Commons Chamber

Tuesday 10th March 2026

(began 3 weeks, 4 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
None Portrait Q10. What recent assessment she has made of the potential merits of reducing VAT for the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland. (908186)
-

Sorry I think.
12:07
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:44
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Digital ID: Public Consultation Announcement
-

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, the government is launching a national conversation on how we
12:45
Darren Jones Portrait Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)
-
-
will build and use digital ID as the means to access public services digitally on your mobile phone or digitally on your mobile phone or computer. Public services are meant to be there for you at the most important moments of your life. important moments of your life. Free childcare hours to help your children get a good start in life. Getting your passport to go on your first holiday. Passing your driving test and getting your first driving licence. Asking for help if you lose your job or receiving your State Pension in retirement.

But today, as the House knows, it is often too hard to get what you need when you need it. The current legacy system of call centres, paperwork, and the need to tell your story multiple times to different parts of government. With hours on hold and not knowing where you are in the process is not good enough. I want to change that and this government will. In its place, we will build a truly modern Britain where public services work for the citizen.

New digital public services that come together on the Gov.uk app so that help is there when you need it most. To do that, government needs to build the foundations for these new modern public services. And that is exactly what this digital ID system is for. It will be free to access for anybody who wishes to use it, and it will be built on three core principles. First, it must be useful. It needs to be easier than the old telephone and paper based systems.

Second, it must be secure. You will have more control over what data you share, and we expect nothing less than the level of security protections provided by banks for online banking services. And it must be for everyone. We will not leave people behind, and the government will help those who are less confident with technology or don't have other forms of ID, like a passport with a digital ID. Citizens will be able to log into the Gov.uk app and then, crucially, prove who they are.

But unlike an ordinary login, the digital ID will work across different government departments and services, bringing those all together in one place in the gov.uk app so that the public can access all the services they need in one place. This is different to building one giant government IT system. That is not what we are doing. Services will remain on separate IT systems in their relevant departments and the NHS app and citizens health data will always remain separate. But the Gov.uk app and digital ID will over time, bring all other public services into one app on your mobile phone.

The front door to modern public services. Mr. speaker, this won't be a new experience for citizens. The public already used these systems every day, from banking to shopping, and other countries are already far ahead of us, from Denmark and Estonia to Australia and India. Britain is having to catch up. It is an issue of convenience and efficiency, Mr. Speaker, but it is also one of fairness and equality. We all know who the status quo often favours those with the resources, the headspace, perhaps the pointy elbows or the pushiness to get themselves to the front of the queue or to play the system.

But public services are meant to be there when people need them most, and it is, quite frankly, an outrage how the legacy system has sometimes treated people in these stressful or difficult situations, piling them up with bureaucracy and without the help they need. And who is it then, that struggles to fill in these forms, or correctly lack the form of ID that's required? Who are the 1 in 7 people across the UK who don't have a passport? It is often the strivers juggling work and caring responsibilities.

Mr. speaker, this government believes that everybody deserves a fair shot, and it is up to government to give people the support and a leg up when they need it. So today, we're launching this national conversation to discuss how we build and use a digital ID. We want to know where frustrations exist with the current legacy system, and which services could be made easier via the Gov.uk app. Later today, I will share a prototype of how a digital ID could work that shows how government by app could become a reality, joining up different departments and services so that the public don't have to do the work themselves.

In the initial stages, the digital ID system will start by making it easier to complete simple administrative tasks like proving your right to work when you start a job. Other tasks such as paying your car tax or ordering a passport, or sorting your childcare entitlements, will become part of that same app over time. Mr. speaker, I understand that the idea of a digital ID has sparked significant public interest, so I have instructed my department to make sure that this consultation goes further than any other consultation that government has done before.

Therefore, as part of this public consultation, which is now live right now, we will also be inviting a representative sample of the public at large from all walks of life and parts of the country to form a people's panel. This deliberative democracy process builds on our experience of supporting parliaments citizens assembly on net zero. In the last Parliament, working with over 100 citizens, we will debate the difficult questions, find ways forward and build a system that can secure the trust and support of everyone.

Mr. speaker, for members chuntering from a sedentary position about having a conversation with the public, I say, what do you fear? We're very happy to talk to the public about what the government is doing, and I look forward to talking to hon. Member's constituents if they're selected to be part of this process. Mr. speaker, I understand that this will not be for everyone. I hope that the services we will build will be so good that most people will wish to use them. But for those who don't, I want to make sure that help is on hand in your local community.

That's why the rollout of digital ID will also be accompanied by a digital inclusion drive to help people access and use these services. I don't come to Parliament today with preconceived answers, and we will, of course, to make sure that any future scheme is value for money. But I am interested to hear ideas about how we might use the people and the buildings we support already through public expenditure to help those people in their communities, local post offices or postal workers, libraries or jobcentres so that we may be able to ensure that the majority of people, if they need it, can access digital assistance to access these services.

And for those who really don't wish to, traditional routes will of course, still be made available. Mr. speaker, Right Honourable and hon. Members across the House know by the end of this Parliament it will be mandatory to digitally check your right to work when starting a new job. It is currently a legal requirement for employers to check the new employee has a legal right to work in the United Kingdom, but this often paper based approach of photocopying or scanning a passport or utility bill without further checks is vulnerable to fraud, and it does not create a clear record of when and where checks have been carried out for enforcement agents to know.

That is why the Prime Minister, Prime Minister, has asked for these existing checks to now be conducted digitally by the end of this Parliament. It will still be still be the employer's responsibility, but employees will be able to choose between using a government digital ID, as we're setting out today, or using a passport or visa and alternative methods if they wish. For individuals, it will be easier and quicker to demonstrate your right to work for businesses. It will streamline and reduce the cost of compliance reporting, and for the Home Office, it will create a digital audit trail of where checks have been carried out to support enforcement in those areas where they have not, and to deter those who think that it is too easy to work illegally in the United Kingdom.

Mr. speaker, this is by its nature quite a technical consultation, but it is also a deeply political one. When the public voted for change, they also voted for better public services. And this is what Labour governments at their best are all about building new, innovative public services to support opportunity for all rather than just the privileged few. From the NHS in the 1940s to the Open University in the 1960s, to the surestart centres of the 2000 today, Mr. Speaker, we are continuing that proud Labour tradition by building modern digital public services that extend opportunity and support for people when they need it.

This is in stark contrast to those political parties who just wish to conserve the unacceptable status quo, or who offer to tear everything down and leave you on your own, Mr. Speaker. We want people across Britain to want this system. We want them to be a part of it, and we want them to have an opportunity to shape it. This consultation is that opportunity. I look forward to members across the House and our constituents taking part. Can I thank my hon.

Friend the Member for Makerfield for his work on this issue to date, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North for all the work he is now going to do to make this a reality. And for which I will take the credit and he will take the blame if it goes wrong. And, Mr. Speaker, may I commend this statement to the House?
12:54
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Jim Shannon Minister Mike Wood. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister for sight of his statement and for the briefing a statement and for the briefing a short time ago. Mr. speaker, it is said that in 1720, gullible investors were invited to put their money into a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is. Today, the Chief Secretary appears to be reviving that proud tradition. For months, his department has insisted that digital ID was absolutely essential and until a few weeks ago, it had to be mandatory, even for babies.

But after months of insisting the scheme was indispensable, the government is now asking the public to tell them just what it is indispensable for. There was a time when this was supposed to be the magic bullet to tackle illegal migration. Now, the Cabinet Office seems to be suggesting it might just help reduce hold time on government call centres. Mr. speaker, this great undertaking has gone from promising the elixir of eternal youth to the equivalent of well, you never know, it might help if you have a slightly upset tummy, but the public know snake oil when they are offered it.

We shouldn't be surprised because this never was a thought through policy. It was always a distraction stunt. For years, officials have been looking at the ideal ID file on the shelf, hoping for a government desperate enough to pick it up. And last September, they finally found one. Desperate for an announcement to shove Andy Burnham off the front pages before a tricky Labour conference. And by the way, how did that turn out? The Prime Minister dusted off this scheme with no clear idea how it would work, what it would cost, or what the consequences would be.

And after one of the government's many U-turns, the Chief Secretary now assures us this digital ID will not become compulsory. Mr. speaker, nothing is ever compulsory until it suddenly is, because we know how this story goes. At first is voluntary, then it becomes strongly encouraged. Then you discover you needed to open a bank account and see your GP, and before long, your phone battery dies while you're in the queue. Acosta you're essentially a non-person. Sorry, sir. No flat white for you.

Computer says you no longer exist. No wonder, no wonder. Even the Health Secretary wants nothing to do with this particular headline. Of course, the government tells us not to worry because the system will be secure. This is the same government that can't even keep its own Budget secret. And how much confidence can the public really have that their personal data won't be misused? When the Minister responsible for this scheme, this time last week had to resign after reports that he hired a firm to spy on journalists who had written negative stories about his organisation, in November, the OBR put the cost of this boondoggle at £1.8 billion over three years, more than the cost of building and operating a new type 45 destroyer.

And nearly as dangerous, if not used properly, the OBR did not change that figure in last week's projections. And so we can assume that 1.8 billion remains the best estimate. And for what? Mr Speaker. Britain has managed perfectly well for centuries without a peacetime national identity system, as society functions, without system, without citizens having to authenticate themselves to the state every time they wish to open an app or go about their daily lives. So before we rush headlong into constructing the world's most elaborate digital clipboard, the government should recognise some serious concerns.

If their system fails, it will be expensive. If it's hacked, it will be dangerous. And if it expands, it will be intrusive. So what exactly is the overwhelming crisis in British life that requires all three? And until the government can answer that convincingly, the British public will view this proposal in exactly the same way they view most grand Whitehall technology schemes with deep suspicion. A modicum of mild amusement and a firm determination to keep their identity exactly where it belongs in their own pocket, not floating somewhere in the government's cloud.
12:58
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:01
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lisa Smart Liberal Democrats. Speaker, and I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for advanced sight of his statement. But let's be clear about why we are here. Following collapsing public support, strong opposition from the Liberal Democrats, a petition signed by nearly 3 million people, including over 5000 of my Hazel Grove constituents, and significant unease expressed from Labour MPs. The government had no choice but to step back from a mandatory scheme. But in the spirit of being a constructive liberal opposition, we have some suggestions for the government if they want this scheme to have any level of public support whatsoever.

First, any digital ID scheme must never be mandatory. People should not be forced to turn over their data simply to go about their daily lives. We cannot and should not turn people into criminals. Just because someone is unable or unwilling to obtain one. Any scheme must genuinely assure privacy, with very clear legal limits and strong technical protections to prevent misuse or surveillance. Individuals must retain ownership and control of their own data. The data must not be reused, sold, or accessed beyond its original purpose.

The government should also give assurance on the decentralisation of any register. A single point of failure puts the personal details of millions at risk, which is unacceptable. Any scheme must also have a clearly defined purpose set out in law. We could not support a system that extends into different parts of our lives over time, without clear and unequivocal democratic approval. Robust safeguards are vital. Yes, it is about what this government wants to do, but it's also about what a potential future government may wish to do with the power such a scheme would present.

So could the Chief Secretary confirm that a digital ID scheme will never be mandatory, either for employment or to secure a home in the UK?
13:03
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:29
13:30
Ruth Jones Portrait Ruth Jones MP (Newport West and Islwyn, Labour)
-
-
Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker. And And economic abuse to include behaviour relating to pets. To extend the application of domestic extend the application of domestic abuse protection orders to pets and for connected purposes. Madam for connected purposes. Madam Deputy Speaker. Britain prides itself on being a nation of animal lovers. Indeed, the PDSA Annual lovers. Indeed, the PDSA Annual Poor Report found that 51% of UK adults own a pet of some type, with adults own a pet of some type, with 28% owning a dog and 24% owning a cat.

Whilst owning a pet brings joy and companionship to many Britons, high levels of pet ownership also means that animals are too often subject to violence within the home, or are used as tools of coercion and control. This known reality is, however, not currently reflected in family and domestic violence law in England and Wales. At the moment, pets do not receive any meaningful legal protection or consideration in domestic abuse cases. This leaves many victims afraid to leave abusive situations due to concerns about their animal safety.

Abusers can still retain legal ownership of pets, with limited legal mechanisms to transfer custody to survivors. This bill, also known as Ruby's Law, seeks to change this by explicitly incorporating pets into family law protections such as non-molestation and occupation orders. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud that this government is committed to halving violence against women and girls and providing meaningful support to victims of domestic violence and abuse. Such efforts can only be strengthened by clearly recognising the clear link between domestic violence and violence against pets.

The statistics are stark. The Dogs Trust found that 97% of domestic abuse professionals have dealt with cases where pets are harmed as part of coercive control by abusers. This involves controlling access to food, veterinary care, and formal ownership rights, often preventing victims from seeking safety in a refuge or adequately caring for their pets. Another study by Doctor Mary Wycombe found that in 88% of households experiencing domestic abuse, the abuser also abused pets. In most cases, this involved physical violence against pets as a form of control.

Pets are kicked, hit, thrown or even poisoned in 12% of cases, the abuser ends up killing the animal. This accompanying animal abuse has a significant impact on survivors and their families. Victims often exhibit lasting psychological trauma as a result of witnessing or fearing harm to their pets. The emotional toll on children can also be particularly stark. Studies show that 88% of children in abusive households have witnessed pet abuse. This often results in the children developing PTSD, anxiety or other behavioural issues.

Ruby's law seeks to draw on international best practice in tackling these clear concerns. In the US, Canada and Australia, pets are explicitly included in domestic violence protection orders. California and Maine have passed laws allowing pets to be part of restraining orders, providing survivors with greater security and helping them leave abusive situations sooner. The Northern Irish Assembly has similarly shown significant support for introducing their own Ruby's Law, with similar proposals forming part of the executive's new Ending Violence Against Women and Girls strategy.

And for this reason, I particularly welcome the interest and support from the hon. Member for South Antrim, who sadly is not in his place at the moment. Turning to the substantive proposals of the Bill, Ruby's Law would seek to address current gaps in the Family Law Act 1996 by including pets in non-molestation and occupation orders. This would include the addition of provisions to ensure pets are protected from harm, and that survivors are granted legal custody of their pets. Ruby's Law would also amend the Domestic Violence Act 2021 to explicitly reference pet abuse as a form of controlling or coercive behaviour under section one of the act.

This will require the police and prosecutors to take pet related domestic abuse seriously by providing clear legal grounds for prosecution. The bill would also allow veterinary records, witness testimony and digital evidence of threat or harm to pets to be admissible in court as evidence of a non-molestation order breach, making it easier to prosecute abuse cases involving pet harm. Courts would also be able to consider animal abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing and risk assessment of perpetrators, helping to protect women and their pets from further abuse.

Offenders could also be required to attend behavioural intervention programmes aimed at addressing the link between animal cruelty and domestic violence. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to close by paying tribute to Christina Warner, who I've been working with closely. She has provided extraordinary leadership on this issue, drawing upon her professional experience as a family law barrister. Ruby's law is firmly aligned with the government's agenda of tackling violence against women and girls and supporting victims of domestic violence. I would urge Ministers to give its provisions serious consideration.

Together, these changes would offer greater legal clarity and protection, increasing safety for both human and animal victims of domestic abuse alike. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commend this House to the bill. This bill to the House. The question is that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the bill, as many that say, I of the bill, as many that say, I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Irene Campbell, sir. Roger Gale. Kerry McCarthy. Rachael Maskell. Adam Jogee, sir. Desmond Swayne. Adam Jogee, sir. Desmond Swayne. Ann Davies. Neil Hudson. Robin Swann and myself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ruth Jones. Beautifully done. Beautifully done. Domestic Abuse (Pets) Bill Second Reading. What (Pets) Bill Second Reading. What (Pets) Bill Second Reading. What day? Friday, the 17th of April. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

day? Friday, the 17th of April. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. Courts and tribunals Bill, Second Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. Now. The reasoned amendment in the name of the Loyal opposition has been selected. Minister to move the Second Reading.
13:37
None Portrait Legislation: Courts and Tribunals Bill: Second Reading
-

Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that the bill now be read a second time. I'm very proud to bring the bill back before the House, because it will drive long overdue reform to effectively evolve our 20th century criminal justice system so that it's fit for the 21st century. This House will recognise that there's a particular kind of silence that now echoes through the corridors of our courts, and it's not the silence of the jury carefully weighing the evidence or the hush as a judge delivers their verdict.

It's the silence of waiting, the silence of victims told sometimes for the third or fourth time that their trial has been adjourned because there's no judge, there's no courtroom, there's no capacity to hear it. And it is the silence of people like Katie, who in 2017 reported her partner for actual bodily harm and rape but staggeringly, did not see justice until 2024, seven years after waiting. Her life fell apart in that period.

It left her mental health in tatters. It caused her to lose her job. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an injustice. It's Katie's injustice and those of thousands of victims across the country. And this bill seeks to redress that today. It's building, of course, on Sir Brian Leveson thoughtful and considered review. And I'm very grateful to Sir Brian for all of his work, particularly in getting us to this point, both in part one and part two of this bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this government inherited a justice system close to breaking point, and it was from the previous government who could and frankly, should have reformed it. The consequences of their inactions are clear. Nearly 80,000 cases currently sit in the Crown Court backlog. That's more than double the number in 2019. More than 20,000 cases wait for over a year, and included in that is around 2000 rape cases. It's an average of 255 days before a Crown Court case gets heard and finishes.

Court case gets heard and finishes. And for rape, it's a staggering 423 days. If we do nothing, the backlog is projected to reach 200,000 within the next decade, five times what it was in 2019. This is not a matter of efficiency. The progressive case for court reform is about whether the institutions of the British state can still deliver justice itself for the people we were elected to represent in Parliament. When we speak about the rule of law.

We do so as though it's a sort of lofty constitutional principle. But the rule of law is not abstract. It is a public service. And if that service cannot be delivered in a time frame that allows victims to move on with their lives, then the law is not ruling. It is failing.
13:42
David Lammy Portrait Rt Hon David Lammy MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Tottenham, Labour)
-
-
Sarah Olney extremely grateful. The right hon. Member for giving way. He's right, of course. The rule of law is a living thing, and the connection between the public and the exercise of justice is fundamental. Central to that is the age old principle of juries and jury service. This is a direct engagement of the public in something which otherwise would be remote from the vast bulk of them. Does the hon. Gentleman retain my view that jury service is critical, and that juries should play a continuing part in the criminal justice system? Or is he determined to minimise the number of jury trials? Because that's certainly what his proposal looks like to the vast majority of people here.

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely retain the right hon. Gentleman view that jury. hon. Gentleman view that jury. Juries are a cornerstone of our system. They are fundamental, and system. They are fundamental, and this bill is about protecting them. this bill is about protecting them. All governments make thresholds to where jury sit. And he will recall that one of his great heroes, Margaret Thatcher, made such a hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend, the Secretary of State, for giving way. My. I think the progress is making. I really, progress is making. I really, really want to. I'm for reform. My concern is, and as his own review concern is, and as his own review in 2017 highlighted, the issue of people from black minority ethnic backgrounds being being, you know, backgrounds being being, you know, this will fall on them and the inequalities that they already face. So can he give me the reassurances So can he give me the reassurances for my constituents of Bradford West and wider that he will review robustly the impact of this bill on people from minority ethnic backgrounds, and make sure that it is a meaningful review which holds weight.

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm hugely grateful to my hon. Friend for her experience, and she has lived experience of the has lived experience of the criminal justice system more so than many others in this chamber, and she has been a doughty campaigner on issues for ethnic minorities across our country for many, many years. And I can give her that reassurance. And I will come to this a little later in the speech. That is absolutely right, that there is courses of reviews so that we understand exactly how our reforms are and indeed our criminal justice system, in a deeper and better way, is affecting ethnic minority populations.

And I hope that she will engage in the ambit, scope and direction of that review.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. I'm very grateful to my hon. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my hon. And learned friend. He is absolutely learned friend. He is absolutely right to set out the importance. Jury trials are a cornerstone of Jury trials are a cornerstone of our democracy and justice system that are in place for very, very that are in place for very, very good reason. My hon. Friend, previously as part of the Lammy Review, emphasised the importance of jury trials and in particular the disproportionate impact on Bame communities.

What's changed?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend and I know that when he hon. Friend and I know that when he is very upset, his baritone deepens. And today it was not quite as deep as it has been on other occasions. But he will know that I take very But he will know that I take very seriously the review I did. And if you return to that review and of course I'll come to say more about disparities in a moment, it was absolutely clear that there's tremendous public trust in our juries.

Although when I was asked by David Cameron to do the review, there was concern in some towns and cities from some ethnic minority populations where they had what they perceived to be an all white jury. Was it still fair? And broadly, it was found to still be fair, but there was not a evidence that in terms of a fair trial, our magistrates, which do 90% of the work, was unfair. Or indeed, if a single judge is sitting on its own, that would be perceived to be unfair.

But for the reasons that I said to my hon. Friend before him, it is right that we review how the system is working and fully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understand how these changes will affect the system. Of course. First of all, the the the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, the the the Minister and government are caught behind between a rock and a hard place. Haven't they addressed the issue of the backlog at the same issue of the backlog at the same time, trying to ensure that the jury trials are retained? The. There are deep concerns from the There are deep concerns from the general public that speed cannot overcome at the expense of overcome at the expense of fundamental rights. I know the Minister will ensure that that doesn't happen, but can he perhaps just reassure me that any reforms will preserve the right to have a jury trial where it is absolutely essential to justice, rather than making piecemeal changes, which will, I suspect, prevent people who need jury trials, have opportunity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to actually have them. Juries remain the cornerstone, and I'd want to reassure the hon. and I'd want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that this what we're proposing is about protecting juries. But let's be clear, this juries. But let's be clear, this bill is not just about juries. This is a whole package. And that's why, is a whole package. And that's why, just a few weeks ago, I set out investment was key. And this is a investment was key. And this is a £2.78 billion worth of investment.

