

(b) psychiatric or medical reports,

(c) victim personal statements, or

(d) further legal advice about sentence.”

This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment.

Government amendment 28.

Amendment 7, page 15, line 23, leave out clause 6.

Amendment 11, clause 6, page 15, leave out lines 36 and 37.

This amendment provides that magistrates’ sentencing powers cannot be increased beyond 12 months.

Amendment 62, clause 6, page 15, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) In paragraph 14A(3), for “negative” substitute “affirmative””.

This amendment ensures regulations to extend magistrates’ courts sentencing powers must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment 19, clause 6, page 15, line 37, at end insert—

“(1B) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This amendment would make changing the general limit on custodial sentence for an either-way offence in magistrates’ courts changeable by affirmative resolution only.

Amendment 18, clause 6, page 17, line 18, at end insert—

“(9) After section 15 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, insert—

“15A Entitlement to Crown Court funding levels in certain proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court

(1) This section applies to criminal proceedings in a magistrates’ court where—

(a) an individual is charged with an either-way offence; and

(b) the court, having regard to the sentencing guidelines, considers it likely that a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 12 months will be imposed upon conviction.

(2) Where this section applies, any relevant representation order shall provide for remuneration at the same rates and under the same conditions as would apply if the proceedings were determined in the Crown Court.””

This amendment links legal aid funding to the potential severity of the sentence rather than the venue of the trial. It ensures that defendants facing more than 12 months' imprisonment receive Crown Court level funding, regardless of which court the case is heard in.

Amendment 8, page 17, line 20, leave out clause 7.

Government amendments 29 to 32.

Amendment 67, page 30, line 4, leave out clause 17.

This amendment would keep the rebuttable presumption of parental involvement being beneficial for the welfare of the child.

Amendment 12, clause 17, page 30, line 24, at end insert—

“(3) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the commencement of this section, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the resources required to give full effect to the repeal of subsection 2A in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989.

(4) The report under subsection (3) must include—

(a) an assessment of the level of legal aid provision necessary to ensure that parties in child arrangements proceedings are able to obtain timely and effective—

(i) advice, and

(ii) representation,

particularly where allegations of domestic abuse or safeguarding concerns are raised;

(b) an evaluation of the capacity of the family courts, including—

(i) the number of judges,

(ii) court staff, and

(iii) available hearing time,

to undertake robust risk assessment and fact-finding processes in line with Practice Direction 12J;

(c) plans to address any shortfalls in judicial training, including—

(i) training relating to coercive control,

(ii) domestic abuse dynamics, and

(iii) child safeguarding,

(d) proposals for investment in the family court estate and technology to ensure—

(i) the repeal operates effectively, and

(ii) decisions are consistently grounded in the welfare and safety of the child.”

This amendment requires the Government to set out how the family courts and legal aid system will be resourced to give full effect to the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement.

Amendment 22, clause 17, page 30, line 24, at end insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament on post-separation abuse in the context of decisions of courts under Children Act 1989.

(4) The report under subsection (3) must set out how post separation abuse is identified and understood in proceedings to which this clause relates.”

Government amendments 33 to 36.

Amendment 20, clause 26, page 35, leave out lines 29 and 30.

This amendment is consequential on new clause (Commencement of Part 1: Independent Reports).

Government amendment 37.

Amendment 13, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert

“, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).

(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the following sections until he has published a response to the recommendation of Part II of Independent Review of the Criminal Courts—

(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);

(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);

(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);

(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);

(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4);

(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts);

(g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).”

This amendment would make the publication of the Government response to Part II of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts a precondition of Clause 1 to 7 of this Bill coming into force.

Amendment 14, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert

“, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).

(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the following sections until the pilot in accordance with section [pilot of trial allocation reforms] has been concluded—

(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);

(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);

(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);

(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);

(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4);

(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts);

(g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).”

This amendment is consequential on NC10.

Amendment 48, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met.

(3B) The conditions are that—

(a) the Lord Chancellor has provided funding for at least 130,000 sitting days in the Crown Court in the financial year following the coming into force of this Act,

(b) HM Courts and Tribunals Service has made an assessment that the Crown Court has, so far as possible, used the allocation of sitting days provided under subsection (3B)(a), and

(c) the Lord Chancellor has made a statement to the House of Commons that the funding provided under subsection (3B)(a) has not reduced the number of cases pending trial in the Crown Court compared to the start of the financial year.”