And as Sir Brian told us in part two of his reforms, modernisation and dealing with efficiencies in the system is also fundamental. So I'm not going to give way. I think I I'll give way to the honourable a bit later, a bit later in my speech, but I think I probably ought to make some, make some, make some progress. So as I was saying, victims currently are worn down. People simply give up, cases collapse and offenders remain free. Free to roam the streets, free to commit more crimes, free to create more victims.

Madam Deputy Speaker, to restore swift and fair justice, we're pulling every lever available. Investment. Essential, modernisation essential and reform. And let me start by addressing the reform which has provoked the fiercest debate. The new Crown Court Bench Division, or our so-called swift courts that are talked about in clause three of the bill. This new division will hear cases with a likely custodial sentence up to three years, to be heard by a judge sitting alone. The Independent Review of Criminal Courts predicts this will reduce trial times by at least 20%, and Sir Brian believes the gains could be greater still.

And it frees up thousands of hearing days for the more serious cases. This is not just Sir Brian's view analysis published today from the Institute of Government, supports the modelling behind these reforms and the predicted time savings they will deliver. Let me be absolutely clear. Indictable only offences will remain for juries. The most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, grievous bodily harm with intent will never be heard. In this division, this is not a new principle.

Judge alone. Trials operate successfully in countries like Canada, where judges told me these trials were as much as twice as fast as jury trials and judge alone. Trials are already a normal, everyday part of our justice system. District judges sit alone in magistrates court every single day. Youth courts operate without juries. Family courts deciding whether a parent can seek their child, always sit without juries.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way on that point. Give way. Hugely grateful to the Justice Hugely grateful to the Justice Secretary for giving way. When he talks about juries, it's right to talks about juries, it's right to say, isn't it, that 0.4% of cases say, isn't it, that 0.4% of cases from the magistrates courts are appealed? Of that point 4%, that's appealed? Of that point 4%, that's about 5000 circa. But 41% of those cases are successful on appeal. What does he say about that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's absolutely right. 41% are successful. And of course, that successful. And of course, that means that 59% aren't. With the new permission stage. With the new, with the new permission stage, with the new permission stage, those 41% would still get through. those 41% would still get through. It seems to me absolutely right that to make the system properly that to make the system properly efficient, we have the same set of standards. And as set out in the bill that you would appeal to the Crown Court beyond, as we do for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

magistrates to the Crown Court. So I will, of course I will. Of course. The Lord Chancellor be giving way. And he's quite properly recognised the government's debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson. But would he accept the government has would he accept the government has been somewhat selective in adopting Sir Brian's recommendations? He knows that Sir Brian did not knows that Sir Brian did not recommend that all cases which are triable either way, should have the right to elect jury trial removed right to elect jury trial removed from them.

He knows, too, incidentally, that Sir Brian did not propose an increase in magistrates sentencing powers to up to two years. He suggested it remained at 12 months. What he hasn't done is adopted. Some of Sir Brian's recommendations in relation to encouraging early guilty pleas, which would have a significant impact on the backlog. So why has the government selected for priority purposes those recommendations that would impact on the right of jury trial and not on some other recommendations that would have a similar effect on the backlog?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We've, of course, hon. Gentleman. We've, of course, accepted the thrust of Sir Brian's recommendation, but there are areas where we have chosen to go further, and he's right about that. And it's and he's right about that. And it's and it's because of the modelling and what it says. The effect on the and what it says. The effect on the backlog will be. And he will recognise that when presented with the evidence that we would be heading to 200,000 in our backlog by 2035.

And that notwithstanding all that's been said about investment, which we are putting in, notwithstanding all that's been said about modernisation and the efficiencies to which Brian went into in such great detail in part two of his review. In fact, because the reform that's being proposed in this bill, with all goodwill will not get through this Parliament until towards the end of this year. We felt in looking at those figures, there were some areas where we wanted to go, where we wanted to go further.

I will give way and then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll make some progress. I think we all share his passion to support the victims who are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to support the victims who are waiting too long to get to court. Yeah. But that means we also owe them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But that means we also owe them a debt of truth. Yes. And the concern that the Institute for government report highlights is that magistrate courts will that magistrate courts will struggle to absorb such a large increase in demand. So we may not see the faster justice that he is promising under these proposals. Will he recognise for those of us who cannot support this legislation as it currently stands, it is that concern to look at the data and look at whether actually juries are a red herring when it comes to the investment that we so sorely need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because of the damage done by the previous government. Yeah. Well, I'm very grateful to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend. And let me say to her that that is why we have uncapped that that is why we have uncapped sitting days for magistrates, and that's why I'll set out further investment in our magistrates. I investment in our magistrates. I want to get the magistrate back. The sort of numbers they were when the Labour Party was last in government, it was 29,000. Magistrates dropped to 21,000 under the last government. So she's right. We will have to invest, we will have to increase our magistrates.

But I hope because of her long standing record working with victims particularly, that she will look hard on this bill as it makes its passage, and I hope that she'll feel able to to support it. Ultimately, I'm going to make some progress or or I think I will upset Madam Deputy Speaker. So. I recognise that some argue that the reform risks eroding trial by jury. But let me be clear juries will remain the cornerstone of our democracy under these reforms.

Far from diminishing juries, the bill protects them to be used in a timely fashion where it matters most. What we are proposing changes the threshold for juries. It does not change the fundamental right to a fair trial, which remains absolute. Since the Magna Carta, no part of our justice system is stood still. Governments of all stripes have changed during thresholds as a business and the business, frankly, as usual for governments, James Callaghan removed automatic automatic jury trials for theft, for burglary, for actual bodily harm and certain drug offences.

In 1977. Margaret Thatcher did it in 1988 for criminal damage there. There is not, and has never been, an automatic right to a trial by jury. In the current system, only 3% of criminal trial cases currently go before a jury. Over 90% of all cases are already heard fairly by magistrates and district judges right across the country. And following our changes, around three quarters of trials in the Crown Court will still be heard by a jury, including the vast majority of serious youth cases.

We will also introduce judge alone trials for complex and technical cases, which tie judges, juries and courtrooms up for months, time that could be spent hearing violent and sexual offence trials. Our changes will ensure swift justice and avoid undue burden on juries. Madam Deputy Speaker, as the author of the Lammy Review and a child of the Windrush generation, as a black man who's been stopped and searched repeatedly because of the colour of my skin, I know as well as anyone in this house that disproportionality in the justice system must be addressed.

And since I published my review, 21% of judges now come from an ethnic minority background. But we must recognise that the status quo of the broken system does produce injustice, and the burden of that delay is not evenly shared. Black people are 14% more likely to be victims of crime. People from mixed ethnic background like my children, 43% more likely defendants from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are statistically more likely to be held on remand before trial than white defendants.

And as the backlog has grown, remand waits have increased from 16 to 23 weeks. There's nothing progressive about a young, working class, black or white man sitting in a cell for months on end. No judge, no jury, no end in sight. There's nothing progressive about a rape victim waiting years for their day in court. There's nothing progressive about the Tory status quo. And that is why tackling delay is in itself a progressive cause. And following extensive engagement with members of this House, I'll give way in just a moment.

And following extensive engagement with members of this House to ensure the full impacts of my reforms are properly scrutinised, I am committing, as I've said, to a full independent review, this will look at how our new reforms will affect particular groups, working class people as well as ethnic minorities, and assess more broadly whether justice is being delivered not just in our new division, but across all parts of our court system, in a way that no government has ever done before.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because sunlight, of course, is the best disinfectant. I give way to the other lady. I thank the Justice Secretary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Justice Secretary for giving way. I think all of us on across the House share his passion for wanting to deliver passion for wanting to deliver justice more quickly for victims. But can I say to him gently? I visited Isleworth Crown Court on visited Isleworth Crown Court on Friday lunchtime and spoke to barristers there, and they impressed upon me that it is impressed upon me that it is extremely rare that juries and jurors are the issue in terms of delays to their court cases.

Recently they've had delays because the cells have been too cold for defendants or Serco staff to use in the courts. They are routinely having defendants delivered late by Serco, with no contractual penalties for Serco on those defendants being delivered late. This is pushing cases back repeatedly. Why won't he take action on those things? Rather than restricting trial by jury, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will make a limited difference. Before the Lord Chancellor response? There are many, many response? There are many, many backbenchers wishing to contribute. No doubt he's coming close to a conclusion sometime soon. Ish Lord conclusion sometime soon. Ish Lord Chancellor return.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chancellor return. Well, we are piloting the National Assistance Scheme at Isleworth, which I would refer her to, and I'd refer her to my speech to, and I'd refer her to my speech where I set out what we're doing in relation to part two of Sir Brian Leveson Review. She's absolutely right. We've got to address all of it. So Brian was absolutely clear. Yes, we need investment. We've got to deal with the inefficiencies that that she's talked about and modernise our courts. But we also need reform.

And look at the tables, look at the graphs that the Ifg have corroborated today to do this and to see it falling by the next election, we have to do all three, not just cherry pick. I will make no progress given. I won't give way. Given what what has just been said by Madam Deputy Speaker. The bill will also remove the ability of defendants to elect jury trial for either way, offences too often used by criminals to delay proceedings and wear down victims rather than to secure justice.

Under our changes, decisions about where a case is heard will rest where they belong, with a judge determined by seriousness and suitability, and not by criminals gaming the system. Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill also strengthens the role of magistrates, it's been said today, magistrates sentencing powers are capped at 12 months and the cases that could be concluded quickly are too often pushed up to the Crown Court, clogging up capacity that would be better focussed on more serious crimes. So we will extend magistrates sentencing powers to 18 months for triable either way offences.

This does not increase the maximum penalty for offences, it simply lets cases be heard and sentenced without unnecessary escalation, saving Crown Court time for the most serious cases. We will also, I won't give way given what has been said by Madam Deputy Speaker. I've got to make some progress. We will also reform the appeals process for the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court. At present, an automatic right to a full rehearing forces victims and witnesses to endure the ordeal of their case over and over again, even when there's little merit to an appeal, the bill will introduce a new permission stage, allowing a judge to filter appeals and decide whether there are genuine points of law which require an appeal.

Hearing mirroring appeals from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. To support this, we will allow audio recording in all magistrates courts for the first time so that the record is clear and accurate. Should an appeal be necessary alongside reform, as has been said, we're investing a record 2.78 billion settlement for the coming year, 287 million for vital repairs and digital upgrades and unlimited sitting days in the Crown Court next year, the most ever funded in the history of our court.

We are modernising, investing in AI and other technology and expanding the use of video hearings to speed up justice work with the judiciary. We will bring a new national listing system to end what some victims justifiably describe as a postcode lottery, and has left some waiting longer than others. We'll expand blitz courts to clear cases stuck in the system, will introduce new case coordinators in every Crown court to free up judges time. But even with record investment, even with ambitious efficiencies, an unreformed justice system has a structural ceiling.

And that is why the third lever reform is essential. The projections are crystal clear. If we do nothing, a backlog of 200,000 133,000, if we invest and tackle the efficiencies has just been said by the hon. Member for the Liberal Democrats, 49,000. If we do all three, the difference is 84,000 more lives on hold. And even if we do all our measures, the backlog will get worse before it gets better rising. Before we begin to turn the corner before the end of this Parliament.

So it's important to be honest with this House because of the seriousness of the situation. We must proceed with the full package, undiluted. If we step back from any one of these levers or be sent to water down any one of these leaders, it's the victims that will continue to be forgotten. Man. Deputy speaker, this is a bill which puts victims first as well as delivering the swift justice they deserve. It will also strengthen protections for victims in court. Responding to Law Commission recommendation, the bill in clause 8 to 9 tightens the rules of evidence in sexual offences cases, so information about a complainants past can only be used when it genuinely matters and not used to fuel myths or insinuate or humiliate victims, as has been the case previously.

It strengthens and clarifies the use of special measures at clause 12 to 16, ensuring victims have access to screens, live links and support so victims can give their best evidence and importantly, stay in the justice system and in the family courts. We'll also repeal the presumption of parental involvement, as many have campaigned for in 17, a measure created with good intentions but which has contributed to a culture which contact is prioritised. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving away giving way in clause 17. giving away giving way in clause 17. This was a campaign also supported by my conservative predecessor, Kate Kniveton, who bravely spoke Kate Kniveton, who bravely spoke about her experience of sexual violence to campaign for this change. Will he join me in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

congratulating Kate and all the other campaigners that have been involved in this change. For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For. Well, absolutely. I congratulate her and I also want to refer and I know she's in the gallery, the case of Claire Throssell and her sons Jack and Paul. Claire's loss is beyond words. She's with us today, and I know that the whole House joins me in paying tribute to her and her courage and her tireless campaign, so others do not suffer as she has. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill brings the leadership of our tribunals in England and Wales into the 21st century, which until now has been separate, and it brings it into a judicial structure headed by the Lady Chief Justice.

It modernises magistrates expenses rules so that they reflect a modern working life and will help us increase the number of magistrates that we need to across the country. And it preserves the unique status of the Old Bailey as the Central Criminal Court. Madam Deputy Speaker, at its best, Labour has always been a party of institutional renewal. We do not worship at the altar of how things have always been. We ask how things can work better, and we have a record of reforming public services that are failing working people.

Despite opposition from small c conservative institutions at that time, trade union legislation are movement one. Before we ended up government, Bevan's creation of the National Health Service against fierce opposition from the British Medical Association, the introducing the minimum wage against economic orthodoxy this side of the House has had a proud record of putting victims voices into the system. It was us that introduced the victims code. It was us that introduced the victims commissioner, including. And we bring the experiences into this house, including of more.

When a Roman. Kate, Vicky Crawford, Jade Blue and Charlotte, all of them in the public gallery today. This is the party that created, as I said, the victims code. And since taking office again in 2024, we are putting victims first and these protections so that therapies notes cannot be used against women, tighten safeguards around how we use their sexual history are fundamental and important in this bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, the choice before the House is stark.

We cannot continue with this rising backlog. The Magna Carta at clause four is clear to no one. Will we deny or delay the right to justice. And today that promise rings hollow. If we do nothing about it, let us be the Parliament that chose to act. Let us be the Parliament that turned the tide. Let us be the Parliament that restored swift and fair justice to this country. I urge the House to support this bill. And so I beg to move.

The bill is now read a second time.
14:09
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. bill be now read a second time, and I call the shadow Lord Chancellor Nick Timothy. >> Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today the government attacks an ancient English right that runs ancient English right that runs through our Constitution, from Magna Carta to the Bill of rights, to trials taking place at this very moment in courts across the land. That right, that nobody should be seized or imprisoned or deprived of his standing in any way except by the lawful judgement of his equals, is an essential part of our national inheritance. It's part of what makes our legal system the envy of the world.

It's admired by jurists and legislators from all around, and it's been copied by all those countries. Success stories like America and Australia that have followed a common law model. But this government, I will make some progress first. But this government, without a mandate, without a case, without any evidence to justify its actions, has decided our ancient rights are little more than an inconvenience. I will make some progress first, and inconvenience that this Justice Secretary thinks he can sweep away with only the briefest consideration.

And why? The Justice Secretary says this is about efficiency and protecting the rule of law. But that is nonsense. According to the government's own impact assessment, reducing jury trials will cut the Crown Court workload by around 3.5%. But even that number, as I will explain, is wrong. According to the Institute for government, this bill will reduce the Crown Court workload by only 1 or 2%. In other words. In other words, rape victims who are waiting for a year for their case to be heard at present would have their cases heard just one week earlier, just in a moment.

And there is from the basics, like getting defendants to court on time, to intensive case management, much more that can be done to make the courts more efficient without attacking jury trials. I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. If since writing his speech, he has seen the updated information has seen the updated information that has been available around the percentage that it will reduce in our courts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our courts. The Institute for government has made absolutely clear that that that the figures that the government has produced are based on assumptions that are not necessarily shared by anybody who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

necessarily shared by anybody who knows, by anybody who knows what we're talking about. I will give way to the hon. Member. I thank the Member for giving way. Would he agree that legal judgement by peers or equals can include legal judgement by magistrates, and that indeed there is no ancient right to jury trial?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To say so is to misrepresent the case? Yes. Magistrates have their place in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Magistrates have their place in the system, but jury trials, jury trials are fundamental to our inheritance and to public inheritance and to public confidence in the criminal justice system. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, system. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the reason is not efficiency, why is the government doing this? There are only two plausible explanations. The first, that this left wing government determined to censor free speech, indifference to public concern about two tier justice, simply wants to do away with with the hassle of juries.

The second that this is something the civil service has long sought to do. But after a line of wiser Secretaries of State than this one, they finally found a Minister foolish enough to go along with it. You can imagine, you can imagine the scene in the Ministry of Justice. A reshuffle is underway. The Cabinet Secretary tips off Sir Humphrey, who promptly gathers his officials, asking them what the new justice secretary is all about. A private secretary plays the now notorious episode of Celebrity Mastermind.

What Blue Cheese is paired with port asks. The quizmaster. Red Leicester, says the hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey's eyebrow arches, which Murray won the Nobel Prize for physics. Antoinette comes the answer. Sir Humphrey smiles a wry smile. Which English king followed? Henry the Eighth, Henry the Seventh, cries the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey looks around to his trusted officials. Finally he says, I think this time we found our man. For this is not a new idea.

Mr. speaker, officials have been itching to do this for years. But why is it Secretaries of State have always said no. By this explanation of events. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Justice Secretary accepted the advice of his officials, failed to interrogate their their arguments, and without so much as a second thought, decided to do what was rejected. Even during the pandemic, when lockdown and social distancing rules meant criminal trials were postponed. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the honourable. Member for giving way. I appreciate that he is into storytelling. Maybe his next job, but what did he think was going to happen to the court system when happen to the court system when there was a 23% cut under the last there was a 23% cut under the last government, it was going to crumble? Does he not agree?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Crown Court waiting times are actually lower under the Conservatives. Until the pandemic and the pandemic and the pandemic. And it is true it is. It is true that the backlog grew. It is true that the backlog grew during the pandemic. The pandemic came before the general election. Why was this measure, if it was so necessary? Not in the Labour Party manifesto, I am willing, Madam Deputy Speaker, to accept that this account might be unfair. Despite all the evidence provided by the Justice Secretary over the years, the policy might not be explained by his incompetence.

Just as plausible is ideological vandalism, and we should take Ministers at their word. To be clear, I do not mean the occasions when the justice Secretary insisted quotes. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. No, I mean the explanation given by the Minister for courts. She says this is ideological, as does the government would be doing this for reasons other than efficiency. She said, yes, and if you join the dots, this does make sense, because Labour governments have tried to do this before.

In 1999, 2003 and in 2007. And of course, the right hon. Gentleman says Margaret Thatcher did this. That is not only not true, and if you read the Downing Street years, he will get a lesson in conviction, politics and strong leadership, which this government does not understand. I will not give way. And of course, when the Justice Secretary's predecessor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review of the criminal courts, she knew what she was doing because in an earlier review, Sir Brian had already said that jury trials should be restricted, with magistrates deciding the mode of trial and appeals made to a circuit judge.

Perhaps the Justice Secretary sees this, like the early release scheme, as another hospital pass from his predecessor, who, like the hardened criminals she let out of prison early, got out of the MoJ before facing the consequences of her actions. If he does think that he shouldn't feel, he has to go ahead. Yet here he is today proposing not only what Sir Brian Leveson recommended, but an even more radical change. He is telling the House he has no choice but to rush this very serious legislation through Parliament at breakneck speed.

Yes, the bill was published less than two weeks ago after no consultation at all. And today the Justice Secretary is already asking hon. Members to approve its Second Reading. He is allowing only five days for members to scrutinise the bill line by line, in committee. That is less than the government has allowed for the Railways Bill, the Public Authorities Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill. It is about the same time the House once spent scrutinising the Salmon Act, which introduced the offence of handling salmon in suspicious circumstances.

It is less than the 44 debates, statements and urgent questions this House has heard on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon since the election. We are not talking about legislating to recognise the sentience of Crustacea or to regulate travelling circuses. We are talking about a fundamental change to our constitution, the operation of our courts and the rights of our people. In the words of His Honour, Geoffrey Rivlin KC, this bill is one of the most radical and revolutionary events in English legal history, yet it has not appeared in any manifesto.

It hasn't been put out for consultation. It hasn't even been recommended by Leveson. It has been published with virtually no notice to anyone. What arrogance. Madam Deputy Speaker, what a disgrace! And if this bill had been the subject of consultation, if this Justice Secretary had spent any time listening to judges, lawyers and the public, he would know. He would know that it would fail in its own terms. He says it will deliver justice for more victims. But in Canada and Australia, jurisdictions he cites as an inspiration judge only trials have seen more acquittals than in jury trials.

Indeed, the impact assessment predicts fewer people will go to prison as a result of these changes. This should be no surprise asking judges sitting alone to take responsibility for depriving somebody of their liberty is far more onerous than asking 12 fellow citizens who can discuss the evidence, argue the case and share the burden between them, and there is a corresponding danger to justice posed by the proposals to increase magistrates sentencing powers to two years and limit the right to appeal magistrates rulings no fewer.

As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, than 40% of appeals against verdicts and 47% of appeals against sentences issued by magistrates are successful. Incredibly, the Justice Secretary seems to suggest just now that these figures are not a cause for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concern, but a cause for celebration. I will give way. Point of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of. The magistrates appeals. Is the Minister aware, the Shadow Minister Minister aware, the Shadow Minister aware of my as I am through my experience, that appeals are experience, that appeals are essentially a retrial of the Magistrates Court trial and many of Magistrates Court trial and many of those appeals are unsuccessful, successful simply because the victim cannot face giving evidence for a second time and being retraumatised, and that defendants will use that, particularly in domestic abuse circumstances, to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

retraumatize their their the victim all over again. I don't accept that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't accept that characterisation of magistrates courts, and if that were the true cause for concern for the hon. Lady, cause for concern for the hon. Lady, perhaps this bill would try to address what she says, yet it does address what she says, yet it does not. Madam Deputy Speaker, what the government claims about what this bill will achieve is hopelessly, bill will achieve is hopelessly, hopelessly confused. The Justice Secretary leans heavily on Sir Brian Leveson, who says limiting jury trials will save 20% of court time.

But there was no modelling to justify this number, and Sir Brian has admitted it is little more than a guess when challenged by my hon. And learned friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley, the Justice Secretary, said we will publish our modelling alongside the Bill, and yet no modelling worthy of the name has been published. The impact assessment takes Sir Brian guess and uses it as the as the median estimate. This is fiction masquerading as science. The Criminal Bar Association calls the impact assessment meaningless verbiage, total gibberish, and something that would make the scriptwriter of The Thick of It wince with embarrassment.

They concluded, if anyone can make any sense of this, please get in touch. If the Justice Secretary wants to accept that invitation right now, I will be willing to give way to him. Oh, no, because the government has overstated the length of trials for cases in scope of the proposed change by more than 100%, the better estimate. This, the better estimate is made by the Institute for government, where researchers listen to judges and lawyers and understood that only 20% of Crown Court time is spent trying either way offences.

And of course, half of those will remain jury trials because the likely sentence is above three years. The cases in scope are just one moment. The cases in scope therefore only take up between 5 and 10% of Crown Court time. So even if they could be tried 20% faster, they would save

**** Possible New Speaker ****

only 1 or 2% of time. I will give way to my right hon. Friend I'm extremely grateful,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend I'm extremely grateful, friend, for giving way. One of the points that he's making is that consultation and discussion of this bill may be fruitful and bill may be fruitful and understanding properly its effects, as it occurred to him that one of the differences this bill will make the differences this bill will make is that when a judge tries a case on his or her own in the absence of on his or her own in the absence of a jury, this bill requires the judge to give reasons for any conviction that they subsequently conclude is appropriate.

Has he considered, or does he think the government has considered, what the potential impact of that may be on likely appeals from those decisions to the Court of Appeal?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and I was planning to turn to that because not only is this a to that because not only is this a problem for the burden of time that this bill creates, but also the question of the politicisation of our judiciary, because this bill does create new time burdens. When does create new time burdens. When juries deliberate, juries do other work, judges do other work in court, including other trials. If judges deliberate instead, court time used to hear other cases is lost.

If the bill becomes law because the defendants rights to a jury trial depends on the likely custodial sentence. If he's found guilty for the first time, a judge will be needed to first conduct a hearing to determine the likely sentence. The bill says the parties involved should make representations, and in cases with several defendants, the judge would need to hear from all their representatives and the prosecutor taking up hours of time. And there's more. Defendants often plead guilty after the plea and trial preparation hearing but before trial.

In these cases, the sentencing judge, possibly not the same as the judge, will have to hear the submissions all over again. And then there are the reasons for conviction or acquittal. As my right hon. Friend just said, juries do not have to provide reasons, but the bill says judges must. This will inevitably take many hours per case time that right now is used to try cases. I will make some progress and this opens up new risks. The publication of judges reasons is likely to lead to more appeals and more court time taken.

And as questions posed about judges reasons, we're likely to see the politicisation of judges and judicial appointments something that will be made worse by the blurring of our adversarial model and the European inquisitorial role for judges in our model, judges are entitled to intervene and seek further information to help the jury with their assessment. In a judge only trial, where the judge inevitably takes on a more inquisitorial role, these interventions and requests will inevitably be portrayed as the display of bias.

This will be made worse when it comes to the role of the judge in deciding the admissibility. Admissibility of evidence A judge usually sees all manner of material that is prejudicial to a defendant, yet is deemed inadmissible. But this doesn't matter when it's a jury that decides innocence or guilt. When a judge sees prejudicial material and deems it inadmissible, it will be difficult for anybody to believe the information was simply erased from the judge's mind. Judges may be professional and fully committed to their impartiality, but Madam Deputy Speaker they are not superhuman.

It is not difficult to see. I will not give way. It is not difficult to see how this too will undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and put judges in an impossible situation. Madam Deputy my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oliver Dowden. My hon. Friend is making some very important points. I think very important points. I think there's a more fundamental one that he may come onto in a moment when it comes to public perception of it comes to public perception of this, which is at a time when confidence in this place, confidence in conventional politics, confidence in conventional politics, is an exceedingly low ebb. If we pass this legislation, we'll be pass this legislation, we'll be sending a signal to people that this place does not trust 12 good men and true to make a decision.

In fact, they want to take that decision away from them. And does he agree with me that will further erode confidence in conventional mainstream politics? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely I will give way, I will give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I you are the the member is absolutely right to talk about confidence in public institutions. And that is what we're addressing today. I stand before you as a victim. That would not report because I do not want to be retraumatized over years. And I speak on behalf of the victims in speak on behalf of the victims in the gallery and those out there in the country. That is where I want us to restore confidence. That is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what we need to do today. Nick Timothy I, I totally understand what the hon. Lady says, understand what the hon. Lady says, and we are all interested in the best interests of victims. To to best interests of victims. To to suggest otherwise is absolutely appalling, and the hon. Lady should appalling, and the hon. Lady should withdraw that comment. In answer to my right hon. Friend, in answer to my right hon. Friend, I completely agree. I was concerned by what the Justice Secretary said in his remarks when he said he's proud of the fact that his party doesn't just look to the past and how things have been.

I think one of the problems with the party opposite is that they are too careless with how things have always been, and this is exactly what we're talking about. This is an ancient constitutional and legal right and they are being careless about it. I will not give way again. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are talking about a fundamental change in the way we try criminal cases, and the cases in scope are not minor. There are cases where the likely sentence is between 18 months and three years in prison before they decide how to vote.

This evening, members on the government benches need to search their souls and ask themselves three vital questions. Is this bill just is it thought through? Is it going to make our courts more efficient if they're honest with themselves? And if they ask judges, lawyers and their own colleagues like the hon. and learned Member for Kingston upon Hull East, they will know that the answer to all three questions is no. None of the great Labour Prime Ministers would ask them to take this step.

Not Clement Attlee, not Harold Wilson and not James Callaghan, as the Justice Secretary earlier claimed, as Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins would never have invited MPs to put their conscience aside and vote for what they believe. Deep down is wrong. And neither, as I understand it, from the media briefings would the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. They know it wasn't in their manifesto. They know there hasn't even been a consultation, and they know it is wrong to rush this through the House.

After just five days of scrutiny in committee. They know, and perhaps just a few months this Prime Minister will be gone. I do not believe they wish to look back in the years ahead and remember voting to attack an ancient English right, and to undermine what makes ours the best legal system in the world. All for a Prime Minister who takes them for granted, and they will soon replace. Madam Deputy Speaker, we will vote against this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

terrible bill today, and so should they. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. They are shy of 60 people wishing to contribute. I urge members to keep their contributions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

members to keep their contributions brief and I call Karl Turner. Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I have been Speaker, you and I have been friends for some time. I think you were elected in 2015, soon after were elected in 2015, soon after your talents were recognised and you was quickly in a ministerial brief. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, my politics as we Chris Ward many a times. So, you know, it pains me when I congratulate the right hon.

Gentleman, the Shadow Justice Secretary, for his outstanding contribution, because there was nothing really that I
14:32
Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner MP (Kingston upon Hull East, Labour)
-
-
could disagree with. But I welcome I welcome, Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman, the Justice Secretary's intervention since he's been in post, because since he's been in post, because it's true. True to say that that it's true. True to say that that Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, has secured the biggest investment has secured the biggest investment for the criminal justice system in decades, amounting to something in the region of £2.5 billion. So I commend my dear friend for that work.

I know that it would have taken some serious graft with the Treasury officials and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It's true, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there's much of this bill that is absolutely critical. The actions to reduce the backlog, which no member of this House wants to see, victims of crime languishing, waiting for months and years for their cases to be heard. The Labour government's policy on reducing violence against women and girls is absolutely crucial as well.

And it's right. Also, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say this the previous government savaged. Yeah, savaged the criminal justice system, underfunded criminal justice system during the austerity years. But I have to be honest as well. It wasn't just the previous Tory government. The criminal justice system has been badly, badly treated and badly funded for decades, madam. Madam Deputy Speaker, the parts of this bill which are, though I'm afraid to say, unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary jury trial, curtailment at the extended powers for sentencing in the magistrates.

The removal of the right to elect jury trial less than three years tariff doing away with the automatic right, which is essentially what it is for appeal from a magistrates, is concerning. I've said earlier in intervention 0.4% appeal. That's around 5000, 41% are successful. That is a concern. I'm afraid to say as well, the analogy used by the justice secretary is unfortunate of somebody stealing a bottle of whisky. I'm not the most eminent lawyer. I was prosecuted, prosecuting and defending the theft of Mars bars in my second six pupillage before I was elected in May 2010 to this house.

So I don't pretend I'm terribly eminent. But never, never did I see a situation advising in the Magistrates Court, a defendant to be electing for trial because that defendant had allegedly nicked a bottle of whisky. The scenarios for the birds, to be perfectly honest with you, and it's tantamount it's on at the same sort of level as the justice secretary in his MoJ. The video making reference to scraping of the knee in a triage situation in a casualty in accident and emergency department.

It's unfortunate, it's disappointing. And I think my friend, the justice Secretary could do much better. The Ifg report, published today, states that the MoJ modelling is sound, but it relies on several uncertain assumptions, and that is a very grave concern. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm not going to detain the House terribly long. I had what I can only describe as an incredibly honest, robust but constructive discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday evening.

And I'm glad to say that that discussion produced something of an offer. I think it's absolutely imperative that one of our number, or for principal reasons, to these changes, has a seat on the public bill committee. I was told by colleagues, it's impossible. You're never going to be able to provide that. It's never going to happen. The chief whip is never going to concede to one of the so-called rebels being on that bill committee, but through my hon.

My right hon. Friend's representations to the Chief Whip. That guarantee was made for that reason, and for that reason. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will abstain on this bill today. But I put it in this way, if I may. I abstained because I think there's a possibility of making progress. I trust my hon. My right hon. Friend, to negotiate in good faith with colleagues who were opposed to the Bill. What I don't appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, is officials in the MoJ spinning that even Karl Turner was unable to persuade enough people to rebel against this bill.

That isn't right. It's unfair. And I think, frankly, it's unbecoming of a Secretary of State in any department of government. But I abstained today, and I sincerely urge my colleagues to abstain as well, because, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am more confident now than ever I was that this the worst parts of this bill, will be defeated at amendment stage. And I ask sincerely to my honourable and right hon. Friends, to let this have a Second Reading today, and let us make progress to get rid of the bits of this bill which are completely unworkable, unpopular, unjust, and unnecessary.
14:39
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller. >> Yes. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrat benches will be voting against this bill today, and voting against this bill today, and we have tabled a reasoned amendment that sets out why we fundamentally disagree with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister's approach to tackling the Crown Court backlog. Our views have been well aired in this place over the last few months, but today is an opportunity for us to lay out the reasons that this bill should not progress in its current form and that we something we agree on is that the current backlog is unacceptable, untenable and unsustainable.

We agree with the government that this is because of the historic and monumental failings of the previous conservative government, whose complacency and mismanagement of the justice system left the criminal justice system on the brink of collapse. It is a shameful legacy. The backlog in our criminal courts now stands at 80,000. This is a disgraceful situation which deprives victims and defendants of justice for years. We now have cases, cases being listed at the end of this decade. This has a huge impact on the quality of evidence, and it even causes victims to pull out of cases because so long as passed since the crime and they just want to move on with their lives.

It also leaves defendants lives on pause while they await the opportunity to prove their innocence. Currently, the system as it stands fails everyone. And something must be done about this crisis. And it must be done now. Sir Brian Leveson was clear in his report that the fundamental drivers of the ever increasing backlog were systematic underfunding, readiness of defence and prosecution teams, and the availability of witnesses, victims and defendants. But Madam Deputy Speaker, juries were not identified as the cause of the problem.

Between 2016 and 2024, the number of ineffective trials increased from 15% to 25%. In that same time, the average court sitting time fell from 3.8 hours per sitting day to 3.2 hours. Juries are not the problem. Inefficiencies are in my Crown court. In Chichester, all cases were suspended for a fortnight in January because the heating system failed and it was too cold in the building and across the country there are stories of courts closing due to crumbling roofs, water pouring into courtrooms, gas leaks, general poor maintenance over many years.

Juries are not the problem.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Crumbling infrastructure is. I will give way to my hon. Friend. Hon. Friend giving way. I visited the Winchester courts recently, where I spoke to about a dozen barristers who are all concerned about the thing of concerned about the thing of sledgehammer to jury trials. Because not only because it's a fundamental part of our justice system, but because they say it won't even help clear the backlog, because jury trials aren't the limiting factor. And they reiterated it's defendants and prisoners get into court in time.

It's the number of sitting days and it's a crumbling infrastructure. All my friend agree with me that we should listen to the professionals who know what the problems are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and it was well worded by Joanna Hardy Suskind today who said, I've seen the today who said, I've seen the adjournment of two rape trials this year. It's only March. Nothing in the proposed bill would have saved the proposed bill would have saved those trial dates. In either case, nothing. Barristers across England and Wales are reporting delays to and Wales are reporting delays to their cases because of the failed prisoner escort and custody service contracts.

The question I've asked the the justice Secretary many the the justice Secretary many times, these regularly cause cases to run late because the defendant has not been delivered on time from prison, or there's nobody on site to bring them up from the holding cells. Juries are not the problem.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government contracts are the problem. Trial by jury. On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way on that point. I'm grateful for the Member for giving way. I've been as both a giving way. I've been as both a civil and a criminal practitioner. The civil courts are not that far from the criminal courts when it from the criminal courts when it comes to delays. There are no juries in the civil courts. The reason for these delays, and the reason for these delays, and the reason for why we are where we are, is because of a lack of investment.

Does the member agree?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman, for his intervention, and I saw the intervention, and I saw the amendment that his group have put on the record today as well. And I agree with that. Trial by jury is agree with that. Trial by jury is deeply enshrined in our conscience and Constitution and is respected all over the world. I will very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all over the world. I will very briefly give way on that point. Well, my friend, agree with me that the original clause 39 of the Magna Carta has guaranteed an individual's right to due process in the court for 800 years and trial by jury. At its heart, this bill asked the right question but gives the reckless answer. There is no modelling or evidence to show

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this move will reduce the backlog. Jess Brown-Fuller I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I Friend for her intervention. I agree with some of what she said. I do agree that the that our jury trial by jury is one of the only parts of our justice system that is still actually trusted, because the possibility of being tried by one's possibility of being tried by one's peers is fundamental to a fair trial in this country. That point was recognised by the Deputy Prime Minister himself in the Law review Minister himself in the Law review in 2017, and then again during the pandemic, when curtailing the right to a jury trial was proposed to increase to deal with the increasing backlog and happily give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Very briefly. I'm just I'm trying to understand the point that she's making in her speech. Is she saying that we should now extend jury trial to all trials, or we should trial to all trials, or we should keep the status quo or is sacrosanct? So in fact, it should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be extended? I don't I'm confused. Happy to make it absolutely clear for the member who if I was allowed to get on, I could make allowed to get on, I could make that point. Is that actually trial by jury is not the problem. We agree that there is a problem. We agree that that problem needs to be solved. But curtailing the right to a jury trial is not going to achieve what this government and what these benches want to see achieved, which is the backlog, come down.

So Leveson proposed a Bench Division in his report with a judge and two magistrates. The government has gone further and proposed a swift court with just one sitting judge. Is it the case that the government chose to ignore Sir Brian Leveson proposal of a Crown Court bench division with a judge and two magistrates, because, although they agree, I think that the lay element to a trial is an important part of the system. They know they do not have enough magistrates and are likely to struggle to find enough magistrates willing to preside over such lengthy cases.

And is it the case that the courts Minister really believes that defendants opted for a Crown Court trial because they wanted their case to be heard in a Crown Court building, rather than wanting to have a trial by jury that they chose a Crown Court trial because of the facilities, or because it might have better coffee. I won't give way. I will make some progress. If the Deputy Prime Minister and the courts Minister believe that this is fundamentally the right thing to do, both practically and ideologically, why did it not feature in the Labour Party manifesto? I also, like many members, take issue with the Deputy Prime Minister's messaging around the bill today.

He chose to describe defendants as offenders rather than applying the principle of innocent until guilt is proven. And he also described a case that carries a sentence of up to three years as being akin to having a grazed knee and seeing a consultant. I think most of the public outside this building would argue that a sentence of three years imprisonment is a life changing sentence. If I was to be tried for a crime I was arguing that I did not commit. I would like that to be in front of a jury of my peers.

I believe that the government are wasting severely limited political capital on something that won't shift the dial. They stated themselves. They expect all of the measures in the bill to show just a 5% decrease in the backlog by the end of this Parliament, and only a return to pre-COVID backlog levels in a decade's time. Instead of these drastic changes, we are urging the government to look at alternative options to reduce the Crown Court backlog. Specifically, we should look at measures that have been tried and tested before, such as the methods piloted during the pandemic to supercharge the Crown courts, where extended sitting hours allowed, Am and PM trials used in courtrooms.

This method can funnel through cases which may have been stuck in the backlog for years. In original pilots of this method, the approach cleared 3.5 cases per courtroom each week, compared to fewer than one in courts operating standard hours. So that's how you can begin to reduce the backlog without removing liberties that we should all hold as sacred. So will the government. Please give consideration to the Liberal Democrat proposals, which would not only boost efficiencies in the Crown courts but also make the experience for jurors, victims and judges better and could attract retired judges back into the system to preside over half day cases.

Yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, another glaring flaw in this legislation is that more serious cases will be heard in the magistrates court. Yet there is a lower threshold income threshold to qualify for legal aid in the magistrates court. So many more defendants who could be accused of crimes that carry sentences of up to 24 months will be unrepresented and defending themselves. This is very likely to drag out hearings, which will lower the overall savings the government claims to be making with these reforms.

And as was the case in the last reform of magistrates sentencing powers, how will the government respond when the Magistrates Court start pushing cases with longer sentences back to the Crown as they struggle to absorb the additional work? Alongside this, the government is also proposing to abolish the right of appeal from the Magistrates Court. Why does the Minister believe that when currently 42% of appeals from the magistrates are successful, if the government is willing to include a clause around the presumption against parental responsibility in the bill, which is an important piece of legislation, why won't they extend the scope of the bill to address the fundamental reforms needed in the broken family court system? And finally, the government's proposals are opposed by the Criminal Bar Association, the chair of the Bar Council, the Law Society, the four Bars, the Secret Barrister, judge Rob Rinder, Joe Hamilton OBE, many hon.

Members on their own benches and 3200 legal professionals who have written to the Deputy Prime Minister today. If they won't listen to all of those organisations and people who have spent their life committed to making the criminal justice system as effective as possible for victims and defendants under poor management by successive governments, who will they listen to? Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a huge amount of respect for the courts Minister and for the Deputy Prime Minister, which is why I am disappointed to be here.

But it's not too late for them to change

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. Thank you. Andy Slaughter. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, the number of outstanding cases in the Crown outstanding cases in the Crown Court is 79,619. The outgoing conservative government promised to reduce the backlog. It should have reduce the backlog. It should have been 53,000 by April last year. Their abject failures led to the Their abject failures led to the present government asking one of the country's most foremost experts on the criminal courts, Sir Brian Leveson, to propose comprehensive court reforms, reforms without precedent for half a century.

Sir
14:50
Andy Slaughter Portrait Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)
-
-
Brian produced this review in two parts, totalling over 1000 pages parts, totalling over 1000 pages and 180 recommendations. This bill legislates where legislation is necessary to implement parts of Sir Brian review. Given the current dire situation, with many victims dire situation, with many victims waiting two or more years for their case to be resolved and defendants spending far too long in custodial remand, the government is right to propose structural change. Otherwise it would be endorsing perpetual delay. Not yet.

I'm conscious of time. The removal of the right to elect for either way, offences in clause one is the single most significant measure in reducing the caseload of the Crown Court. The bill's impact assessment indicates that this change will see 16,000 fewer sitting days in the Crown Court each year. The government is also proposing in clause six to increase the maximum sentencing power of the Magistrates Court to to 18 months. This, we are told, will save a further 8000 sitting days in the Crown Court.

Taken together, these two measures ending election and extending magistrates powers represent a sizeable shift of the caseload out of the Crown Court and to the Magistrates Court. This will deliver on the main objective of these reforms, which is to ensure the capacity of the Crown Court to try the most serious criminal cases in a fair and timely manner. Less scrutiny has been on how magistrates will cope with their new responsibilities, and I'll deal with this in a moment. The provisions, which have attracted the most debate.

Clauses 3 to 5 would establish the Crown Court Bench Division to enable cases with a likely sentence of three years or less to be tried on indictment without a jury. Clause four would allow trial by judge alone for some complex and lengthy cases compared to the other measures in part one of the bill, it will have a less significant effect on the backlog, but it is still a substantial saving of 5000 Crown Court days. I accept the government's argument that there is a strong case for modernising the way the Crown Court operates.

Some improvement will be achieved through adopting the measures on efficiency set out in part two of Sir Brian Leveson Review, or the additional resources promised under the Concordat with the Lady Chief Justice, which will remove restriction on court sitting days. But these are unlikely to be enough on their own, given the crisis that the criminal courts are facing. I am willing to support the creation of the Crown Court Bench Division and the other measures. In part one of the Bill. I don't accept the case made by some that the proposals represent the end for jury trial, and that the bill should be opposed on that basis.

Of the 3% of criminal cases that currently go before a jury, about a third of the less serious of those offences will now go before a judge alone. Some 4000 offences like possession of class A, drugs, car theft, affray and large scale waste dumping. I do not believe this undermines the jury system, although it undoubtedly changes how some cases are tried. Therefore, arrangements for judge only trials in the Crown Court need to be carefully reviewed once they are enforced, to test whether they deliver the time saving that is promised, without undermining the right to a fair trial.