This amendment prevents the provisions in sections 1 to 7 from coming into force until the Lord Chancellor has provided funding for 130,000 sittings days in the Crown Court; HMCTS has assessed that the Crown Court has used its allocation of sitting days; and the Lord Chancellor has made a statement to the House that this has not reduced the backlog.

Amendment 49, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until he has—

(a) undertaken a consultation on the potential benefits of introducing extended sitting hours in the Crown Court, and

(b) laid before Parliament a report on the outcome of the consultation.

(3B) The consultation under subsection (3A) must consider—

(a) potential rates of fees and renumeration for legal professionals and court staff working extended hours, and

(b) the availability of HM Courts and Tribunal Service staff.”

This amendment would ensure that sections 1 to 7 of the Act did not come into force until the Lord Chancellor had reviewed how to increase sitting hours in the Crown Court.

Amendment 50, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 7 into force until he has undertaken an assessment of the rate of upheld appeals on convictions and sentences handed down in the magistrates’ court in the previous two years.”

This amendment would prevent the restriction of right of appeal against magistrates’ court decisions until the Lord Chancellor has undertaken an assessment of how many of those appeals are successful.

Amendment 68, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert

“subject to the provisions of subsection (3A)”—

“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the sections set out under subsection (3B) until he has taken reasonable steps to increase Crown Court sitting capacity, including but not limited to—

(a) using buildings not currently in use as courts to hear cases where cells are not needed, and

(b) reducing lost sitting days as a result of late guilty pleas and prison transport delays.

(3B) The sections referenced in subsection (3A) are—

(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);

(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);

(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);

(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);

(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4);

(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts);

(g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).”

This amendment would ensure that sections 1 to 7 of the Act could not be commenced until the Lord Chancellor has used alternative means to increase Crown Court sitting capacity.

Amendment 5, page 36, line 2, leave out schedule 1.

Amendment 58, schedule 1, page 38, line 3, leave out paragraph 20.

This amendment prevents the Lord Chancellor adding further offences to the list in Schedule 1 by regulations.

Amendment 9, page 38, line 9, leave out schedule 2.

Amendment 46, schedule 2, page 38, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) Nothing in this section applies to an appeal which may be brought as of right under section 108(2D).””

This amendment is consequential on amendment 45.

Amendment 45, schedule 2, page 38, line 22, at end insert—

“(2C) Subsection (2B) does not apply where—

(a) the appellant was convicted by a magistrates’ court;

(b) the appellant has not previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or detention for an offence; and

(c) having regard to the applicable sentencing guidelines, the offence or offences for which the appellant was convicted are offences for which the sentence imposed, or likely to be imposed, does not exceed 12 months’ imprisonment or detention.

(2D) Where subsection (2C) applies—

(a) an appeal under this section may be brought, and

(b) and no permission to appeal is required.

(2E) An appeal under subsection (2D) may be brought against—

(a) conviction;

(b) sentence; or

(c) both conviction and sentence.

(2F) For the purposes of subsection (2C)(b), a sentence which is suspended, but which is a sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of the applicable sentencing legislation, shall be treated as a sentence of imprisonment.

(2G) Where an appeal is brought under subsection (2D) and (2E), the appeal shall be treated as an appeal brought as of right and the provisions of this Part relating to permission to appeal shall not apply.”

This amendment preserves the existing automatic right of appeal from the magistrates’ court for defendants of good character with no previous convictions where the applicable sentencing guidelines indicate that the offence is likely to attract a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or less.

Amendment 63, schedule 2, page 39, line 16, leave out from “if” to end of line 18 and insert

“the defendant has made one”.

This amendment would require the Crown Court to allow an appeal if the defendant makes one.

Amendment 64, schedule 2, page 42, line 15, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert

“jury in the Crown Court”.

This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates’ court.

Amendment 65, schedule 2, page 47, line 13, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert

“jury in the Crown Court”.

This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates’ court.

Amendment 66, schedule 2, page 49, line 36, leave out from “Court” to end of line 39 and insert

“must allow an appeal under section 108 if the defendant makes one.”

This amendment would remove the provision limiting appeals to specific grounds and instead ensure the Crown Court allows appeals if one is made.

Amendment 15, schedule 2, page 52, line 7, leave out “on payment of a fee” and insert

“to victims of criminal offence without a fee within 14 days of a request”.