Turning to my reservations on the proposals, I'm concerned that Magistrates' court will not be able to cope with the increasing caseload envisaged by this Bill. The work of Magistrates Court is delivered by a range of dedicated public servants, magistrates, district judges, legal advisers, HMCTS staff, probation, CPS and legal aid lawyers. However, we also know there are long standing problems recruiting and retaining many of these key personnels, the Lord Chancellor wrote to the Justice Committee last week and told us that the Moj hopes to recruit thousands of magistrates and hundreds of legal advisers and district judges over the last year or two over the next year or two.

I am concerned, firstly, that these are very ambitious targets and secondly, that even if these recruitments bear fruit, they will not meet the challenge of diverting 24,000 days of complex hearings from the Crown Court each year while dealing with the existing problems in the Magistrates Court, which has its own backlog. Clause seven of the bill, which seeks to reform appeals from the Magistrates Court, will require electronic recording of proceedings. This strikes me as a significant change. The impact assessment is not clear how much this will cost, but I doubt it can be delivered either quickly or cheaply.

Another area of concern is the process for allocating cases as judge only trials, prosecution and defence lawyers will wish to make submissions in written and oral. Some may seek to challenge these decisions on allocation by judicial review to these concerns should be added. The differing eligibility for legal aid in the Crown and Magistrates Court, and concerns that the loss of a lay presence in determining innocence or guilt risked losing diversity and adding unconscious bias.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This gentleman. I will. On the point around legal aid, the entitlement to legal aid in the the entitlement to legal aid in the Magistrates Court is only for those who earn less than £21,000 a year, which is now less than a full time job at real living wage rates. Does the hon. Member agree with me that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the hon. Member agree with me that this is a real danger in terms of access to justice? Yes. That is exactly the point I was alluding to, somewhat briefly, and alluding to, somewhat briefly, and I'm glad that my my friend had outlined it in more detail. I really think this is an issue that the government is going to have to address before this bill concludes its passage through this House. And the other place, the the the point's been made both in restriction, both in relation to restriction of jury trial and the decision not to accept Sir Brian recommendation that a judge should sit with lay magistrates in the Crown Court, Bench Division that the lay element is being limited too far.

There's a lot more that I could say, but I'm conscious of time and there are many details that need to be worked out, and I can see why the government is giving itself until March 2028 to implement the proposals in the bill. As the bill progresses, I hope the government listens to members of this House and the other place, and to those with an interest in the criminal justice system, from lawyers to victims, on how it can be clarified and improved.

The Justice Committee has held evidence, sessions and in detailed correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, the Courts Minister and Sir Brian for several months. Our current call for evidence closes tomorrow and on the 17th of March we will hold a further evidence session. I do not have time to day to cover the other important, but less controversial parts of the bill. But I would like to recognise the work of the Law Commission, who have done the hard work on the proposals on evidence in sexual offence prosecutions that lies behind clauses 8 to 12.

I also want to pay tribute to the campaigners, who worked tirelessly on the removal of the presumption of parental involvement. These measures will help to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our society are protected by our courts. Finally, I know that the Lady Chief Justice will be pleased that the government have found a legislative vehicle to bring the leadership of tribunals in the wider court structure. That is a good thing overall. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a necessary package of reforms, and I will look forward to working with government to improve it as it progresses through Parliament.
14:58
Geoffrey Cox Portrait Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Cox KC MP (Torridge and Tavistock, Conservative)
-
-
Dear Sir Geoffrey Cox. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, I should declare an interest at the beginning. I am a interest at the beginning. I am a member of the bar and is not uncommonly known. I still practice at the bar, and I have the honour to be a criminal barrister and a member of the Criminal Bar Association. I have spent 44 years at the bar. I have defended and prosecuted in some of the largest criminal trials that this country has ever seen, and I may say some of the longest.

And I have been experienced in seeing how juries react to circumstances of adversity and circumstances which challenge and test the very boundaries of humanity and the appalling nature of the crimes they are forced to adjudicate upon. And without exception, Madam Deputy Speaker, without exception, they have responded in a manner that I think generally gives rise to the hugest admiration, not to say, or by those who are otherwise engaged in the administration of justice. There is something about the gathering of 12 ordinary citizens chosen at random.

Bringing them together into the crucible that a criminal trial produces. Which strips away ideological prejudice or preconception, racial prejudice or preconception, and causes them to focus upon one single question is it true the allegation, or is it not true? And can we be sure it is true? Or is there any doubt? And again and again throughout our legal history, Madam Deputy Speaker, the wisdom and capacity of juries has been repeatedly vindicated. Every time they have been analysed, tested or sought to be examined by those who research these matters, those who research these matters, not just for now.

I will come back. We here in this House are engaged in an ideological strife. Every day of our life. We are engaged in a political battle, and frankly, sometimes we do not always live up to the highest standards that even our own parties have said. You know, in the course of my legal career, I have been led by some distinguished Labour members of Parliament. When I say lead, I mean I have been a junior in the courts, the members of Parliament of this House who still continued to practice in the criminal courts and regarded it as a noble honour to continue to do so.

Peter Archer led me in the early 1980s. The former Solicitor general, John Morris, led me just eight weeks before the 1987 election, with the Blair landslide swept in, oh, halcyon days to those across the across some of you anyway, some of them, Madam Deputy Speaker, maybe across the aisle, Bob Marshall Andrews led me right up in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. What remarkable men they were. They would never have countenanced for a single second, the compromise of principle that members opposite and members on this side are now being asked to take.

They would never have countenanced it. I knew these people. I knew them well. John Morris would never have countenanced it. Peter Archer would never have countenanced Bob Marshall. Andrews would never have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

countenanced it. Not now. Later. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I will. I want to appeal to the members opposite. We are engaged in members opposite. We are engaged in an ideological strife, but in the an ideological strife, but in the Venn diagram, which any society depends upon for the sustaining of depends upon for the sustaining of sufficient points of common ground, but can keep a society together. Jury trial is one of those that appear in a point of intersection between the vast numbers of this house and and outside the house.

I will I'm going to give way to this member for the hon. Member for in a moment. Just give me two seconds. I want to develop this thing. It's very important to me. Very important. There are some things that have to be above politics. If there are not, then we have no society to defend. We have no society to defend. And jury trial is one of those institutions which have been defended by those across the aisle from me.

On the opposite extreme of the political spectrum, and from those on our side of the House, out to the furthest waters of the right. And why is that? Because it must be a non-ideological space, the administration of justice and jury trial unites us all for a simple reason. It is the most powerful instrument and engine of social justice that this country has ever invented. It is a safeguard against oppression. It is a built in defence against establishment and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

administrative power. I'm going to First. I thank the hon. Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. We could think of this giving way. We could think of this exchange as Cox versus Cox. You mentioned the gentleman mentions mentioned the gentleman mentions legal history. I have a more than a passing interest in legal history. passing interest in legal history. I'm minded to think of the 1879 Summary Jurisdiction Act, which moved a lot of cases from the from the, from a jury system into the magistrates system. Now colleagues, the architect of that of that was Disraeli, a former conservative Prime Minister.

Would he not agree that many politicians across this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House have acted to shape jury trials over time? Yes. Colchester difficult.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's always been a summary jurisdiction in invariably never for offences of dishonesty, invariably never for offences that might lead to the destruction of the reputation of those who are facing it. If one member of this House who must be disqualified, if House who must be disqualified, if there is a sentence of imprisonment of more than 1212 months, is he, after the passage of this bill, arraigned before a court on a case that might involve 12 months, and one day he or she will lose the right to a trial by jury, despite the fact that that might be an offensive protest, it might well be an offence where the member of the House has felt so powerfully that they must breach the law, that they are arrested and arraigned on a on a potential sentence up to three years.

Three years is a long time. Yes, it could easily be for an offence of protest. Are we saying that those who seek to go to jail, the suffragettes, for example, should have lost their right to trial by jury? A jury that is not obliged to follow the dictates or directions of a judge on the law. A jury that is entitled to reach its decision on its judgement about what is fair. So I say, I say not just now. I say to the House, in all conscience, jury trial is precious.

Why is it precious? It is precious because it unites all parts of the political spectrum. It is precious because it allows the people of this country to be directly engaged in the adjudication of guilt or innocence. In thousands of cases around the country at a time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere rose to intervene, to point out, to point out that now is a time when our institutions are under unprecedented attack. Is now the time to transfer a massive chunk of the administration of criminal justice, and the decisions on the guilt or innocence of a fellow citizen to a representative, unquestionably, who will be seen as a representative of the state.

It is the jury that protects us from the allegation, that it protects us from the allegation that the state is deciding upon their future. That is what protects and preserves and enhances the reputation of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

administration of justice. Well, to the right hon. And learned gentleman, for giving way. learned gentleman, for giving way. I think it I think it was telling I think it I think it was telling when Joe Hamilton, Albe, wrote to the Justice Secretary to the Justice Secretary to respectfully remind him, I think it was yesterday, as a victim of the was yesterday, as a victim of the arising Post Office scandal. Under the legislation proposed, not one, not one of those 900 subpostmasters who were convicted would have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

entitled to a trial before their peers. What does he say. Entirely with the hon. Gentleman?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Entirely with the hon. Gentleman? Postmasters, post mistresses, postmen, those whose honesty and postmen, those whose honesty and integrity are integral to their employment for a breach of trust, who will not receive three months who will not receive three months three years in imprisonment. All will be deprived of their jury trial, and at a time when the trial, and at a time when the sharks are circling, when the vultures are circling around the institutions of this country, one of the most precious that commands almost universal assent, we are on the brink now of undermining, and, I believe, undermining irredeemably.

Let me say why. No, no, no, I'm not giving way. I'm mindful of time and I must complete what I have to say. Let me say this. This is a time when not just this House, but the judiciary, the courts are under attack. Unprecedented attacks upon the judiciary, unprecedented attacks upon the legal profession, deplorable. Unprecedented. Because the institutional trust is under siege. Now is not the time. I'm trying to make a speech, you know, that is non-partisan.

Non-Partisan? Really not. I don't believe that. The right hon. Gentleman on the front bench, if he'd been. I remember vividly when I sat where he said, I remember him standing in the fire that breathed from his, from his soul as he spoke about justice. I can hear him now in my mind's eye. I can hear him now speaking on this subject. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know what he'd be saying is the direct polar opposite of what he's advancing today in the House. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I know what he'd be saying. And I say he was his wiser self in those days. He was his best self those days. He was his best self because at that time, what he was motivated for and by was those who motivated for and by was those who were oppressed, who were poor, who faced the full phalanx of the state faced the full phalanx of the state reigned against them. And it was this Secretary of State in a different guys who was their champion and their voice.

And a jury trial is the most potent weapon and instrument against oppression, against injustice. And it serves not just those who are wealthy, but those who are poor, not those who have a voice, but those who do not. It is 12 members of the jury who will give a hearing to people who have otherwise no hearing. I will not take interventions now, certainly if they're not, if they're of the quality that we're having up till now, the reality is the reality is Madam Deputy Speaker good.

The jury trial is the cornerstone of our justice system. Do away with it and we are in trouble. Now, let me say, look at the way in which. Look at the way in which this bill operates. It is to automatically presume jury trial for everything which will have a likely sentence of three years. Those will be some very grave offences. But in relation to serious and complex or lengthy cases, it could be any allegation. As long as a judge concludes it's appropriate that it should be dealt with without a jury that could be, or apart from the excluded offences which are, I accept exist, but apart from the excluded offences, not just fraud trials, but all kinds of trials will be tried without a jury.

If a judge concludes it's appropriate. The moment you make jury trials subject to the view, the individual view of a judge as to whether it is appropriate or not, you drive a hole into this fundamental, accepted, accepted right that all of us on each side of the House have accepted over so many years, which is that if you are accused of a serious crime and a serious crime is one that could destroy your reputation, disqualify you from the House of Commons, wreck your professional reputation, loss of your employment like the postmasters and the mistresses, that you should be able to be judged by 12 people.

There is a reason why summary justice is called summary. There is a reason why summary justice was always subject to a complete rehearing. Remember the right. The hon. Lady spoke of how there was no right to jury trial. Of course there is no written right. There has always been an accepted consensus on both sides of this House and throughout the system of this country, that jury trials are precious for those kinds of cases, particularly allegations of dishonesty. The right to elect is crucial.

That is what this is being undermined. This bill is undermining. That is what is so dangerous about it and undermining it on the basis of what arbitrary rules and arbitrary divisions. Three years. Why three? Why not next year? Four why not next year? Five why not extend it gradually, little by little until you reduce? No, I'm not giving way. Let me make clear now I want to finish in a moment. I the reality. Madam Deputy Speaker, is the jury trial is too precious a thing.

We're faced with a question of principle. Here are the savings that the the government claim will be made, contested and based off by many expert analyses, including the profession, including the Institute of Government and others as well, based upon questionable assumptions, are they sufficient for us to abrogate so fundamental a principle attracting so rarely in our institutional and political life, almost universal assent across the political spectrum? Are they sufficient for us to take this highly unprecedented and questionable step? And I would submit, Madam Deputy Speaker, they are not I would submit to the House that we should pause long and hard before we encroach upon this fundamental principle.

I have seen it work in practice over 40 years. As I've said, I have never failed to be or inspired by the sheer quality of attention and fairness that a jury brings to its deliberations. Summary. Justice can never replicate that. We are about to take a step that will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

irretrievably damage the quality of justice in this country. Yes. You know, when you watch I don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You know, when you watch I don't watch television much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but sometimes I watch something called digging for Britain. I don't know if the House Britain. I don't know if the House has ever seen it, but one of the things, one of the things that is things, one of the things that is apparent from that programme is that you can tell when a when a civilisation starts to degrade because the quality of its architectural constructions starts to look cheaper and less attention to detail.

If we take this step, we will be degrading our system of justice. A summary justice trial is summary. The clue is in the word, the name. It has always been corrected by the fact that there has been the power to have a full rehearing. In the court above the Crown Court. We are even taking away that by this bill. So we are ensuring that many thousands of people will be dealt with summarily in cases of such great importance to their lives and their reputations.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only appeal to the House ineffectually. Perhaps I am regret that I have attracted on the other side. I never intended to are comments that suggest that my comments were controversial. They come from the heart, and my experience of 44 years of a system I love and a profession I love, and if I have attracted the ire of members opposite, I apologise for it, because what I am hoping to induce is reflection upon the sheer importance of the institution about which we are to take this important decision.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are now on a speaking limit of six minutes and I call Catherine West. Thank you very. Much, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Much, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And I hope to be a little more brief and less pompous than, than than and less pompous than, than than previous speakers. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am indebted to the many Speaker, I am indebted to the many who serve in day to day court work, in the Woodgreen courts and in in the Woodgreen courts and in other parts of the London circuit, and I want to thank them for their hard work in this rather thankless legal work.

I'd also like to commend the Minister for her active engagement with members across this House on these principles and these proposals, and also to the Select Committee for its important work in scrutinising this. And I was very pleased to hear the Member for Kingston upon Hull East say that he was looking to abstain on this so that he can hear more debate as this passes through the House. And I think that's the spirit in which this bill should be listened to, and less bombast and more practical solutions for victims of crime.

We do need to end the back court backlog. We do need to ensure access to justice for all when we need to properly fund our justice system. And congratulations to the team who have got 2 billion out of the Treasury to fix our courts. I welcome the recent announcement of the investment in criminal legal aid, the 24% overall uplift in funding, and also welcome the 287 million to be invested in our court service for vital repairs and
15:19
Catherine West Portrait Catherine West MP (Hornsey and Friern Barnet, Labour)
-
-
digital upgrades to court buildings. The day I visited Woodgreen, it was a heat wave. We were sitting there a heat wave. We were sitting there with all of the legal coats and dresses on wigs, and I had the most ordinary plate of fish and chips from the canteen I have ever had. from the canteen I have ever had. And I think the basic conditions that victims are going through when they go to courts, our security teams, our legal personnel, we really, really need to get this money out the door and spent and improve the estate so that we can have more confidence in the system.

We also need to be aware that the legal aid funding for magistrates court cases often barely covers costs, and that's some of the serious concerns that I know members on this side of the House have about what's being proposed here. As it stands, there's an automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction in the Crown Court, 40% of appeals from the Magistrates Court to the Crown against conviction are successful. So this bill would end the automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction, which is one of the concerns raised by the eminent legal constituents who contacted me yesterday and thinking more in depth about the legal aid question.

Currently a means tested threshold just 22,000. Now those in full time minimum wage jobs may not even qualify for that in a high, highly valuable, high value and expensive city like London. Should this bill become law? As it stands, our defence defendants who are not eligible for legal aid but are barely managing to keep their heads above water, expected to draft their own grounds of appeal. I suspect that might lead to more costs in the long term, so we need to look at that one.

Why is the court backlog so great? Will the Minister be saying more about defendants? I'm sure some people will be making points about defendants possibly gaming the system, which is some of what I've been hearing. And I have no doubt that there is an element of that that does have to be clamped down upon. But let's not ignore the delays in police investigations, often due to the cuts that the police have endured over the previous decade and the sheer churn. If a woman is having four years waiting for her case to come, how many police officers has she seen? How many times has she had to repeat her dreadful situation to those police officers? How many victims champions have had to listen to story after story? That's a trauma in itself.

So let's not ignore all of those other elements of this system. The delays in the police, sometimes the Crown Prosecution Service also large churn in the expertise there because it's become an unattractive place to work due to such a stretch in terms of the service that's provided. And those decisions are therefore being made in such a slow pace and quite frustrating on all counts. One of my constituents, a practising legal aid solicitor of many decades standing, recently told me his 19 year old client's just sentenced for an incident that occurred in November 2024, when he was 17 years old.

This client was not gaming the system. He pleaded guilty and yet faced all of those delays. So the delays are very, very real. Of course, the preferred option for my point of view would be to have two sets of cases, one on a pilot scheme and one on the current scheme that we have. And after 3 or 4 years to see which system is best. And of course, to have that, I would have to vote for this, wouldn't I? So I'm being very pragmatic and helpful.

I'm following the lead of some of our our members in the House who have taken a lot of thought over this, such as the Member for Kingston upon Hull East and also the Select Committee. And I look forward to this as it goes to the next stage so that we can follow it closely, including in the upper house, and come up with a really good solution at the end of this process. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, Father of the House. Quite unusually, I've served as a practising barrister in courts, a practising barrister in courts, and I've also served on juries, and I've never failed to be impressed by the extraordinary care that juries take in deciding a case. juries take in deciding a case. Undoubtedly, the stand up speech of the debate so far has been the speech by my right hon. Friend, the speech by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Torridge and Tavistock.

He dresses like a jury. It was actually rather wonderful and he just posed a question to us, which
15:23
Edward Leigh Portrait Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)
-
-
he always posed to a jury, and which is emphasised by the judge at the end of the case, is are you the end of the case, is are you certain? Are you sure that this the trial by jury is guilty? And trial by jury is guilty? And frankly, I don't think the government has made a case so government has made a case so strongly that we can certain of of the outcome. So we are debating the outcome. So we are debating something of deep and fundamental seriousness.

No one doubts that the backlog in the criminal courts is serious. Everybody agrees and I follow the hon. Lady just spoken that justice delayed is justice denied for victims, for victims, which we would certainly always put first. And for defendants alike. Parliament, we know, has a duty to act. The question before us, however, is not whether we solve the backlog, but how we solve it. The concern many of us have is that we may be tempted to treat trial by jury as just some procedural device that can be adjusted for administrative convenience.

Leave aside the fact that there was no mention of this in any manifesto. Trial by jury is not merely a procedure of the courts. It is one of the constitutional foundations of our liberty. As William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century, trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be looked upon the glory of the English law. It would have been inconceivable to Blackstone that what he called the grand bulwark of the englishmen's liberties might be voluntarily and needlessly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

surrendered, and as briefly. What does he say about the freedom of women to walk the streets, not afraid for their physical safety? What does he say physical safety? What does he say of the freedom of women who have made allegations of rape and are waiting six years between reporting waiting six years between reporting them to the police and having a trial? Does he recognise that those liberties that matter to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

liberties that matter to. Hear here. Point, we're not debating that. Of course a backlog is wrong. This is not the right way to correct the backlog. The backlog is caused by administrative delays, if you want, by cuts in the judicial system. It is not caused by the judicial, by trial, by jury. And of course, we put defendants first. I may give way in a moment. It would have. And, you know, others, not just in our own country, have commented on this.

Alex de Tocqueville observed in 19th century, the jury places the real direction of society in the hands of the government. And that was in his book Democracy in America and the Great Republic has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

followed our example. All right. Well, gentleman accepts that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, gentleman accepts that this bill preserves jury trials. It does not abolish jury trials. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to say so is to misrepresent the case. I'm not suggesting the jury trials have been abolished. If you listen to my speech, I will say listen to my speech, I will say about people who accuse, for instance, of shoplifting. The freedom of citizen is not solely freedom of citizen is not solely determined by the state, but by his or her peers. That's the important point. The senior judge and the legal philosopher Lord Devlin captured this perfectly when he wrote, and I quote, each jury is a little Parliament.

It's the point at which the ordinary citizens participate directly in the administration of the King's justice. The existence of the jury tells the citizen that the determination of justice ultimately belongs to free people of good character, not to bureaucrats, not to officials, not to state appointed mandarins. That is why the principle has such deep historical roots in our constitutional tradition. And why this this debate is so fundamental. As long ago as 1215, Magna Carta declared that no free man shall be seized or imprisoned except by the lawful judgement of his equals, or by the law of the land.

For more than eight centuries, that principle has stood as a reminder that liberty must always be guarded against the power of the state, liberty against the power of the state. Today we are told that this safeguard must be weakened because the courts face a serious black law, a temporary a temporary administrative crisis should not lead us to dismantle a permanent constitutional protection. That is the point. And that would be the height of folly, the backlog. Will she forgive me? Because the Deputy Speaker wants me to proceed.

The backlog did not arise because juries exists. It arose because the system itself has been placed under strain for many years. And we have responsibility on this side of the House, as do others. If the courts are struggling, the answer is to repair the system rather than weaken the principle. Many sensible proposals have already been suggested restoring bigger, longer courts, sitting patterns, opening additional courtrooms, treating the backlog as a genuine national crisis requiring urgent resources. And many have pointed out the flaws in the Lord Chancellor's plan.

Several senior legal figures have written to The times, explained the proposal are, quote, unworkable. Perhaps there is one compromise possible, at least, to preserve the right of those of good character, to have an absolute jury trial. If a person of good character happened to a member of Parliament is accused of something like shoplifting, quite a minor case, it can have a devastating impact on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

life. My hon. Friend, of course, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend, of course, the other logical absurdity is this that somebody with a previous conviction may well go across the conviction may well go across the three year, the three year threshold. So those who have got a string of previous convictions will string of previous convictions will get a right to jury trial, but a person of good character will not. Under the current reforms proposed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by this government. A very fair point. You know, just think about it. I say to everybody quite seriously, look in your conscience. You're a member of Parliament. You're a person of good character. You're accused of shoplifting. What would you choose? Think? Well, you would choose trial by jury, wouldn't you? You wouldn't choose to be tried by a magistrate. So the task before us is to solve this practical problem without undermining our constitutional safeguards. The danger we face is the temptation to sacrifice a long standing liberty for the sake of short term administrative convenience.

Now, I know the Lord Chancellor. A friend of mine is a good man. He's not a villain. He approaches things with the best of intentions. This is without doubt. The problem is, we may not always have individuals as good natured and well intentioned as he is. He is trying to solve a genuine problem. We accept that, but I fear he's doing it with the wrong mindset. Constitutional safeguards are not designed for moments when power is exercised by good men. They exist precisely because future holders of power may not always be so wise or so restrained.

We have become so used to our state of freedom that we are in danger of imagining. It is the natural state of mankind. History teaches us it is not. We have reached our advanced state of structured freedom, responsible government and parliamentary democracy through centuries of slow organic growth. They grew through the common law, through Magna Carta, through Parliament, and through the principle that the community, the people, participate in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Justice Henry Tufnell. Madam Deputy Speaker the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

The question of which crimes fall into this category has been revisited periodically. The Criminal Justice
15:32
Henry Tufnell Portrait Henry Tufnell MP (Mid and South Pembrokeshire, Labour)
-
-
Act of 1988 reclassified three groups of offences common assault, taking vehicles without consent and criminal damage under a certain value. As summary only offences to be dealt with within magistrates courts without a jury. The same year, Thatcher's government passed the Road Traffic Act, which made the Road Traffic Act, which made driving whilst disqualified a summary offence. It's not new for a government to take to make choices about who can access a jury trial, reclassifying offences to reflect changes in wider society and technology.

This government is facing important choices about how to address the urgent problem of the backlog in our Crown Courts, as hon. Members have powerfully illustrated, justice is being delayed for far too many victims, witnesses and defendants. The scale of this problem demands ambitious and radical reforms, and to deny this is to undermine the impact that our broken criminal justice system has had on the lives of so many. One measure at the government's disposal when tackling the backlog is restricting the right to a jury trial, to a smaller number of offences, while jury trials only account for around 3% of criminal trial cases, they take up 60% of Crown Court hearing time.

The government's increased investment in the Magistrates' court and expansion of its powers would also help reduce the burden on the Crown Court. However, the Magistrates Court is also feeling the effects of 20 years of underinvestment, with an open caseload of over 370,000 and counting. Turning the tide on capacity pressures will take time. Also, high conviction rates in magistrates courts, alongside increased sentencing powers and the reduced right to appeal right to appeal, proposed in clauses six and seven of this bill, also risk increasing lengthier sentences and adding to our ballooning prison population.

Reducing the burden on the Crown Court is vital, but the government must be careful not to rely too heavily on lay magistrates court. In doing so, there is a practical middle way that could see swift and effective reductions in the Crown Court backlog and avoid overloading. The Lay Magistrates Court give district judges greater powers to try criminal cases. District judges are valuable and experienced members of our criminal justice system. They have years of professional experience behind them. Many sit as recorders in the Crown Court and go on to become Crown Court judges themselves.

Many also have experience of trying some of the most serious cases, such as rape, when sitting in the youth courts, so why should they not be trusted to hear more serious adult cases if their jurisdiction were increased to offences carrying up to three years in prison imprisonment, they could take on cases such as assaulting an emergency worker, dangerous driving and indecent exposure. To make this work, the right to elect jury trial would need to be limited to offences with a maximum penalty above three years.

This is slightly more than Sir Brian Leveson recommendation of two years and the effect would be immediate. Far fewer cases sent to the Crown Court. Quicker hearings before an experienced district judge, fewer unnecessary referrals to the Crown Court, and more time for the Crown Court to focus on more serious crime. This would still require important choices to be made about the right to a jury trial itself. The government could reduce the maximum sentence for certain offences currently set between 3 and 5 years, offences where sentences above three years rely are rarely imposed.

That would allow them to fall within the jurisdiction of district judges. Critics may say this looks soft on crime, but in truth it simply reflects the sentencing reality. For example, actual bodily harm under section 47 carries five years, but 98% of custodial sentences between 2020 and 2024 were for three years or less. The knife and offensive weapon and offensive weapon offences. The average sentence length is just eight months. These offences could also reasonably have their maximum sentence reduced to three years, thus restricting the right to elect a jury trial.

I refer to Scotland's sheriff courts as a useful model. Like district judges, sheriffs are legally qualified and experienced and have the capacity to handle both low and mid level offences between sheriff courts and the lay justices of the peace courts. The majority of local criminal business is covered, reserving the High Courts for more serious cases. If we want justice delivered quickly and fairly, we must use every tool at our disposal. So I ask my right hon. Friend, would he consider expanding the powers of district judges as part of this government's ambitious plan to invest in and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reform our jury, our justice system? Gideon Amos. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my hon. Friend for Chichester for hon. Friend for Chichester for defending trial by jury, which has been a long standing right, albeit only in certain circumstances. It only in certain circumstances. It is a right that people have enjoyed and which we should think very and which we should think very seriously before taking it away. 100 senior barristers and cases have written to the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, to urge him that taking away this right for those cases would be an irredeemable error amongst all of the others who have criticised this move, magistrates have told me when I visited magistrates court in my constituency of their challenges recruiting, which must place serious doubts on the assumptions that have been made about the savings in time that would result from this bill.

And I have serious concerns also about the removal of the right to appeal those cases in the Crown Court. But Madam Deputy Speaker I'd like to spend I will give a.
15:37
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Hon. Member for. fundamentally opposed to restricting jury trials, with around 90% of criminal barristers against these proposals. This was not in Labour's manifesto, and there has been an admittance that the plans are ideological rather than practical. Weakening trial by jury will not solve the crisis in our courts and risks undermining a safeguard that has protected our justice system for over 800 years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would he agree? I do agree with the hon. Member, and she is absolutely right that the problem with these reforms is the problem with these reforms is they're not going to speed up the criminal justice system, they're not going to solve the backlog issues. We all we've rehearsed all the challenges that that system faces. We know what they are. They need to be addressed. Abolishing trial by jury for those affected will not will not do that. But, will not will not do that.

But, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may, I'd like to spend a few minutes on an alternative area which is missing opportunity, which is a missed opportunity of this bill, which is the state of our immigration and immigration and asylum system, which we all know. The Conservatives left in an appalling state. The asylum backlog more than doubled in just two years, from 70,000 to 166,000 people waiting in 2022. Instead of processing those, the Conservatives opened over 400 asylum hotels. As the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

began clearing up the. Can I suggest the hon. Gentleman might like to stay within scope of this bill, rather than discussing asylum hotels? Gideon Amos.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point I'm wishing to make is that this bill should address the this bill should address the challenge of the immigration system. The government has a parallel proposal with this bill, which is proposal with this bill, which is to bring in replace immigration tribunals with assist a new appeal system and abolish that system, which should, I believe, be debated in this House and is relevant to this bill. But I will go quickly through my points on that, not to not to irritate the Madam Deputy Speaker on that issue.

This bill would be an important opportunity to address that system. Madam Deputy Speaker I'm concerned that the creation of a new body and abolishing the appeals tribunal is not the right approach. It will devalue the appeal judges, the the tribunal judges who are ready and available to, to, to to sit and hear more cases. I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of an extra 26,000 sitting days for that chamber. But extra days are not going to be useful if there are not enough judges to do them.

And in the words of the judge who wrote to me, there are not enough judges. And if the Home Office does not do the work quicker at their end, which is where the delay is, it will make no difference. There are enough judges, but we need them to be allowed to sit more than to 220 capped days to deal with the backlog. I tabled a written question on this, but people judge asylum, asylum and immigration tribunal judges are prevented from being paid more than exceeding more than salary judges, and therefore there is an effective cap on their sitting.

Those are the kind of issues that we need to deal with, as well as dealing with the backlog in the criminal courts, as well as allowing our courts to be used and and sittings two times a day, Am and PM. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has explained, those are the kind of measures that would speed up the criminal justice system, not the abolition of trial by jury for those cases that would be affected. And it's some points have been made in this debate about the fact that trial by jury is not necessarily exactly a constitutional right in all cases, and we understand that.

But I don't think it helps the argument of those who are seeking to abolish it for certain cases to denigrate trial by jury as something that's unimportant or a minor right. Looking back, it's been called, in case law, a highly valued part of our unwritten constitution going back to the 18th century. Lord Justice Camden said it was the foundation of our free constitution in the 20th century. Lord Justice Devlin said it's a lamp that shows us where justice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lives. It is a of course I will. Gentleman for. Giving way, and I fully agree that it is a hugely important part that it is a hugely important part of our justice system to have jury trials. But would the hon. Gentleman agree that we have seen Gentleman agree that we have seen summary? Either way, offences and indictable only, and how that is classified has altered over the classified has altered over the years. It has changed in the 70s. It was changed in the 80s.

And it is incorrect to try and portray our legal system as one that has unchanged for 800 years. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course I of course I accept. The legal system has evolved and changed, and the right to trial by changed, and the right to trial by jury has changed. But my concern is that for for cases where you could that for for cases where you could be imprisoned for up to two years, where your reputation could be destroyed, they are serious cases. You would want to be tried by jury. You would want to have the opportunity to call for that. And that's what our legal system

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's what our legal system currently protects. And that's what would be swept away by this bill, of course. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. We already have judges who make decisions on cases where parents where children are where parents where children are taken away from parents. Does he not consider those to be serious not consider those to be serious cases? And 90% of cases are dealt with by magistrates. Does he say that justice is not achieved in those cases?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those cases? Yeah. Of course magistrates do a vitally important job. And as I said, when I visited magistrates in my constituency, what they're explaining to me is they seriously doubt they'll be able to recruit and expand the numbers of people sufficient to meet the estimates of the costs of the time savings made by the Department for justice. I will conclude Madam Deputy Speaker simply by saying, for me a case that in principle for up to three years and up to two years by magistrates are serious enough to warrant the request, the right being given to the defendant to request a trial by jury.

That's what the current law protects us with. That's what we should hold on to, and that's what we should defend as a guarantee of our liberty in this House and in the country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Natalie Fleet here. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to start by pointing out that in this debate, we have called for debate, we have called for barristers to speak than we have called women. It would be wrong of called women. It would be wrong of us to not realise that we are the absolute epitome of the British
15:44
Natalie Fleet Portrait Natalie Fleet MP (Bolsover, Labour)
-
-
absolute epitome of the British establishment. I have never come across as many barristers in my life before I came here, the only time I ever saw a barrister was when I was helping a loved one who faced trial. This is the reality of the real world. We are more likely to have victims watching on than have victims on our benches. What has been lacking from this debate is the voices of victims. We've heard about the Bar Council. We've heard lots of references to men.

I want to speak to you about Claire Waxman, who emailed every single MP and said, I want you to listen to the victims, their voices, their stories and the realities of the rapes. Sorry, the weights that they endure. We've got a system in this country where you can rape somebody and get away with it. It happens every single day. For too long, society has told women that it is their fault that they have been raped, that nobody will believe them if they do report.

So five out of six of them don't. And if they do go to trial, they will face years of retraumatization, which is why 60% drop out. I can tell you from personal experience, you know what's worse than being raped? Facing years. Of waiting to see if people believe you. So we've all got a role to play in eradicating our rape culture, but today we see the state stepping up for victims, making sure that they are supported and believed by our institutions, harnessing the nation's sense of urgency to do more, smashing the status quo by cutting the standard half a decade wait for justice, knowing that if we don't invest and modernise our court system, everything else is just tinkering around the edges.

A young woman came up to me last week. Her name was Sienna and she said to me, Natalie, I just don't get it. And you do. What is happening? This is just complete common sense to everybody. I speak to everybody at work. I'm a police officer. I just don't get it. Where's the catch? And why are people so angry? And so what I want to do now is talk you through the arguments for the status quo to remain. So. We keep hearing that we need more money.

We're having record investment. And I tell you what, it is not enough. Trials by jury are part of our history, but we have to adapt. When trials are taking twice as long as they did in the year 2000. We need to keep up to judges alone. Can't hear trials. We've already heard about district judges and the work that they do. You need a jury of peers. Now I want to point out the bravest woman I look up to, Giselle Pellico. Nobody questions the legitimacy of her trial.

Now, I am not saying that we abolish jury trials, but I am saying that if we create capacity and protect juries for the most serious trials, I will do everything I can to get as many rapists as I can in those courts. You will hear that this is a class issue and yes, it is. This is a victims versus the establishment that we are hearing far too much from today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. Here we hear about. Imagine if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here we hear about. Imagine if this was you. Put yourself in the place of the defendant and imagine place of the defendant and imagine how it would feel. I am instead asking you to put yourself in the shoes of the victim, because a shoes of the victim, because a quarter of us women become one. This is not about denying anybody This is not about denying anybody justice. This is about enabling victims and innocent parties to have a more efficient path to getting that justice.

So once again, courage calls to courage everywhere. I call on our government to replicate the courage of victims and use it to get justice system moving so that we can be the bold disruptors, smashing the status quo, taking the difficult choices, taking on the arguments and delivering for victims victims across the land that need leadership and decisive action. Rebalancing power between victims and perpetrators. I back these reforms not because I am made to, but because they are right.

Because I want my granddaughter to grow up in a world where women can be believed, get fast justice, and move on with their lives. So I tell the 200 women in this country that will be raped today, I am sorry that you will have to wait until 2030 for trial, but today we're doing something about it and I am so proud to walk through those lobbies on your behalf.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Hey. Doctor Neil Shastri-Hurst. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And it's a pleasure Deputy Speaker. And it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady who, although on an opposite side of the debate to myself, always speaks debate to myself, always speaks with huge passion on these issues. I should start with a couple of declarations. Firstly, my wife is a sitting employment judge and therefore the tribunal element of course pertains to her. And like course pertains to her.

And like many honourable and right hon. Members in this chamber, immediately prior to coming into this place, I was a barrister and I maintain my practising certificate. So I hope the hon. Lady will indulge me pontificating on this issue for a few moments. And whilst I was not a criminal barrister, I did do significant amount of inquest work and so I had, I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, they are the most remarkable, ordinary people who give up their time for civic engagement.

They sit there quietly listening to the evidence, they take their role seriously, and they sit in
15:50
Neil Shastri-Hurst Portrait Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Solihull West and Shirley, Conservative)
-
-
judgement and make findings of fact. And that is a huge constitutional And that is a huge constitutional principle. We've talked about rights, and I'm not going to pretend there is an innate right to pretend there is an innate right to a trial by jury, but there is a firm constitutional principle about ensuring that justice isn't merely ensuring that justice isn't merely done to the public, but it is done with the public. We all know the with the public. We all know the problem with the court backlogs.

I mean, it would be a farce to pretend that this was not a significant and serious issue. It is a failure. It is a failure of the states that we have got to this place. It is a failure of successive governments, and we recognise that across the board. But the question that we have to ask ourselves, the question that we have to ask ourselves, is not whether trial by jury should be abandoned. It's whether these reforms, these reforms before this House, with the scrutiny that's been provided with the impact assessment that accompanies with it, is sufficient evidence to make such a constitutional reform to this country.

And what we are asking, what we are asking is very clear, and we have to be honest about it. We are asking for a shift in the balance between the state and its people, and if we are going to do that, that may lead to inequality before the law. Take the prime example that my right hon. And learned friend raised, where you have two individuals who, on a factual matrix, did precisely the same crime, they appear before the courts, but one has a string of previous convictions.

Are we really saying, are we really saying that they should be denied the opportunity for a for a jury trial if they had not previously been of bad character? That is a nonsense. It is a nonsense and it doesn't achieve what we are, what we should be seeking to do. The further point, of course, is that if we're making such a constitutional change on the basis of dealing with the backlog in the criminal courts, why is there no sunset clause to this? Why are we not saying that this is to change, to shift the dial and to move it forward? But we recognise that this should not be a blanket, a blank check for for the state.

We should be recognising that if this has to be done, and I don't believe it does, but if this has to be done, it should be done on a limited basis. Because if we are to change a right that is older than most institutions within this country, the least Parliament should do is is do it based on more than just an assumption that is in the impact assessment. And I want to come on to the modelling because it was raised by my hon.

Friend, the Shadow Justice Secretary, on the 3rd of February, I raised a question with the Lord Chancellor in this House in respect of the 20% reduction in court hearings, and he gave me a very clear, clear answer. He said that you accepted the findings of Sir Brian Leveson, but the government would publish its own modelling alongside the bill. Well, page ten of the impact assessment is very clear. They have adopted the government, have adopted Sir Brian assumption. That is an assumption that is not modelling.

There is a distinct difference. Analysis is helpful, but modelling is critical. And if we are weighing up the evidence base for this, we have to have more than modelling than analysis alone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. Yeah. I'm very. Grateful to my hon. Friend, what are. The issues? I wondered if.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The issues? I wondered if. He could just give us his views on as a practitioner that hasn't yet been mentioned. The debate is the usefulness of juries in protection of the institution of the judiciary. At the moment, if there's a string of sentencing there's a string of sentencing which the government or politicians don't like, there's not a lot they can do about it. If it's judges who can do about it. If it's judges who are handing out those sentences, then they will come under direct political attack, as unfortunately, we do see from time to time and that that distance and that insulation that a jury gives is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just a protection for the citizen, but also for the judiciary and its integrity ongoing. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I'm very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. And he is right. There is a reason judges wear a wig. There is a reason barristers wear a wig and gown. It is to provide a shield gown. It is to provide a shield between the arm of the law and the and and the citizen, and to to to and and the citizen, and to to to dilute that would fundamentally upset the settlement that has been reached over hundreds and hundreds.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of years. And on that point. I will give way. I thank my hon. And learned friend for drawing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That point. We've also heard much argument that somehow reducing down to one judge would be a fairer and less biased system, but as a and less biased system, but as a woman, I don't feel that one. And we have to be honest with ourselves. Likely man who does not share my Likely man who does not share my life experiences is more likely to be less biased than a jury of my peers. And actually, if the peers. And actually, if the government really wants to tackle this, they need simply turn to page 67 of their own manifesto, where they promise fast track rape cases with specialist courts for every Crown Court location.

Surely that would be a better location, making sure that women, when they give evidence, are hearing from a jury of their peers who are more likely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to gather to understand their life experiences than one individual. Yeah. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and she is right that firstly, there is the argument that this is of such constitutional significance that it should have been in the manifesto. Secondly, there's the argument that there was a proposal within the there was a proposal within the manifesto that the government are not bringing forward. And thirdly, this is about getting the right this is about getting the right settlement for the public and being judged by a body of their peers on the evidence before them, as opposed to a a distant or perhaps at times appearing an aloof judge fails to achieve that balance.

And what we're being asked today, of course, is to curtail a constitutional safeguard that has been apparent for so many years. And it goes much further than Sir Brian's report. There were many good things in Sir Brian's report, but this, of course, goes much further than any of his suggestions. And we have to ask the question, what are the real? What are the real issues? Well, the real issues are very plain to see. There are too few judges. There are too few advocates able to prosecute or defend the cases.

There's too few

**** Possible New Speaker ****

functioning courtrooms. Removing jury trials won't fix any of that at all. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. And there is a further issue that the government have failed to address, which is around the recruitment of magistrates. We know recruitment of magistrates. We know that in this country, recruitment cycles of magistrates have have often not returned. The numbers often not returned. The numbers that have been required. The presumption must be that the reason the government didn't adopt Sir Brian's recommendation of having two magistrates as wing members was because they knew they couldn't recruit sufficient number of magistrates to deal with it.

Well, that's logic on that front. But if you're pushing more courts down in more cases down into the magistrates court, who is going to be able to hear them and listen to them, who's going to be able to draw those conclusions? And the final point that I will make, very briefly is it pertains to parliamentary scrutiny. This bill is going to be rushed through this House. It's going to be rushed through committee a mere five days, a mere five days in committee of such constitutional importance, such constitutional importance.

There is strong feeling across the House both for and against these proposals. Would it not be wiser? Would it not be wiser in such circumstances to adopt an approach, as we do for the Armed Forces Bill, for example, where we have a Select Committee of the House, with with those members who have experience within the law, have experiences of being victims to scrutinise this, to come back with a report and then do Report stage on the floor of the House so that the country can know that we have given this the due regard that it deserves.

There is a reason that jury trials have endured, and it's because it commands the the trust of the public. It ensures that the law is exercised with public participation. And if the if the government believes in diluting that right, then they must provide the evidence for that change. And thus far they have failed to do so.
15:59
Charlotte Nichols Portrait Charlotte Nichols MP (Warrington North, Labour)
-
-
I propose to put a five minute >> I propose to put a five minute time limit on from after the next speaker, Charlotte Nicholls. >> Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I've thought very long and hard about speaking today. I'll allow honourable and right hon. Members honourable and right hon. Members from the legal profession to make the legal arguments better than I can and those who rightly have procedural or rights based concerns for defendants that I share to raise those I trust those points will be satisfactorily covered. But I wanted to focus my remarks on a particular perspective that I feel has been too often ventriloquised in this debate, and I hope the House will be gentle with me in doing so.