This amendment would make magistrates’ court transcripts free for victims and requires that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.

Government amendments 38 to 44.

[Sarah Sackman]

It is an honour to open the debate on the Report stage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, and to bring this important piece of legislation back before the House. This is a Bill with victims at its heart. Its purpose is urgent and long overdue: to ensure that justice in this country is delivered fairly for both victims and defendants. Currently, thousands of victims, witnesses and defendants are trapped in the long, slow wait for justice. That is simply unfair. For some, justice may never come. The old maxim rings true in our country today: far too often, justice delayed is justice denied.

Occasionally, there are stories that stop one in one’s tracks. I appeared on “Newsnight” to explain the situation in our courts—backlogs reaching 80,000 and far too many people waiting for justice—and on that programme, I was confronted with the story of Morwenna Loughman. She spoke of the devastating impact that those court delays had had on her life. Morwenna was violently raped in February 2023. She was forced to wait over two years for her attacker to be convicted after her trial was cancelled not once, but twice at short notice. During that time, she lost her job, her home and her sense of self. Her story has stayed with me ever since—it is people exactly like Morwenna whom I have in my mind’s eye as I return to the House with this legislation. For far too many survivors, delays themselves have become another source of trauma. We cannot sit idly by; we have to act now to resolve this situation.

The Bill seeks to turn a crisis into an opportunity—an opportunity to rebuild a justice system that is swifter and stronger, and has victims’ voices at its core. We have the opportunity to rebuild a system that gives courts, rather than defendants, the ability to triage cases, and that transforms our approach to the culture around rape and serious sexual violence. That is the ambition of this Bill—not just to repair what is broken, but to build something better in its place.

This Government inherited a criminal justice system that was on its knees, with trials taking longer, hearings constantly cancelled and victims facing unacceptable delays. Years of inaction and under-investment had led to a courts system that, as Lord Leveson’s report concluded, was and remains simply unfit for purpose. Today, the Crown court backlog stands at almost 81,000 cases, and the pressure is growing. Cases themselves are increasingly complex, not least because of the growth of digital and forensic evidence. A single smartphone can hold the equivalent of 50 million printed pages, and this adds to disclosure, complexity, and the time it takes to reach a verdict. The police are arresting more criminals. We make absolutely no apologies for that, but a system that is already under strain cannot continue to absorb ever-rising demand without reform. Old structures are creaking under new volumes and new types of crime, and if we do not act, the situation will continue to spiral.

Not only are we failing victims, this situation and these unacceptable delays are corrosive of public trust in the justice system itself. We can and must do better. To do so, we need a sensible, principled and pragmatic approach. As we will no doubt hear, the Opposition have offered plenty of objections, but precious few answers to the reality facing our courts. We will not take lectures from the party that left the criminal justice system in this state. This Government have a plan: a serious package of measures designed to drive down the backlog and ensure that victims get the fast, timely and fair justice that they deserve. Lord Leveson’s conclusion in the independent review of criminal courts was clear that there is no silver bullet for addressing this problem. We need to pull every lever—investment, modernisation and structural reform—and this Government are doing precisely that.

Let me begin with investment. For a start, we have removed the financial limit on court sitting days. We have recruited more judges and magistrates. By uncapping Crown court sitting days—meaning that there is no financial limit on the number of cases that courts can hear—we have unleashed the potential of our Crown courts, which are hearing more cases than ever before. We are investing an additional £287 million in court repairs and digital upgrades, alongside record investment in criminal legal aid to support the solicitors and barristers who run our criminal cases, alongside a package of more than half a billion pounds for victim services over the next three years.

In addition, I am proud that we have announced a £23 million package to introduce specialist rape courts—a manifesto commitment—in every single Crown court centre. That will improve the experience of victims of rape and other sexual offences at court, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), whose bravery and determination has driven forward those changes.

Modernisation and efficiency matter, too. I abhor inefficiency. When I speak not just to victims, but to defendants and to people who work within the system, the wastefulness of ineffective trials is so frustrating. We hear stories of trials being put off because a prisoner was not produced on time or because counsel was unavailable. Working with the judiciary, we are modernising our system and we are throwing the kitchen sink at it.

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

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for throwing the kitchen sink at the problem, including court repairs. We wish to see those repairs make progress at Taunton Crown court. The Minister was good enough to write to me at the beginning of the summer to explain that the court, which has been closed since 2023, will be closed for longer. Will she contact me to give us an update on when Taunton Crown court will finally be reopened?