I have spoken before in this place about having PTSD as the result of being the victim of a crime, but I have never specified the nature of that crime, and in doing so, I'm aware that I am waiving my right to anonymity and the personal consequences that come along with that. I care profoundly about rape victims facing intolerable delays for their day in court. I know only too well what that feels like, as after being raped at an event that I attended in my capacity as a member of Parliament, I waited 1088 days to go to court.

Every single one of those days was agony, made worse by having a role in public life. That meant that the mental health consequences of my trauma were played out in public, with the event that led to my eventual sectioning for my own safety still being something that I receive regular social media abuse from strangers about to this day. But here's the kicker in this debate, experiences like mine feel like they've been weaponized and are being used for rhetorical misdirection, for what this bill actually is.

The violence against women and girls sector haven't had the opportunity to come together to discuss it, and the government's framing and narrative has been to pit survivors and defendants against each other in a way I think is deeply damaging. We have been told that if we have concerns about this bill, it is because we have not been raped or because we don't care enough for rape victims. The opposite is true. In my case, it is because I have been raped that I'm as passionate as I am about what it means for a justice system to be truly victim focussed, it is because I have endured every indignity that our broken criminal justice system could mete out, that I care what kind of reform will actually deliver justice for survivors and victims of crime.

More widely, we promised in our manifesto specialist rape courts. This bill isn't that the transition away from jury trials in certain cases might itself take up operational time, with changes to an already overstretched system entrenching issues and delays? The timeline for these changes to take effect is 2829. We know what works as it's already happening in a few key areas, including pioneering work in Liverpool and Preston Crown Courts in the northwest. This is a bearing down on waiting lists that could be taking place in months, not years.

Proven meaningful and significant reductions in waiting times for complainants and defendants rather than speculative unevidenced reductions that the Institute for government says could be as little as 1 to 2%. And coming years down the track, it's worth saying the Bar Council believes that even that 1 to 2% reduction is wishful thinking. So we risk offering false hope to rape victims rather than real change. We know that juries are more diverse than the judiciary, and an unattended consequence of these changes could be that women from minoritized backgrounds are less likely to come forward, not more.

Juries do not make perfect decisions, but neither do judges. An unintended consequence of measures which enabled pre-recorded evidence has meant significant slippage in case handling, which is where the most significant procedural delays are. A clear reprioritisation is needed here, alongside the expansion of recorders in cases. The second thing to say is that this bill does little for when a rape victim actually comes to court. I still have almost as many nightmares about my experience in the witness stand as I do about my rape.

The defence barrister, who had previously faced investigation after a witness took her own life following cross-examination in a rape case, doesn't seem to have learnt much from that experience and went for me in a way that undermined all the progress I'd made in therapy and led me to blame myself for his eventual acquittal. We need far greater safeguards for those giving evidence, and actually we need a reframing of the fact that legally, you're a witness in your own trial.

It is wild to me that we're still arguing, after many years about your right to a free transcript of your own trial, particularly as the recent move to allow access to sentencing remarks does nothing to help with closure for those whose cases, sadly, do not end up in a conviction, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know firsthand the strength that she is showing in making this that she is showing in making this speech, and why it matters that we are confident that what we bring are confident that what we bring forward actually will change this situation, that we will not go down rabbit holes and be distracted by changing juries. But we will ruthlessly focus on the victims experience. I want to speak on behalf of everybody in this chamber in saying we are with her every step of the way and so proud of her today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend. Despite the third thing to say is that closure for me began following a closure for me began following a successful civil process following the acquittal. My rapist may not be considered to have met the criminal threshold for guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and is out there on the streets as a free man, while I live with the life sentence of what he did to me. But what has been established at a civil standard of proof is what happened.

standard of proof is what happened. It found that I had been raped and a compensation order was made that recognises me as the blameless victim of a violent crime. Despite the recommendations of the review, we are still nowhere on civil remedy, including movement on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, reform tariffs that have shamefully not been upgraded with inflation since 2012, and which has no eligibility for non-contact sexual offences that can cause significant and lasting harm. Finally, the VAWG sector has been underinvested in for such a significant period that the best things we can do to both drive down waiting times and improve the experience of victims requires money.

The Treasury remains unwilling to adequately cough up. I welcome the announcement of independent legal advisers, but the £6 million that sits alongside this is woefully inadequate. I could not have made it all the way to trial without my esfa jazz, whose support saved my life. But I had to wait seven months to be allocated one. Given how under-resourced this system is, that's not good enough. I have enormous respect for many of my frontbench colleagues, in particular the hon. Members for Pontypridd and for Birmingham Yardley.

But it feels from where I'm sitting that despite their best efforts and the publication of our groundbreaking VAWG strategy, there is so much that we can be doing for rape victims that isn't the Lord Chancellor using them as a cudgel to drive through reforms that aren't directly relevant to them as a starting point rape crisis England and Wales have called for five key demands in their Living in Limbo report. Don't say that this bill helps deliver justice for rape victims until it actually, materially does.
16:06
Sarah Pochin Portrait Sarah Pochin MP (Runcorn and Helsby, Reform UK)
-
-
Hey Sarah Pochin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I speak today in favour of the reasoned amendment in the name of the reform UK MPs. Whilst it hasn't been picked, I would like to draw hon. Member's attention to the wording, particularly the right to be tried by one's peers, having been an essential part of UK freedoms for centuries. As a magistrate of 20 years and a chairman of the court for 17 of those years, I hope I have something to offer to this debate.

In that 20 years I was part of a judicial process that saw myself always with two fellow magistrates, said many defendants to prison. I will never forget the first time I was part of a bench that sent someone to prison. I can still see that young man's face today and see his distraught parents at the back of the court. I had to fight back my own tears as a mother, feeling for his mother and her pain, and knowing the life changing impact our decision would have on that young man's life.

I should say I did toughen up pretty quickly. I also found myself on many occasions, chairing a trials court that would inevitably start late or end up with magistrates twiddling their thumbs when trials cracked or fell apart. This could be for a variety of reasons, but often due to last minute pleas by defendants presented with irrefutable evidence or failings of the CPS, the Crown Prosecution Service, to prepare adequately for the case. The process in the Magistrates Court is already inefficient, and a sizeable backlog of cases exists.

Reportedly, over 370,000. It is worth pointing out that a magistrates bench operates as a mini jury, always, with three magistrates sitting on a trial to ensure a majority verdict and therefore represents trial by the people, not the state, be in no doubt a prison sentence of up to three years will change someone's life forever. A prison sentence of that length will mean the loss of employment, and therefore the loss of one's ability to pay a mortgage or rent, often resulting in the loss of one's home, which may in turn lead to a family being made homeless.

A prison sentence often means the break up of a family with permanent damage inflicted on the partner and children in that family, whether that be by becoming outcasts in their community, being bullied at school, or by adopting learned behaviour and offending themselves later in life. For one individual, one judge to have the power and to be the only perspective in administering a prison sentence is not justice. Furthermore, a single justice acting alone may come under pressure from politicians not to send defendants to prison due to a lack of prison space available, regardless as to whether that defendant should in fact receive a custodial sentence.

There may also be cases where a single justice is more lenient towards defendants of ethnic minorities, for fear of being called racist. If custodial sentences are frequently given by that judge to those defendants from ethnic minorities, regardless as to whether as to the demographics of that court area. With this bill, there is no scrutiny of a judge, no ability to question that judge's decision, no majority vote. A life changing prison sentence can be given on the judgement of an individual with a single perspective and prejudice, without any checks and balances, the state will be administering justice, not the people.

Everyone deserves the right to trial by their peers. In this bill, the government is removing trial by jury for serious crimes which attract prison sentences up to three years. These could be serious domestic violence incidents, sexual assault, theft, fraud and so on. This bill is intended to speed up justice and cut court waiting lists, but there is no credible evidence to suggest that this would be achieved. Under these changes. Courts need investment and to be run more efficiently. In order to speed up justice, solicitors need to be on time and ready for trial.

So much of the delays caused in the process before the case even comes before a jury. These proposals are the exact opposite of justice. These proposals go against the foundations of law and order in this country.
16:11
Jon Trickett Portrait Jon Trickett MP (Normanton and Hemsworth, Labour)
-
-
Jon Trickett Parliament. When I >> Jon Trickett Parliament. When I was working for a living, rather than being here as a building worker, if there was a backlog of worker, if there was a backlog of work, we were told to work through the night on weekends and not on very much additional pay. And I wonder how it is that today in our country, one tenth of all the courts are not even sitting with the backlog, which the Deputy Prime Minister has told us about.

Many of the people have spoken about why is it that when there is a backlog, manual workers, as I was, are made to work hard and rightly so, to catch up? And why is it the barristers, the judges, the solicitors and all the other accoutrements of a court are simply said, well, we'll actually make it easier for you by reducing the amount of juries which are going to be held. It's rather odd. And the deputy Prime Minister. No. I'm going. I've got five minutes.

I've got to move fast. The deputy Prime Minister did convince me, and I'm sure all of us, that there is a backlog and it's not reasonable or fair in terms of justice, that people should wait so long. And obviously, we've heard some very powerful speeches from victims today which reinforce the case. But what it hasn't done is shown to my satisfaction that the cause of the backlog is the juries. And in fact, there is much evidence to say that that is a marginal impact.

At the most, the cause of the backlog is all sorts of things, including the failure of the courts to meet for long enough hours as the rest of the country working people have to do all over the country. But so let me just reflect for a moment on the on back to basics, in a sense, about why are juries are in place. And I think it's to do with this. The Crown has the power, uniquely, to imprison people, to deprive them of their liberty.

That is a massively powerful capacity, which no other organisation has. Now the question is, in a case where the Crown or in this case the government acts on behalf of the Crown is operating in a way which is unreasonable, unfair or even oppressive. What the people who are facing imprisonment have is the jury system. 12 people drawn from the citizenry of our country at random, able to speak and to make a decision. Finally, as to whether the whether the Crown has made a case that that person should be imprisoned, that is a fundamental part of our constitutional system and the idea somehow that we should begin to abandon it is a mistaken one.

Now, some member States. Hon. Members today have said, well, we've done it in the past, but making the mistakes in the past doesn't justify continuing to make state make mistakes in the present at all. And I haven't heard a case made actually in principle, that juries are a bad thing. It's just reducing them. Now my further and one further point which I want to just raise, is this question of how did the backlog occur? And no case has been made again, that the backlog occurred through some sort of permanent strategic problem with the way in which our judicial system works.

It's the product of a series of cuts in the past by both parties, both governments, to be honest, failure in a number of ways, privatisation and all sorts of other issues. But if it's the case that these are contingent changes rather than permanent, then why would you destroy an element of the jury, the jury system, when in fact this is a temporary problem which could be resolved if the deputy Prime Minister would come here and said, the world has changed, the country has changed our way of looking at the judicial system has to be reformed.

He would have a case, maybe. I wouldn't necessarily agree with it, but he hasn't said that. He said this is a contingent problem. So the thing is, one of the things I use regularly when I was working for a living was something called a ratchet. I don't know if the DPM has ever used one, but a ratchet is a device which only moves in one direction. And what we've had over the centuries, and I've used them many times, is a ratchet in terms of the protections which citizens have through the jury system from an oppressive government.

Now, if the deputy Prime Minister had come to the House and said, I'm going to do some things which are extraordinary but temporary, until we get over this problem, dealing with the problems facing all the victims, I might well prepared to listen to him, but he hasn't said that. What he's just said is this is a permanent change to the way we do things. I am not convinced this is oppressive. It's authoritarian. And quite honestly, Deputy Prime Minister as much admire. It's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reactionary to Katie Lam. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We've heard a great deal from those We've heard a great deal from those on the government benches about the necessity of these court reforms. They say that in order to tackle They say that in order to tackle the backlog in our courts, we need to kerb jury trials. But previous statements from Ministers betray statements from Ministers betray the government's true intentions. On the 7th of January, standing at that despatch box, the Minister for
16:17
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
that despatch box, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services said I quote people ask me, Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts? I say, yes, it would be bad enough to attack the time honoured right to a jury trial in the name of administrative efficiency, to do so for ideological reasons, without candidly making that ideological case to the public is a disgrace. The British people can see what's really going on. The government wants to kerb jury trials because they don't trust the public.

They think that judges know best and would rather that the justice system were run entirely by them. We know this to be the case because whenever the government has a choice to make between the British people and their friends in the legal profession, that on the side of the lawyers, every single time we saw this judges know best approach in the Prime Minister's disastrous Chagos giveaway. We see it on asylum, immigration and the we see it in their plans to allow prosecutions of veterans who fought in Northern Ireland.

And now we see it in these plans to kerb jury trials. But Madam Deputy Speaker jury trials exist for a reason. They're designed to ensure the judiciary can never stray too far away from the public's conception of justice and fairness. At a time when public trust in the judiciary is low, can it really be sensible to take away this crucial backstop? To take just a single example of the divergence between public morality and judicial opinion? According to research conducted by the Free Speech Union, there is a huge gap between the successes of free speech based defences in judge led cases and in cases heard by a jury in judge only cases at the magistrates courts.

Free speech defences succeeded in just 16% of cases. In Crown Court cases where juries very often sit, free speech defences succeeded in 28% of cases. There is a clear divergence between the public's appreciation of justice and the views of the judicial establishment. The result of this government's plans will be to further alienate the public, and to drag the justice system further away from the views of the British people. If that's what they want, then they should at least be straightforward about it.
16:19
Lee Barron Portrait Lee Barron MP (Corby and East Northamptonshire, Labour)
-
-
Lee Barron. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I mean, first Deputy Speaker. And I mean, first of all, let me just say just how incredible it's been today and pay tribute to those who have been felt able enough and brave enough and courageous enough to give us their personal circumstances, and also to those that have been in the gallery and those that are still are in the gallery. In relation to the campaigners who have come along today to see, you know, us debate something that's going to make their campaigns successful.

And I think that's the thing for me. And it goes back to what the Member for Kingston upon Hull East said no Second Reading, no bill. So if you want to keep the good bits, you've got to keep the bill. If you want to change the bits that the Member for Kingston upon Hull East was saying, then you've got to give it that Second Reading in order to get it through to committee. And that's what I probably think now that we should do. I'm going to begin by declaring that I was a magistrate for 20 years.

I stood down in 2023 when I became selected as the candidate for Corby and East Northamptonshire. And I think the case for reforming our justice system has been made. Each time a victim waits months for justice, they've been failed and trust is lost. Justice delayed is justice diminished. And I want to thank the Minister for spending some time with me in relation to discussions around this issue. And I welcome, you know, many of the things that we spoke about, including getting numbers of magistrates back up to the level in which they were.

I think in order to get that backlog done, we might have to look at the amount of buildings that they closed, because once a magistrates court is full, it's full, so we may well need to do that. My own constituency, our courthouse was closed along with our police station. Kettering lost theirs, we lost theirs, Towcester lost theirs. And the reality is that justice don't feel too close to people any longer. There are some concerns which I've spoken to the to the Minister about.

I just want to come come back on a couple of things, though. First of all, in relation to the amendment that the official opposition's putting forward, where it talks about the right of people to elect what court they go to. So if they're in a magistrates court, they can elect to go to the Crown Court. 20 years I was a magistrate and never saw one person do that, never once, because there's consequences of doing it. And that is because a judge has got a greater sentencing powers than a magistrates court.

But I have to say this in relation to people howling about the fact that it's somehow being taken away in Scotland. You can't elect what court you go to, the court decides what court you're in or what court you're going to. So I don't see too much wrong as far as that proposal is, is, is concerned, just in terms of where there are concerns. I think that they're being raised today, and I think they've been raised before today. I've expressed concerns about defendants causing delays.

As I've just said, I didn't really see much evidence about that, but don't really see a need to stand in the way of the change that's being proposed. The constitutional right to trial exists as far as beyond three years, but we need to look at that period within. That wasn't what Leveson recommended, and also as well the various other concerns that I expressed. But let me also say this. Those who don't want to see any change at all, I'll say that position is not acceptable.

Yeah, not for victims, not for workers in the sector, not for our constituents either. Our system must deliver justice that is fair, timely and trusted. And also to those who think that this is the end of the process. But I've been getting things through saying, this is D-Day today. MPs are going to scrap this, that and the other. This isn't the case. This is the Second Reading. Once we get it, once it goes through Second Reading, which I think that it will, then we can start to look into the detail of exactly what's there and make the changes that the Member for Kingston upon Hull East raised earlier on.

I believe that there should be some changes. I believe that there's a view across the House, that there should be some changes, and that the government will work with colleagues across the House to produce a bill that members can feel comfortable supporting, that strengthens trust in our justice system and that delivers justice for victims.
16:23
Liz Saville Roberts Portrait Rt Hon Liz Saville Roberts MP (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Liz Saville-Roberts. underinvestment have caused a crisis across our legal and justice systems, and I, I really would commend some of the people who've commend some of the people who've spoken earlier on, particularly the hon. Members for Bolsover and Warrington North in their experiences. It takes immense courage to put those experiences on record and to stand up in the chamber to say that they came at this from a different point of view, but I have immense respect for them because, of course, it is what we should be doing here.

Victims and survivors. It's their voices, their stories and their needs that should be at the hearts of the justice system. And they are, as we know, are facing unacceptable delays to justice. The government, of course, must speed the process. Only the state can do this. It is only through the state that the citizen can get justice. There is an undeniable need for reform, and I must say that the second part of this bill does include immensely important interventions that will make a real difference to victims.

I just mentioned the the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement, measures related to disability of evidence and special measures as well in court. Those are really to be welcomed. The question which we are all debating, though, is to the degree to which clauses 1 to 7 of this bill are the way to achieve the major reforms in the speeding up. That's the question. So removing the right to trial, to jury trial for triable either way cases and imposing a single judge model are serious changes to individual rights.

We've heard this already, and they go beyond, as we've also heard, that which Sir Brian Leveson recommended that the government should do to address court backlogs, increased risks of bias, miscarriages of justice, increased risk of safety to judges, increased pressure on, and the availability to of even legal aid services. So while nobody denies that action is necessary, we have got to bear in mind that the Institute of Government estimates that the bill's measures will only save between 7 and 10% of total court time.

We judge only trials, only saving 1.5 to 2.5%. There is little concrete evidence that this is the right sort of changes to make what we want to achieve. We fear that this is not going to be achieved by these measures, and I would like very much just to turn specifically to Wales, because these problems are not the same everywhere across the England and Wales jurisdiction either. For example, Welsh Crown courts make up only a small proportion of the overall court backlog.

Indeed, the Lady Chief Justice has said that Wales is disposing of wait for it more Crown Court cases than it receives, suggesting our Crown Court backlog is actually going down. And the legal reform charity justice points towards Welsh Crown Court measures to increase efficiency when faced with Covid era backlogs, as examples of practical steps that have helped keep clearance rates high. So rather than restricting a fundamental public right in order to tackle a problem, what would be useful in Wales is action to tackle the operational issues which we all know about, which are facing our courts.

Instead, better data tracking, modern systems, improved pay, addressing the Tory court closures, proper building maintenance. Some of these things are pretty boring, but we're not going to make a difference until we actually address these. In fact, what we fear is these this bill's measures could make things worse. In Wales, while there are 2663 outstanding cases at the Crown Court in Wales, as of December 2024, there were nearly 12,000 outstanding cases in magistrates courts where we already have serious capacity challenges, which are likely they look set to increase as a direct result of this bill's provisions.

We already also have serious challenges in Wales in recruiting magistrates, especially recruiting magistrates, especially Welsh magistrates. So I believe the hon. Member for this seems to me for an untested new change, this, this gravity that a pilot scheme is exactly what we should be moving ahead for. If we are going to be looking at changes to jury jury trials at all, because then we will actually know what the effect will be. A pilot scheme with a sunset clause, rather than bringing in changes that will break the system everywhere.

For what we actually see as being an urban English problem, it is undeniable that there is a crisis within the court system and we need changes to address it, but we need different solutions to address different problems and different areas. We do not need to break something in which there is so much trust. At a time when trust in politics and I fear possibly trust in the law as well, is something that we should be doing everything within our power to protect Emma Foody.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I've spoken in this place before about my previous experience before being elected as a before being elected as a magistrate, and I remember the weight of that responsibility vividly. I recall those mornings in vividly. I recall those mornings in courtrooms as we weighed up defendants circumstances and mitigation against the urgent need mitigation against the urgent need for public safety, and I've seen the sheer graft of staff who keep our legal gears turning. But I've our legal gears turning.

But I've also seen the cracks that turn into chasms. There is nothing more frustrating than sitting on a bench and seeing a case adjourned for the third or even fourth time, not because of a legal complexity, but because the system simply couldn't cope. But Madam Deputy Speaker, this isn't just about administrative efficiency, it's about people. For too long, victims have been the forgotten party in our courtrooms, treated more like pieces of evidence than human beings. And I know that the offence earlier from the shadow Justice secretary being reproached for not mentioning victims enough in his opening speech.

But I would gently suggest that maybe if he'd devoted as much time to talking about victims as he had to talking about mastermind, then he probably wouldn't have received that charge in quite that way. And the victims commissioner has been clear that survivors are currently bearing the brunt of a system under unprecedented pressure. And she's rightly pointed out that delay is the enemy of recovery. And every day that we shave off the backlog is a day that we give back to a survivor in rebuilding their life.

And I particularly welcome the measures to remove bad character evidence and the removal of assumed parental contract contact. This is a huge step for domestic abuse and sexual violence survivors and campaigners, and it is no exaggeration to say that it will save lives now. Magistrates are the backbone of our legal system, but we're also the most human element to it, drawn from everyday people from all walks of life teachers, retirees, neighbours volunteering to give something back to the community and to deliver justice locally.