[Sarah Sackman]

I was glad to meet the hon. Member to discuss the situation at Taunton, which I know has been a deep source of frustration. Nothing could more exemplify the years of neglect of our justice system than our crumbling court estate that was presided over by the Conservatives. This Government are investing in the fabric of our court estate. That is not just in the bricks and mortar, but in the digital upgrades that are so important, and I will speak to those now.

We have the technology for remote hearings; we need to be deploying it. This Government will develop a pilot of virtual remand hearings, so that we do not need as many prisoner transfers as before. We will work with our judiciary to develop a new pioneering national video model. The model will allow suitable cases to be allocated to available judges across different locations. It might be that a judge in Cardiff is hearing a matter based down in London, helping to alleviate the pressures there, to make much more effective use of capacity and to target those areas facing the greatest backlogs.

We are also adopting a new national listing tool, harnessing the capacity of AI to schedule cases more efficiently. We will have case progression officers in every single Crown court, making the more complex cases progress further and faster. We are working with the judiciary to set up short trial courts, which hear similar cases together over concentrated periods so that they can be dealt with more quickly. We are also expanding a scheme already used in Manchester, Bristol and Nottingham to allow prison vans to use bus lanes. I agree entirely with those who say we need to make the system more efficient, and we are stretching and straining every sinew to do exactly that, with the investment to go with it. We welcome in particular the judiciary’s reforms to prioritise rape and serious sexual offences and to end the unacceptable practice of floating trials for such cases, giving victims greater certainty about when their case will be heard.

Lord Leveson’s review was clear that investment and modernisation can only take us so far. No single lever can fix a crisis that has been years in the making. We have had decades of under-investment in a system that has simply not kept pace with the 21st century, where cases now take twice as long as they did 25 years ago. So our third lever is pragmatic, principled structural reform to ease the pressure on the Crown court and ensure that its time is concentrated on the most serious cases, and that is precisely what the Bill delivers.

The case for reform remains as strong as ever, but good government requires us to listen, and this place exists to scrutinise and improve legislation. When concerns are raised, it is right that the Government reflect and react. When the Prime Minister took office he committed himself to looking at these proposals again, and that is why over recent months the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and I have listened carefully to stakeholders, to Members on both sides of the House, and to people who work within the system. We have heard that strength of feeling, and we have acted. I can confirm today that the Government have tabled an amendment to remove clause 3, relating to the bench division. The effect will be that all defendants facing a trial in the Crown court will be heard with a jury. That decision does not change the destination or the ambition of the Bill, which has always remained the same: swifter justice for victims.

Simplifying our approach and avoiding some of the operational reforms that would have come with a new division in the Crown court gives us the opportunity to move faster in implementing the changes set out in the Bill. Implementing those changes more efficiently will free up court capacity and make better use of court time, helping us to bring about fast, fair justice for victims. We remain confident that the guts of the Bill—the package of reforms backed by the record financial investment that I have described, along with our ambitious programme of modernisation—will be sufficient to free up Crown court time to turn the tide on the backlog within the current Parliament. This is the right decision for victims, and it is the right decision for the justice system.

I know that the Opposition have tabled amendments to remove the remaining clauses relating to Lord Leveson’s review, but I am afraid that doing so would be to bury one’s head in the sand. We are proceeding with other structural reforms in the Bill, including the removal of defendants’ right to choose whether their cases are heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court when they involve an either-way offence. The reform that we have always proposed is that, as in Scotland, it should be the court rather than the defendant that triages cases. This has a double effect. Not only is it more efficient, ensuring that when the prosecution and the court decide that a case can be heard in the magistrates court, that is where it is heard; it is also fairer. It is about putting the power in the hands of the court rather than those of the defendant and giving a far greater say to victims whose voice can be heard through the prosecution, which puts its case as to what venue the case should be heard in, as well as hearing from the defence. It means that cases will be heard on the basis of their seriousness and not simply the preference of the defendant, as is the case in Scotland.

This is exactly the right thing to do. These measures will not only reduce the demand on the Crown court, but will prevent defendants from gaming the system, electing for a jury trial in the simple hope that delays will drag on and the case will fall apart when the victims or witnesses withdraw. Our reforms are not only pragmatic but principled. For instance, giving magistrates courts greater sentencing powers means that more cases can be dealt with more quickly. The magistrates court is an efficient jurisdiction. It currently deals with triable either way cases about four times faster than the Crown court.

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

Is the hon. and learned Lady as concerned as I am about the backlog in the magistrates court, which is four times larger than that in the Crown court and growing at 16% a year, whereas the Crown court backlog is stabilised? If this really is a reform in the interests of efficiency, should she not be sparing the magistrates court at a time when their backlog is growing so fast?

[Sarah Sackman]

I do not accept the premise of that question. I do not accept that we have a backlog in our magistrates court. What we have is a substantial caseload. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the magistrates court hear more than 1.5 million cases a year, and it is coping well. What I do acknowledge is that we need to increase their capacity, which is why we are increasing the number of sitting days. In 2025 there were 114,000 sitting days, and we will increase that to 130,000 by 2028-29.

The other thing we are doing is increasing the number of magistrates. Under the previous Government, the number of magistrates in this country halved. We are going to restore the magistracy to its former glory. The changes that we have made to the application process, and the investment that we are putting into recruitment—quadrupling the budget—are already reaping the rewards, and we are on course to meet the 21,000 target. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) is right to say that we need to grow capacity as we see a more expanded role for the magistracy, but I believe that we can do it and we are on track to do so.

We are reforming the automatic right of appeal. It is vital that there is a right of appeal, but it is also reasonable to ask a defence to identify grounds for appeal. By introducing a permission to filter out cases without merit, we will avoid a situation in which victims are needlessly put through unnecessary re-hearings where the appeal totally lacks merit. As I said, these reforms must be matched by the capacity to deliver them. That is why we are investing in our courts and in the people who make justice possible, and we remain on track to reach our target of 21,000 magistrates by 2028-29. We are also strengthening judicial capacity by boosting the number of district judges and legal advisers, who need to see better pay and career progression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my declaration of interests: I am a solicitor. I continue to have two concerns about the Bill as drafted, and I am very grateful to the Government for changing their position on clause 3. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who said that the right to elect is being abused and probably is not critical, but there are two things that are.

First, I support amendment 70 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on the importance of the extension of legal aid in the magistrates court. As solicitors, we have a saying: the lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. As solicitors, we do not attempt to represent ourselves, even in our areas of interest—I have given employment law advice to an employment lawyer. Yet we expect lay people to go into the magistrates court with sentencing powers of now up to two years with no legal advice and representation. When the Justice Committee asked what evaluation had been made of the impact on unrepresented litigants in person on the Crown court backlog, the answer from the MOJ was that no evaluation had been done. I feel strongly that we need to look at that as one of the causes of delay.

The second matter I want to draw attention to is that sentences under the unduly lenient sentence scheme only apply in the Crown court. When we double the magistrates courts’ potential sentencing powers to two years, we will take very large numbers of offences out of the purview of the unduly lenient sentence scheme overnight. Fear of domestic violence, stalking involving fear of violence, coercive and controlling behaviour, and many first-time sexual offences will be likely to attract sentences of less than two years. They will be heard in the magistrates court, and if those sentences are unduly lenient, there will be nothing that we can do about it.

[Sarah Sackman]

We live in an era of problem solving, not point scoring. Indeed, as the Courts Minister, that has always been my focus. There is no bigger challenge in my portfolio than the unacceptable—indeed, intolerable—delays in our criminal courts, and that has always been the approach. To do politics is ultimately to make choices, and the choices we have made as a Government are around the action that is needed to reform, invest in and modernise our criminal justice system, so that it is fit for purpose.

I always enjoy the oratory of the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox)—I am sorry that he is not here—who talked about our ancient rights. Magna Carta is absolutely clear:

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

That is a recognition that timeliness is an essential ingredient of the thing that the state must guarantee: a fair trial. A trial that arrives for a victim today in 2029 or 2030 is not fair on the victim or defendant alike.

It was said that we should try to invest. Well, we have done that. We have lifted the cap on sitting days and made record investment in legal aid and in our court estate. It was said that we should look at the Liverpool model, and I have been to Liverpool; it is indeed an excellent model, and we are entrenching many of those practices in the new national listing framework in the introduction of case progression officers. It was said that we should make prison vans run on time, and we are pulling out the stops to do just that, asking local authorities, Transport for London and others to open up bus lanes, while ensuring that PECS actually does its job. Those on the Opposition Benches say, “Nightingale courts” and “Let’s work longer days,” but they do not recognise the fact that the court day does not start at 10 am or 10.30 am. As we know, judges and barristers are working around the clock and around the court day to prepare cases and get the show on the road. We cannot ignore the conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts: there is no single solution. There needs to be investment and modernisation—and we are doing both those things—but there also needs to be structural reform.