We move the system away from feeling like something that is far removed and distant from our communities. A private club, even alien and abstract from most people's lives and move it towards what it should be a public service for every citizen. And I know that the magistrate, the Magistrates Association, remarks that these proposals are a vote of confidence in our magistracy. It is therefore surprising to hear the opposition sudden change of heart as back in 2022, when they increased sentencing powers to 12 months, the impact on Crown Court was undeniably positive, and it does lead you to wonder why are the benches opposite so vehemently against us increasing these powers further? Is it a matter of principle, or is it simply that it wasn't their idea? As anyone who's worked in the system knows, magistrates can implement changes quickly.

We are the speedy end of the system and we are the key to unlocking the backlog now. The government's impact assessment is striking. Increasing sentencing powers is projected to save 8000 Crown Court sitting days by 2029. And just think about that, because
16:31
Emma Foody Portrait Emma Foody MP (Cramlington and Killingworth, Labour )
-
-
that is 8000 days of judicial time redirected to the most harrowing of cases rapes, murders, serious assaults, ensuring that victims of the most complex crimes aren't left the most complex crimes aren't left languishing. For years now, in my communities, local justice has too communities, local justice has too often felt like a distant concept. But my constituents deserve to see justice delivered by people who actually understand the streets actually understand the streets that they live on. Local justice delivered by local people is how we restore trust, and it's how we deliver the fair, swift justice that communities like mine rightly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Johnson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I first should declare an And I first should declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician who has given evidence in court in in that evidence in court in in that capacity, the references to the Magna Carta are particularly profound for a Lincoln to MP, profound for a Lincoln to MP, because one of the copies, the Magna Carta in 1215, is kept in Magna Carta in 1215, is kept in Lincoln. The. My hon.

Friends of Father of the House and the right hon. Friend, the Member for Torridge, have already talked at length and very eloquently about jury trials, and why they should remain, and why removing magistrates appeal. Right. The right of appeal at Magistrates Court is the wrong thing to do, so I'm not going to focus on that during the few minutes that I have, but instead I'm going to focus on clause 17, clause 17. Madam Madam Deputy Speaker removes the presumption of involvement of parents in their child's life.

When there is dispute over who cares for a child, courts can make decisions. They can decide who a child is to live with. They can decide who has contact with the child and for how long, and when they can decide what contact that form that contact takes that's by telephone, in a supervised contact centre or face to face in person. They can also make specific decrees, such as where the child's to go to school. The law is very clear Madam Deputy Speaker when they're making these decisions, the welfare of the child is paramount.

They can take into account the child's wishes if they're old enough and capable of making decisions. In that respect, they can talk about whether the child should think about whether the child has been subject to any harm. They can talk about whether the child is at risk of further harm. They can talk about the parents capability, whether the parents are capable of providing for the needs of the child. But section one of the Children's Act 1989 is very clear that the courts must presume, unless shown otherwise, that involvement of both parents is in the child's best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interest. I will give you. Thank you. Does the honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Does the honourable. Lady agree with me that the harm review in 2020 said that that section that she mentions there creates a pro contact culture which creates a pro contact culture which puts children at risk? A review under your government which under your government which received no no response in the time post that being published.
16:34
Caroline Johnson Portrait Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
-
Caroline Johnson I thank the hon. Lady for intervention and this is why I've explained that the presumption is that the parents have involvement, but the court must take the risks to the child into consideration and unless shown otherwise, they must give contact to both parents. But if the child is at risk, the court has the absolute right to prevent the child from seeing those parents, or to restrict the contact to different types of forms and different time frames. But the welfare of the child is what is key in those decisions.

And it's in line with international law, which I know the opposition are very fond of. The UN Convention on Rights of the child say that the parents and children should maintain personal and relations and direct contact with both parents and regular basis, unless it is contrary to the child's interests. The European Norwich North, the European Court of Human Rights, section eight, gives the right to family life and suggests that consideration be given to all alternatives before ordering no contact. The government,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

however, considers I'll give way. The honourable. Lady is talking about the right to family life, which is not about the rights of the children. She's the rights of the children. She's talking about the rights of the abusers. If you start from the idea that an abuser has a right to that an abuser has a right to contact their children, you end up with bad decisions. That's why 67 children have died when contact shouldn't have been granted in the shouldn't have been granted in the past 30 years.

That is the change we're making. Those are the lives we're saving, and that's why this we're saving, and that's why this is important to do today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Member for his intervention. I'll continue my I understand what he's saying and I'll continue my speech. Perhaps he would listen to speech. Perhaps he would listen to what I have to say. The purpose of the court decisions is, as you said, to prevent unsafe contact, to prevent the tragedies. And as a paediatrician, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've seen situations where children I've seen situations where children have been given back to parents and have come to significant harm as a have come to significant harm as a result.

I've dealt with those children, I've looked after those children and unfortunately, not all cases have those children been able to be protected and saved. So the law is there to prevent unsafe contact, but the children's needs must be put first with the power to restrict access were in danger. The court must listen to all the evidence that's available. But no system is infallible. And sometimes judges get it wrong when they do. The outcomes in this situation can be hugely tragic, leading to the loss of a child or the serious injury of a child.

So I know that this legislation has been brought forward Madam Deputy Speaker with good intentions. The test is will it prevent those harms, will it prevent those tragedies? And I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it might not. The reason it might not is because the impact assessment the government itself has produced says it's unlikely to materially change the outcome in court. If that's the case and it is unlikely to materially change the outcomes in court, what is the point of that legislation? Will it on the other, will it, on the other hand, reduce the likelihood of children seeing their parents? Will that in of itself cause some harm? Will it prevent some children from having the contact that they need with, with, with their family members? Will it prevent the tragedies that we wish to prevent or not? Will will it isolate those those children that are going to come to harm? Have we got the right risk assessments to do so? Every single one of us in this House wants to protect children.

We need to improve the risk assessments. We need to improve the social work times that they get the time to make those proper risk assessments and able to do them properly so that they are identifying those children which can be at risk, and separating them from those which are not. We need to improve the representation of children in court. I was once in court when the barrister got up to speak. I was in the witness box Madam Deputy Speaker and I was asked a question by the barrister and the barrister said barrister had forgotten he was representing the children and he'd forgotten the names of one of the two children.

That family and I had to remind him from the witness box, we really need to improve the quality of representation of children. I won't give away. The legislation is potentially just a distraction, something that makes people feel like they're doing something and making a difference. But the impact assessment the government has produced suggests it will make no difference. So is this change going to make any difference or not? And has it been a lost opportunity to improve the risk assessments, to improve the representation, to improve the social work and actually make a difference? Tony Vaughan.
16:39
Tony Vaughan Portrait Tony Vaughan KC MP (Folkestone and Hythe, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw attention to my register of interest, which includes my status interest, which includes my status as a barrister. Let us remind ourselves of the issues here. It is unacceptable that criminal trials unacceptable that criminal trials should be listed in 2030. Today, 2030, and that is a failure of of the state. Frankly, it's the failure of the state to provide a fundamental public service, that of justice. So the government has to act. And I do not accept arguments which suggest that things have to stay as they are.

So I welcome the government's £2 billion investment in the criminal justice system. The decisions to lift the cap on Crown Court sitting days to implement efficiencies, invest in the estate and streamline case management. All of that is overdue and should have been done by the party. Obviously, this is about ensuring that trials actually go ahead. The government believes that they won't be enough, though, to address the backlog without structural change, and I haven't actually heard any argument to attempt to argue to the contrary.

But I want to turn to the most contentious element here, which is the permanent removal of the right to elect jury trial for either way cases. As other hon. Members have said, this rests heavily on Sir Brian Leveson assessment of a minimum 20% time saving in the Crown Court. Sir Brian has been candid that the time estimate that the his estimate is based on modelling and is informed is informed qualitative judgement, not a hard empirical fact, and the ministry itself accepts this modelling may not fully reflect real world operations, so dealing with a safeguard as important as trial by one's peers where liberty is at stake.

The distinction between modelling and hard data matters, and it does seem that most people agree that those measures will save time. But there is a dispute about how much it is likely to do so. I. I'm very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to my hon. And learned friend, what does he say about the friend, what does he say about the fact that judges will have to give detailed reasons in the judgement detailed reasons in the judgement on why they've decided a case in the way that they've decided? I declare an interest. My wife's a declare an interest. My wife's a judge. It takes a days, very often more than a week, to come up with a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more than a week, to come up with a reasons for the decision that she's taken. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I mean, I practice as a civil lawyer for most of my career, and I've been challenging written reason decisions my whole career. I actually don't have a problem with judges issuing written reasons in the criminal jurisdiction. I think it is a way of getting more transparency about why those decisions have been made. That's my own personal view. Ideally, I would have piloted this system first and gathered the data, and only then if that data showed that the measures were necessary to reduce the backlog, that may be that that that would have been something clearly difficult to to to rebut.

If if Sir Brian is right and these reforms clearly cut waiting times, it will be good for victims and public confidence. But if these proposals are rolled out nationwide and he is wrong, the government is wrong, or the gains are negative or outweighed by harms to fairness or equalities or public trust, particularly for minority defendants, it's important. Madam Deputy Speaker, that this House should not have tied its hands. Removing the right to elect jury trial takes out around half of our jury trials.

It's a very real interference with existing safeguards, and it shouldn't be a permanent change before we know that it works in practice. And that's why I believe there must be a clear statutory mechanism within the bill allowing Parliament to reverse this change if it doesn't work. In my view, we need a time limited mandatory review on the face of the bill tracking, timeliness, conviction patterns, equalities impacts with an explicit power to require Ministers to restore the right to elect if the reforms do not deliver, and a clause of this nature would be a statement of confidence in Parliament's oversight, rather than a lack of faith and reform, as has been suggested.

Expanding judge jury sorry, judge only trials requires addressing the fact that the judiciary does not reflect our country's diversity. Replacing lay juries with a single judge demands an intense focus on how we improve judicial diversity, and particularly transparency in appointments. For example, judicial references must be disclosable so that there is accountability for providing objective, evidence based references. If we are to improve the recruitment and promotion pipeline for women and minority ethnic judges. One of the last cases that I did in the courts before I was elected to Parliament was a judicial review of a decision of a Judicial Appointments Commission, not to promote a district judge into a more senior position.

And the whole case was about why she couldn't see the reasons why she was not promoted. And that secrecy, which is behind what many campaigners believe has been a process of secret soundings or a tap on the shoulder, has resulted in exactly the situation where we have a bench recruiting in their image, and that is a concept that was recognised by the Lammy Review and is a very real thing that we must address if we are to expand judge only trials, we do face a grave crisis, but if we curtail long standing rights, we must build build in robust safeguards to this bill.

And I hope that Ministers will work constructively across the House to ensure that we tackle the backlog effectively while strengthening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

confidence in our justice system. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Barry. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And I just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. And I just wanted to say it was a privilege to be here for the powerful and effective speech from the hon. effective speech from the hon. Member for Warrington North earlier on, Madam Deputy Speaker, when literally thousands of vulnerable members of the legal profession are saying so clearly that jury trial restrictions won't be effective or practical and may be counterproductive, and that they threaten our rights, surely the government must listen. The Green Party's reasoned amendment to this bill sets out clear reasons for the awful court backlog that is letting down so many victims.

It talks about conservative underfunding over many, many years, and we set out the missing resources that will properly serve to solve it. And it is rare to agree with some of our colleagues on anything. But the fact is, we are all right on this point. We need alternatives to the restrictions on this bill like intensive listings, more sitting days, legal aid investment, better buildings and better services to deliver defendants to court. But our Green Amendment also raises the question of whether these measures are also yet another part of the government's wider attack on civil liberties.

To the toolkit for tyrants. It is building also out of digital ID, facial recognition, surveillance on our streets and the
16:46
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
erosion of fundamental asylum rights all things contrary to our British values and which should not British values and which should not be packaged up for this or any future government to use against minorities, protesters and minorities, protesters and dissidents. This is all so dangerous. I wonder, can the Minister truly deny that the Minister truly deny that the growing acceptance by juries of defences of proportionality and necessity in some protest cases was a factor in the inclusion of unnecessary and dangerous curtailment of jury trials? In this bill, the category of tribal either way, cases where jury trials will be restricted includes several of the specific offences created or made more serious by successive governments in the wake of successful non-violent protest action.

And by successful, I mean non-violent actions that have caused inconvenience. Yes, but which did what non-violent direct action is for directly aiming to prevent harm to people or the environment, or creating a stir that raises public awareness of serious injustice. Actions made into more serious offences have included interference with infrastructure, blocking roads or demonstrating in airports. Specific tunnelling offences, conspiracy to lock onto each other during protests, or symbolically using statues in actions, as well as some kinds of noisy protests for being annoying.

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

Speaker. denying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

It's no wonder, then, that thousands of lawyers have written to the government to oppose these plans. They do acknowledge, like many of us, that this this bill does contain provisions such as the
16:48
Apsana Begum Portrait Apsana Begum MP (Poplar and Limehouse, Labour)
-
-
repeal of the presumption of child contact, which has been long campaigned for by many of us in campaigned for by many of us in this House, organisations such as Women's Aid and Right to Equality and led by the incredible Claire Trussell, who joins us in the gallery today, as well as making transcripts available from the transcripts available from the Magistrates Court long campaign for For by Charlotte and the team at Open Justice for all, among others, Open Justice for all, among others, and supported also by many of us in this House.

However, Madam Deputy Speaker, when it comes to the proposals around jury trials and the curtailment of them, I have spoken to many victims of rape who feel that their trauma is being instrumentalised to undermine and restrict a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy, all for cost cutting purposes. Of course, they want reform of the criminal justice system, but they want it to be evidence led. The value and the importance of a jury system cannot be understated. The House will be aware that I was cleared by a jury after a vexatious trial, driven by malicious intent in 2021.

Originally, my case was set to be heard in a magistrates court. Now, I'm not saying that this would have led to a different outcome for sure, the jury system is not matched by such a clear cut story for magistrates verdicts in particular. There are some worrying disparities for Bame women. Of those women tried at magistrates courts, black women, Asian women, mixed ethnic women and Chinese other women were all more likely to be convicted than white women. This bill will entrench structural discrimination and I believe that the just justice secretary knows it.

Indeed, I'm also alarmed by proposals contained in this bill, which seeks to introduce trial by judge for some financial and fraud cases. Given that the Criminal Bar Association have highlighted that over 78% of barristers have said that it is important for juries to be able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

evaluate complex evidence and prevent an overreach. The jury in my case, I'll give very briefly. I'm very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very. Grateful to my friend for giving way. I've just looked at the recent stats in 2025, ethnic minority circuit judges amounted to 67. circuit judges amounted to 67. Unknown was 42, white was 637, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unknown was 42, white was 637, the very vast majority of which are men. What did she say about that? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend highlights some very important and vital statistics that already show that we already that already show that we already have an issue in the criminal justice system, in our legal system, which we know doesn't reflect the wider diversity of communities at hand who experience and go through hand who experience and go through the criminal justice system. I was mentioning, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Criminal Bar Association that the Criminal Bar Association have highlighted that over 78% of barristers have said that it's important for juries to be able to evaluate complex evidence and prevent an overreach when it comes to financial and fraud cases, and that the jury in my case considered evidence, in my view, quite necessarily over eight days.

We also know that the majority of women in prison are survivors of violence against women and girls, with nearly 70% of women in prison reporting having experienced domestic abuse, they are less likely to have been tried by jury because they are more likely to have been in a magistrates court facing offences that are, either way, offences which could have been done and considered by a jury. I am very, very worried and concerned that the proposals in this bill will result in more victims being jailed, and this really does matter.

Three year prison terms are life altering sentences that could now be handed out by a judge. The government has no mandate for this, a decision of such magnitude. But it wasn't in the Labour Party's 2024 manifesto. So instead of restricting jury trials, I urge the government to invest in and fund properly our criminal justice system to address the issue of court backlogs because everyone, every single one of us should have equal rights under our legal and court system because jury trials are a fundamental legal safeguard against miscarriages of justice, and because surely, surely our society should be one which is based on true fairness in the course of delivering justice.

Thank you, Madam Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker Jim Allister. Madam Deputy Speaker, we've heard some very powerful speeches heard some very powerful speeches today, none more so than that from the hon. Member for Warrington the hon. Member for Warrington North. But we did hear something very striking from the Justice Secretary. He told us that juries Secretary. He told us that juries are the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. Well, what is a cornerstone? A cornerstone is the most important part of something on which everything else depends.

What's the cornerstone of democracy? It's voting. We wouldn't think of getting rid of voting, the cornerstone of democracy. But we're invited in this House to get rid of the cornerstone of jury trials in a huge spectrum of cases. And let's. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marie Tidball, does the hon. Member agree with me that, in fact, what we're getting rid of is only a what we're getting rid of is only a quarter of 3% of cases that go through the court.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through the court. We're getting rid of thousands of cases which are will deny to of cases which are will deny to those who are accused in those cases, the right that each one of cases, the right that each one of us would claim for ourselves to be judged by our peers. And we're doing it in cases where it is a large sentence. Three years is no trifling sentence. It is a substantial sentence, which it is in a moment.

It's a substantial sentence which is life changing. And yet we're suggesting that we should move away from that cornerstone of justice in all those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foody. I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I would just ask giving way, and I would just ask him two questions. One, does he not accept that magistrates are indeed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

peers? And two, that 12 months is a pretty considerable life changing sentence as it currently stands? Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. Thank you. Judges. No matter how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Judges. No matter how intellectual, no matter how erudite there might be, no matter how experienced there might be, do not have the life experiences of 12 jurors. I spent my professional life as a junior and senior counsel in the criminal Courts of Northern Ireland, and therefore I have substantial experience of appearing not just in jury trials, but because for decades we had Diplock courts appearing in judge alone trials. And I can tell you from my experience, if I was in a position, if I was in a position where I was charged with an offence, without doubt I would choose the jury rather than rather than the judge alone.

Because whether we like it or not, the most experienced judge becomes case hardened. You will get far more empathy, either as a victim of crime or as a person accused of crime from a jury. Why? Because they have the lived experience that is likely to show affinity with you. Be the be you the victim, or be you the accused. And that is an immeasurable advantage, an immeasurable quantity in our justice system to have those deciding the the facts of a case, those who have the feel for what it is to live in that community, those who know what it is to have empathy
16:58
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
with either the person accused or the victim. They are in a far superior position to some case superior position to some case hardened judge who's heard it all before, and frankly, it cannot deliver the quality of justice. And I know from my experience, many people, even those who were people, even those who were convicted, would have said, well, at least it was my peers who convicted me. I have more confidence in what they did than what a single judge would do.

Because remember this a jury. What is a jury when we when we when we abolish juries, we're abolishing not just an established right. Going back 800 years, we are abolishing a protection against arbitrary power. We are abolishing the honest broker who brings a case against an accused, the state, who is the honest broker in that the jury and the jury that has affinity with lived experience is a far better position to reach a sustainable and a credible verdict, because at the end of this, it is public confidence in our criminal justice system which matters hugely.

And you are far more public confidence generated in our criminal justice system through juries than through judge alone. The point was made earlier that in 41% of all summary trials which go to appeal, they are overturned. What does that tell us? It tells us of the case hardness of some of those who are hearing them. It tells us of the summary nature and the speed with which some of them are heard. And it tells us that an injustice was done in 41% of those cases.

Are we in the business of accentuating injustice? Surely not. Surely we are in the business of extracting from our system injustice. And you will do that far stronger and far better through maintaining, not diminishing a jury trial, because they are indeed, as the Justice Secretary said, the cornerstone. Take away the cornerstone and you have begun to demolish the edifice in which we all have so much pride. Our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

criminal justice system. Matt Bishop. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the heart of these reforms at the heart of these reforms before us today is one word and one simple question. The word is simple question. The word is victims. And the question is how do we ensure that victims actually receive the justice that they are receive the justice that they are promised? Members of the House will know before coming to this place that served as a police officer over three different forces, and over three different forces, and during that time, I saw first hand the impact crime has on people's lives.

I met victims at some of the worst moments they will ever experience. Often after deeply traumatic incidents. But what always stayed with me was the faith that victims placed in our justice system. They believe that if they report what has happened and they come forward, and they endure the stress of an investigation and a trial, that the system will ultimately deliver justice. They believe that institutions in this country, the police, the courts and the rule of law will stand behind them.

And when victims report a crime, they are making a promise to us and the justice system that they will follow through and endure the issues that they have to endure. The least that we can do is ensure the justice system keeps its promise back to them. But today,
17:01
Matt Bishop Portrait Matt Bishop MP (Forest of Dean, Labour)
-
-
far too often that faith is being tested. I regularly meet victims and victims groups who speak about and victims groups who speak about the anxiety, uncertainty and sheer exhaustion that comes with waiting exhaustion that comes with waiting for their case to reach court. Many have done everything that we have asked them to. We reported the asked them to. We reported the crime given evidence, supported the investigation, only to be left waiting months and years for a waiting months and years for a conclusion.

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

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

And that is why this reform is necessary. The reality is that cases today are more complex than they once were. Digital evidence. Mobile phone data. Body worn video. Modern forensic techniques. All of it has improved and improved the fairness of trials. But they've also made cases longer and more demanding to process. The measures in the bill seek to address that, giving magistrates greater sentencing powers will allow more cases to be resolved in the Magistrates Court, freeing up Crown Court capacity for the most serious offences.

Similarly, allowing courts greater flexibility in determining where cases should be heard helps ensure that the most serious crimes are not competing for court time, with cases that could be resolved more quickly elsewhere. Another important aspect of the bill is the modernisation of the courts. For too long, our justice system has lagged behind the technology available for it. Victims still face unnecessary barriers when trying to access transcripts or understand the progress of their case. Using technology more effectively can make the system faster, more transparent and more accessible.