I thank Members across the House for their valuable contributions, which have raised some really important themes that I want to address. The first is the impact that these changes will have on our magistrates courts, which was raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who talked so credibly about the contribution of her father as a magistrate. Those who act as magistrates and volunteer their time do an incredible job. They bring local voices—lay voices—into our justice system, which is incredibly precious.

It is right that we are challenged and held accountable for whether we are increasing capacity in the magistrates courts to absorb the additional work, and indeed we are. Whether it is our recruitment drive for 21,000 magistrates—not an unrealistic one, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) put to me, but a credible one to get back to where we were as recently as 2014, and I am pleased to report to the House that we are on track—or the recruitment of an additional 166 legal advisers since April 2025 and an additional 100 district judges, that is what I mean when I say we are rebuilding our justice system from the bottom up. The impact on the magistrates courts is important, and we are increasing capacity.

The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) made a really good point about training. The Judicial College is working overtime to ensure that magistrates and district judges alike are trained, so that they are able to exercise the sentencing powers that this Bill will give them.

The second excellent point that was made was about allocation and whether trials should be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and I have had our differences in the course of this debate, but I have always respected his voice, and I have always listened. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made a similar point about the allocation process. Let me be clear: the exercise that we are committing to in this Bill is the same that has always existed in primary legislation, whereby the court will look at allocation guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing and likely sentence is a relevant factor, but so too is hearing representations from both sides—the prosecution and the defence, the prosecution being able to bring in the victim’s perspective—on not just the likely sentence but the seriousness and complexity of the case at hand. Given the procedural, legal and factual complexity and any aggravating factors, that holistic exercise will determine where a case should be heard, so that the determining factor is the seriousness of the case, rather than the identity of the defendant.

The next point that was forcefully and well made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North and for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others was in relation to legal aid, and new clauses 18 and 70. There is no greater champion of access to justice and the importance of legal aid than this Government and myself. I am a powerful advocate for legal aid, not least because I saw at first hand—when I was in practice, before coming to this place—the vital role it plays in our justice system. That is precisely why one of the first steps that I took as a Minister was to invest in our criminal legal aid system, with £116 million for criminal solicitors and an additional £34 million for criminal legal aid advocates. That investment is important, but it will not go all the way, and I recognise that. That is why we need to review the support that we give to unrepresented defendants in our magistrates courts or, indeed, in the Crown court in the rare cases where that arises. As I said in our response to the Leveson review, we will look again at those thresholds once these reforms have been embedded.

I am sorry that I have to be very brief, but I want to address new clause 22 in relation to police accountability. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) will be aware—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) will be—that there is currently a case before the Supreme Court relating to this matter, so he will understand that the Government have to carefully consider the outcome of that before giving a full response to the issue raised around police accountability.

I want to conclude by returning to what I said about the removal of the right to elect. This Bill is designed to bring down the backlog and to deliver timely justice, but it is also about building a better and fairer system—one in which the court triages cases, not the defendant. That is about redressing the balance of power between defendant and victim. It is also about making improvements to open justice by enhancing transparency and expanding the use of transcripts; improving the laws of evidence; and improving training for our court staff and judiciary by having trauma-informed training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) implored us to do.

To govern is to choose. We are making that choice. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we will deliver not only timely justice but a fairer justice system that puts what has been the pride of the world—the English and Welsh justice system—back on its feet.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

18:00

Division 76

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 189

Noes: 306

Clause 1

--- Later in debate ---

18:15

Division 77

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 196

Noes: 304

--- Later in debate ---

18:28

Division 78

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 89

Noes: 312

Clause 8

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Norris)]

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

Before I turn to the substance of this important Bill, let me recognise those who have helped bring it to this stage: those who have sat in the Chair, both in this Chamber and in Committee; the excellent Clerks of the House, who serve us so well; the Whips on all sides; the hon. and right hon. Members who served in Committee with such vigour; the Minister for Courts; my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy); Members from across the House for their contributions to debate on the Bill, today and at previous stages, especially those who shared their or their constituents’ experiences; and those legal professionals from outside who have engaged with us.

I give specific recognition to the artist formerly known as Sir Brian Leveson for his landmark review. During this process, he has been elevated to the other place, where he is the noble Lord Leveson of Liverpool. What a public servant he is, and what work he did in his review! I recognise his efforts, in this area and in many other aspects of British life. It is a real pleasure to work with him, and we are grateful for his work, which underpins the Bill. Crucially, I recognise the victims and survivors who have shaped the reforms, including those who join us today in the Public Gallery. They should be proud of what they have done. I know that they bring forward their stories at a cost to themselves, in order to make change, and we are very lucky that they do so.

The Bill has victims at its heart. Its purpose is urgent and long overdue: to ensure that justice in this country is fast and fair, because victims today face intolerable delays. People suffer appalling crimes; they summon extraordinary courage to come forward; they relive their most traumatic experiences; and they put their trust in the system, and hope that justice will be done. What happens next is that they wait, and wait, and wait. Trials are pushed back. Cases drift further into the future, and there are years of anxiety before a trial can even begin, while confidence in the system drains away. All too often, victims give up because the process is unbearable.

As the Minister for Courts said—and as the age-old maxim goes—justice delayed is justice denied. This Government cannot and will not accept that. The Bill grips a problem that the previous Government simply would not. It tackles the record and rising Crown court backlog that we inherited, which now sits at nearly 81,000 cases—more than double the level in 2019. I am afraid that is testament to the Conservative party’s record in government, and their failure to grasp the nettle and tackle the reform needed to wrestle our criminal justice system back on track. Again, today we have seen the Conservatives simply deny the reality; they refuse to be reconciled with their record.

Our modelling shows exactly where this trajectory leads, if things are left unchecked: to even deeper delays, collapsing confidence, and a justice system that cannot fulfil its most basic promise, which is that justice will be done swiftly and fairly. This Government will not normalise that delay and allow victims, witnesses and defendants to bear the burden of a system under strain. We cannot continue to try to meet 21st-century pressures with a 20th-century model.

On Report and throughout this process, we have heard colleagues call for greater investment. They are right, and we are investing at record levels. There are unlimited sitting days for our criminal courts.

Others have called for modernisation. They are right to do so, and we are modernising. Through greater use of technology and AI to maximise our capacity, we can speed up justice and ensure that our system responds to the changing nature of crime, which has meant massive increases in digital evidence and demands on court time. But investment alone will not solve the crisis, nor will modernisation. As the noble Lord Leveson of Liverpool made clear, and as all the evidence shows, only when we have structural reform in the form of pragmatic changes can we really begin to turn the tide on the backlog. That is what this Bill will deliver.

I make no apology for looking again at this proposal— I myself as the new Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend as the new Prime Minister. Of course we looked again at some of the measures in the Bill. We listened to the strength of feeling from across the House and the legal sector, and we have made changes that mean that now almost all defendants facing trial in the Crown court will continue to be tried by a jury.

The Bill is not solely about bringing down the backlog. It is about making the system work better. I am proud that through other legislation alongside this Bill we have already been able to bring forward measures to improve victims’ experiences of court, with new specialist courts for survivors of rape and sexual offences. I want to recognise, as other colleagues did, the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) at previous stages of the legislation to bring us to this point.

The Bill goes further in supporting that wider effort and challenging the damaging myths that have so often silenced rape victims. It makes it easier for victims to access special measures in order to give their best and proper evidence. Crucially, in the family courts it will finally repeal the presumption of parental involvement. The safety of children must always come first. I recognise the incredible efforts of Claire Throssell to bring this change forward and make it a reality today. It has come at extraordinary cost. I hope that this is a day of pride at what is a significant step forward.

Much of the debate around this Bill has invoked tradition, but the history of our justice system has never been a history of standing still. It has always been a history of adaptation and institutions evolving to meet the demands of a changing society and a changing age. This Bill represents those timeless values applied in a modern context. We are acting to put the interests of the British people first, because the status quo, which would take our courts to a point of no return, which continues to deny fast and fair justice to those who need it, and which damages public confidence and consent, is simply unacceptable to us.

The Government are the only ones with the courage to address the challenges we face head-on, and we have heard that in debates at all stages of the Bill. We are pulling every lever within our power to rebuild a court system capable of delivering justice fairly, swiftly and sustainably. With this Bill, we choose that path, because the cost of doing nothing is simply too high. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

18:54

Division 79

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 301

Noes: 193

Bill read the Third time and passed.