And finally, I want to briefly address the removal of the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act. For many years, survivors of domestic abuse and campaigners have raised concerns about what has sometimes been described as a pro contact culture within parts of the Family court system. Organisations such as PSA, which supports survivors of post-separation abuse, has welcomed the government's decision to repeal the presumption of parental involvement. They have long warned that a pro contact culture can risk sidelining the safety of children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and survivors. I will give way. Thank you for giving. Way too many women have told me that the family courts felt like an extension of the abuse that they were trying to escape. Does he were trying to escape. Does he agree that by ending the presumption of parental involvement, that's a crucial step towards

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's a crucial step towards ensuring that children's safety, not an automatic assumption of contact, is a starting point in every case? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for intervention. I completely agree, and children must never be used as a tool through which abuse can continue after separation, removing the presumption that also sends a clear message that children's safety and well-being must always come first. And of course, reforms of this scale will rightly be scrutinised as the bill progresses. But the alternative doing nothing is simply not acceptable. Without reform, the backlog will grow, victims will continue to wait, and confidence in our justice system will continue to erode.

Justice is the foundation of public confidence in this country. When victims lose faith in the system, the rule of law itself begins to weaken. So this bill is about restoring the faith and ensuring that when victims come forward, the justice system is ready to stand behind

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them. And for that reason, I'm pleased to support the bill today. Members will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Members will. Be aware there is a. Large number wishing to speak. So I'm going to reduce the time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

limit to four minutes after the next speaker. So Ashley Fox. Madam Deputy Speaker, I support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the recent amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, declining to give the Opposition, declining to give this bill a Second Reading. I do so because while there are some useful measures in the bill, at its heart is an unjust proposal. The government's plan to curtail jury trials is wrong. I will.
17:06
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-
Respect the hon. Gentleman, and >> Respect the hon. Gentleman, and I understand that his concerns about this will be genuinely rooted, but nonetheless, the presumption of but nonetheless, the presumption of parental involvement being revoked within this bill is absolutely critical, and I do not understand how he can proceed with a reasoned amendment that would kill the entire bill. On that basis. Sir Ashley Fox.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to that intervention. The right to a trial intervention. The right to a trial by jury is central to the English legal system. It has its roots in Magna Carta. It ensures that the Magna Carta. It ensures that the public participates in the administration of criminal justice, and it gives protection to citizens and it gives protection to citizens from politically inspired trials. It is regrettable that some parts of the Labour Party seem to take delight in tearing up long held principles that underpin our Constitution, simply because it is politically expedient to do so.

They are shredding our Constitution without much thought as to the arguably.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way. Does removing jury trials surely an erosion of the criminal justice an erosion of the criminal justice system? And as is alluded to, surely one judge cannot provide the surely one judge cannot provide the same scrutiny as a random 12 jurors. Surely, if if the need is to actually reduce the backlog, then maybe we should consider using

**** Possible New Speaker ****

maybe we should consider using courtrooms 100% of the time to actually reduce the backlog in the first place. I agree with the hon. Lady's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with the hon. Lady's point. The government are changing the balance of power between the citizen and the state, and then pleading delays in Crown Court trials as justification and this policy of curtailing the right to jury trials is ideological. In January, the courts Minister was asked about the plans to overhaul jury trials. She admitted that she would be scrapping these jury trials even if there was no court backlog. I wonder how many Labour colleagues agree with her, because I think it's disgraceful, and I do suspect that there are more than 80 Labour MPs that agree with me.

There is no doubt that the Crown Court backlog is a serious issue. The Leveson report contains many useful proposals to improve the criminal justice system, and I will support them. But the backlog was not caused by the right to trial by jury, and it will not be alleviated by curtailing that right. In my view, the solution is to increase the capacity of the Crown Court and in fairness, parts of the bill do aim to do that. But why does the Lord Chancellor think that abolishing jury trials for those likely to receive a sentence of three years or less is the right thing to do? Senior judges, legal professional, even learned Labour MPs have all warned that removing juries will make only a marginal difference, if any at all.

And as a former solicitor, I agree with them. Judges themselves have said that the supposed time savings are inherently uncertain. Single judge trials still require full evidence, witnesses, legal argument and detailed reasoned judgements. That takes time. In fact, it risks leaving courtrooms empty while judges write up their decisions instead of hearing other cases. There are other reforms that we should make before sacrificing the right to trial by jury. To take one example, the Lord Chancellor should look at the wider efficiency of the Ministry of Justice.

For the last two years. The MoJ, which includes the court service, lost the highest number of days per member of staff in sickness and absence in the whole of Whitehall. Each employee took an average of 10.7 days sickness. That equates to over two working weeks a year for every member of staff. That is not only 30% higher than the civil service average, but it's double the average of the private sector. Now, I've always thought that sickness is a fairly good indication of how well a company, a charity, a department is run.

And perhaps if the Lord Chancellor focussed his efforts on improving the efficiency of his own department, he might start to see the whole system improve. And the Lord Chancellor should also look at the listing practices of different court circuits in England. The Western Circuit, which covers Somerset, has a much lower backlog than in London, and the Liverpool circuit is probably the most efficient in the country. So why does the Lord Chancellor not try and replicate the listing practices of the Liverpool circuit before taking this disastrous step? Now, the Lord Chancellor has previously said cutting jury trials is a mistake.

We know that in the past he thought that that was wrong and I believe that his first judgement, according to his conscience, was the right one and I would urge him. Madam Deputy Speaker, to reconsider his plans.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

welcome. Much in. This bill. I welcome. The investment in legal aid, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The investment in legal aid, the additional sitting days and the funding for our courts. But I want to focus my remarks on two to focus my remarks on two proposals within it the restriction of jury trials for either way offences, and the removal of the automatic right of appeal from the automatic right of appeal from the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court. I say this as someone who began their legal career as a began their legal career as a prosecutor in the 90s, when the kind of backlog we see today simply did not exist, even though in those days more cases were heard in the Crown Court because the magistrates had the sentencing power for only six months.

The delays we face today are not caused by jury trials. As shadow justice Minister, I remember repeatedly telling the previous conservative government about the consequences of diseases they were making court judicial sitting days were cut, court staff were reduced and legal aid was placed under enormous strain. At the same time, the system had to cope with demands of modern digital evidence, delays in disclosure, problems with prisoner transport and the disruption caused by Covid. But the government argues that these reforms are necessary to reduce the Crown Court backlog and often point to the delay faced by victims of sexual and domestic abuse.

I take these concerns very seriously, a substantial part of my career as a prosecutor was spent as a designated child and sexual abuse specialist and rape specialist. I work closely with victims, witnesses and families affected by these traumatic offences. If I believe that the abolition of jury trials would generally allow these cases to be heard more quickly, I would support it, but I don't. There is also an issue of removing the automatic right of appeal from the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court.

This change will disproportionately affect the defendants from poorer backgrounds who may not have legal aid representation. We know that a significant proportion of these appeals succeed, which raises serious concern about access to justice. These two proposals would disproportionately impact the most vulnerable in our society, particularly those from socially, economically and educationally deprived backgrounds. My own constituency ranks as the 38th most deprived in the country. For many of my constituents, the criminal justice system already feels distant and difficult to navigate.

We should be careful not to introduce changes that risk criminalising and disadvantaging them even further. There are real reforms that could be done which could address the delay. The first and foremost is the Labour Party's commitment to have specialist rate courts properly funded, and I know that lawyers and judges will be prepared to sit weekends to tackle those cases through. Secondly, we could be more like the civil system where there are particular timelines which are set into the case so that cases are progressed properly.

And if any of the parties don't act properly, there could be financial sanctions to them. Also, I know we're going to be opening more courts and courtrooms, but we need to expand the judicial sitting days as well. We also need to make sure that the Serco and other
17:15
17:16
17:16
17:16
Vikki Slade Portrait Vikki Slade MP (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
fairness. So I am deeply worried about the income thresholds for legal aid in the Magistrates Court. legal aid in the Magistrates Court. It is ridiculous that even someone working in an entry level minimum wage job will not automatically be wage job will not automatically be eligible. How is that fair justice? Does the government really believe that unless you can afford to fund your defence, your freedom should be at stake? And I hope that if this passes Second Reading, that the government will put forward some substantial changes.

But the heart of my concern in this bill is the fundamental shift in the role of the magistrate and the Bench Division. A typical magistrates trial lasts 5 to 6 hours, and a similar case in the Crown Court is likely to take 3 to 4 days for good reason. Legal direction ensuring victims and defendants understand the process and upholding the integrity of justice. But I am deeply concerned that if these complex cases carrying sentences of up to 24 months in prison are passed over to the Magistrates court, they too will become longer, creating even bigger backlogs and just shifting the problem somewhere else.

So what assessment has actually been carried out? Because I've asked on several occasions and the capacity of magistrates to sit in multi-day trials, trials that attend require attendance day after day, making younger working magistrates far less likely to be able to sit. We know that the Magistrates Association has deemed the current need for magistrates to 17,000, and we have only 14,000. Previous recruitment drives haven't generated enough applicants. Where is the evidence that our communities can find these extra people who can serve on extra time? And the other problem is the age of magistrates.

Whilst there are some notable exceptions in this room, 81% of existing magistrates are over 50, which is much higher than the average age of judges. This proposal widens the demographic gap between the court and those facing justice, and juries, of course, provide that broader age and background diversity. So again, this is a real diversion. And if we have insufficient magistrates now, where is the evidence that people will be willing and able to fulfil the critical, increasingly difficult role in society and that they are able to take someone's liberty for up to two years? That is a huge responsibility on somebody that is not legally trained.

And talking of legally trained. I've raised this before, and the access to legal advisers. The Lord Chancellor has indicated more money for legal advisers. But that was before this proposal where I raised it after seeing my local cases, I see no evidence that there are enough legal advisers willing to work at this lowest rung of the court system to be able to support those magistrates. Another thing I wanted to raise was the processes in the magistrates courts. One of my constituents denied the right to go to Crown Court, has been told she has just 27 minutes to plead her case, which she feels is deniable, right of her denial of her rights.

In a case where liberty is at risk and where a criminal conviction could lead to the loss of employment, travel, reputational impact for years to come, we really do have to consider the impact on the victims and the defendants from this significant move. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if the Lord Chancellor can tell us who said juries provide representation of local population and a filter for prejudice, that criminal trials without juries are a bad idea, and that the government should not fix backlogs by abandoning a valuable tradition for short term benefit.

In either way, trials Abtisam Mohamed. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my previous work as a solicitor, I represented women who had suffered terrible violence and people who had been pushed to the margins of society. I have seen first hand how fragile access to justice can be, how years of underinvestment has taken a wrecking ball to our justice system. And yes, change is clearly needed. But the reforms before us today, removing the right of defendants to elect trial by jury, does not appear to be a proportionate answer to that problem.

The evidence does not support the claim that these reforms will deliver the benefits suggested, with projections suggesting that the impact on the backlog may at best be modest. That
17:20
Abtisam Mohamed Portrait Abtisam Mohamed MP (Sheffield Central, Labour)
-
-
raises an obvious question if the contribution these measures make to reducing the backlog is uncertain why we're being asked to make such why we're being asked to make such a profound and permanent change to one of the central safeguards in our criminal justice system. Members have spoken about a range of different offences, from theft of different offences, from theft to drug related offences. But when people are taken to court over action to advance causes that they believe in, both in the past when believe in, both in the past when it was the suffragettes.

So today, when it is climate activist or Palestinian protesters, it is ordinary people, their peers, who recognise the moral imperative behind their actions to prevent greater harm. The freedoms that this system protects are not abstract. They exist precisely to safeguard individuals against the power of the state when they stand accused of a criminal offence. That is why we should be cautious before curtailing them. There is also a serious question about the impact these reforms may have on black and ethnic minority defendants.

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

Now, none of this is to deny the seriousness of the backlog crisis. The courts must function efficiently, and the victims should not have to wait years for justice. But the purpose of these reforms is to address the backlog. Then I suggest that we understand why they are not being sorry, why they are being introduced as a permanent alteration to our justice system

**** Possible New Speaker ****

instead of a time limited measure. I will give around that point. I thank you very much for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you very much for giving way, and I will be supporting the government tonight, because it's very clear that decisive action is needed to tackle the backlog that needed to tackle the backlog that so many people here have described. But I wonder whether she'd agree with me that if the government is genuinely confident about the genuinely confident about the package of reforms that it's putting forward, it would be fair and proportionate to add a review and proportionate to add a review clause or equivalent, which makes sure that we are we are clear about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whether we actually need some of the measures that are there in this, in this proposal. So, Mohammed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. And I agree the logical approach would be to treat logical approach would be to treat this as a time limited measure, or indeed the Justice Secretary should consider a mandatory time bound consider a mandatory time bound review assessing the impact of these changes, not only on the backlog, but the impact on trial backlog, but the impact on trial outcomes, the impact on equality before the law, the impact on public confidence, the impact on specifically black and ethnic minority defendants.

All of these must be included in a review. If it is to be robust. It must also allow Parliament not only to examine the evidence, but if the reforms fail to deliver the benefits claimed or produce serious unintended consequences, then a review must allow us to revisit and, if needed, reverse. That would be a constructive and responsible approach. Madam Deputy Speaker, the efficiency in the courts is important, but justice is equally important too. So I would say to the Justice Secretary, if we are to take a step as if we are to take a step as serious as limiting the right to jury trial, at the very least, Parliament should have the right to rigorous scrutiny and meaningful review, and the clear possibility of reversal if this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policy does not work. Lincoln Jopp. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, from the beginning, please can I pay a huge tribute to the Member pay a huge tribute to the Member for Warrington North for her testimony to the House today? It was a privilege to be here to hear it, and it will last long in the memory. I don't actually have a huge amount of experience of jury trials. In fact, what I have experience of is the antithesis. When we were training to go to Northern Ireland in 1992, the IRA at the time were very wont to put us on the horns of a dilemma in terms of whether we could open fire on us, and we used to do these ranges and I remember saying to my trainer they would pause the action and I remember saying to my trainer, can I fire? And he said to me, that is a very difficult situation, sir.

That is when you remind yourself that it is better to be tried by 12
17:25
Lincoln Jopp Portrait Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
-
men than to be carried by six. It was quite chilling, particularly when, a few months later, two of my guardsmen were involved in a judgemental shooting. And it turns judgemental shooting. And it turns out you don't get tried by 12 men, you get tried by one, and they were you get tried by one, and they were convicted of murder and sent away for life. So I've seen it from the for life. So I've seen it from the other side. I do think that there's been something of a consensus in the debate today.

I think there's a consensus that justice delayed is justice denied. I think there's a consensus that there's a backlog and the backlog needs to be reduced. What I do not think that there is a consensus about is. Whether these limiting or halving the number of trials, which are which will go to jury trials, cases which will go to jury trial, removing thousands of victims and thousands of defendants of the right to that jury trial will actually reduce the backlog in the way in which the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested.

So in the absence of my experience of jury trials, I do just want to give some time to one of my constituents who wrote to me. His name is Sir Ivan Lawrence KC, and he is a former member of Parliament of this place. And he said after 63 years conducting jury trials at the criminal bar, sitting as a recorder, speaking to countless ex jurors and discussing with lawyers in other countries their jury systems, I can confidently say that despite the waste of jurors time that often occurs, our system contributes to justice in almost certainly the fairest and most efficient way.

The great point about juries is that ordinary people trust 12 members to spread their judgement and to use ordinary, common sense. Those who have been accused of dishonesty, however small or violence, however petty, could have decent lives totally ruined if common sense is replaced by the strictest application of the law, which may be required of judges. Jury trial is not merely an important and traditional human right and a clear form of democracy. Juries are, like our judges, totally independent.

Any wrongs that may occur are redressed by retrials or appeals to higher courts. The accused of crimes are more likely to turn up for trials, and when they do, they are less likely to need handcuffs, leg irons, or expensive incarceration. I listened to Sir Ivan Lawrence, and I am reminded of my grandmother's words that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of enthusiasm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jamieson Madam Deputy Speaker and I also want to pay tribute to some of the exceptional contributions we've had today from contributions we've had today from members in this House, particularly from the Member for Warrington North and her bravery today. I think the real stand out moment, the backdrop to this Bill, as we all know, is a court system which all know, is a court system which is facing crisis. And that and that has been the same throughout the criminal justice system for many years now.

We are facing a situation where people up and down the country are waiting years for their day in court, because when the justice system breaks down, it's our constituents and our and our and victims in our areas who pay the price. And whilst I won't address it in my speech today, I
17:29
Sally Jameson Portrait Sally Jameson MP (Doncaster Central, Labour )
-
-
want to also pay tribute to the campaigners, both in this House but also the campaigners in the gallery today and around the country who've today and around the country who've made sure we've got the presumption of contact in this bill. That's a really special moment and I pay really special moment and I pay tribute to them. In the last six months, I've had a number of surgeries attended by constituents who are bearing the brunt of the court delays, victims of serious crime who have been waiting years crime who have been waiting years without justice and without closure.

And that's why in the House today, I'll be supporting this bill on behalf of my constituents who deserve timely justice. But also, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have to remember the remand population, which hasn't been talked about that much today, but it's well publicised that our prison estate is in absolute crisis, reached at capacity and totally stretched. And whilst this government is doing the necessary reforms to address that and building up the capacity, they can ill afford really to have the remand population that they currently have, and frankly, those people are entitled to their day in court and to get their verdict and to be able to get on with their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lives one way or the other. And I will give way. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree with me that there's nothing at all progressive about a working class progressive about a working class man spending a year on remand, without a judge or a jury, or any without a judge or a jury, or any any end in sight to his turmoil, when he may in fact be innocent. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and I completely agree. And whether they be found innocent or guilty, people are entitled to their day in court, and they're entitled to it in a reasonable amount of time, as are the victims who need to hear that case as well. And it also then allows, frankly, for prisons to get on with the important work of punishing those who are actually guilty and also focusing on rehabilitation. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to take the opportunity in this bill to push for some further reform on courts policy that I know the Minister is already aware of.

And whilst not in this particular Bill and I understand the reasons for that, I have a particular case in my constituency where somebody had arrived for, for their day in court, ready, ready for their trial, and because one of the jurors went sick, even though there was still the minimum number of jurors available, the judge decided that it wouldn't go ahead. And then they had to wait for a new trial date, which was many, many months later. And sadly, in the time they were waiting, the defendant slash perpetrator died.

And in that case, justice delayed really was justice denied. And so I ask if the Minister will meet with me at another time to discuss, if not a legislative change, certainly a policy change around expectations of judges to carry out trials when minimum numbers of jurors are already in attendance, unless there are exceptional circumstances. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way. Giving way just on the point of delay. I recently met with judges delay. I recently met with judges in Bolton who expressed some real issues around prisoner transportation that's also causing transportation that's also causing serious delays. Does she agree with me that we should also be looking at that as a means of speeding up efficiency as well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

efficiency as well? Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I, I would always welcome further improvement on prisoner further improvement on prisoner transportation. As someone that was regularly held back from going on my dinner break because we're waiting for prisoner transportation to come in. So I'm all for that to close. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not the first government to change the threshold for jury trials. And because of the scale of the crisis we face, the circumstances demand that we must do so again.

I am backing this whole package of reforms today because I know from my constituents that they want a court system that delivers timely justice and support victims, and, frankly, allows them to move on with their lives. Because alternatively, and I think it's important we explore the alternative. We manage the slow decline of our courts, we watch victims walk away and public confidence drain away, or we can modernise the system so that justice is delivered swiftly, fairly and for everyone. And that is what I choose today.

Paulette Hamilton. And this will be on a four minute time limit. But after you, after Paulette Hamilton, I will be reducing it to a three minute time limit. Paulette Hamilton. Hamilton.
17:33
Paulette Hamilton Portrait Paulette Hamilton MP (Birmingham Erdington, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise today on on a to speak on a bill that is both necessary and difficult. Let me start by saying that I support its intent to tackle a Crown Court backlog that has now more than doubled since the pandemic, leaving victims waiting years for justice. And let us be clear, what the backlog means is the victims commissioner has warned that some trials are now listed for 2030. That is why the Bench Division serves a purpose by enabling judge alone trials for lower level cases.

We can we can free up capacity and expect hearings to take around 20% less time. Madam Deputy Speaker, I represent Birmingham Erdington, a working class constituency with a proud and diverse ethnic minority community. It is from their perspective that I must also scrutinise this bill. Clause three removes a defendant's right to elect for a jury trial in either in either in either way cases, replacing it with a judge alone trial in a new bench division for office for offences likely to attract sentences of three years or less.

Cruelty. Crucially, this is not a temporary pilot. It contains no sunset clause. This is a permanent structural change to one of the oldest rights in our justice system. The intention to speed up our justice is honourable, but my concern is about trust and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perception for ethnic minority. Yes, you can. Very much respect what she's she's saying on this, but I would she's saying on this, but I would say that the the right to elect is not an ancient right. It was introduced in 1855 and escaped introduced in 1855 and escaped reforms in the 1970s. So it's a relatively recent addition to the relatively recent addition to the judicial armoury. I thank you I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the Member for that contribution. Thank you very much for for ethnic minority communities. That right has been seen as a vital protection against fear of bias, whether conscious or unconscious. A diverse jury of 12 brings a common sense of the community into the room. A single judge, however, Learn Learned does not offer that same representation. I give way, yes, yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Lady, does the hon. Lady agree with me that the fact that the Judicial Executive Board the Judicial Executive Board produced a report on judicial bullying and racism in 2022, but has never published it, agree with me that that backs up her point that there are concerns about the judiciary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the hon. Member and I absolutely agree with you. It does back up with what I'm trying does back up with what I'm trying to say, right? I am not suggesting our judiciary is biased, but perception matters. So I ask the Minister for two specific assurances. First, the bill contains no clear statutory review, no start or end date. Clause three allows these new provisions to be brought into force by regulation, with a three month minimum leading time.

But beyond that, the scrutiny is absent. I welcome the Justice Secretary announcing a review. So can the Minister confirm the exact time frame for the review, when it will begin and, crucially, when it will end? Secondly, if there is to be a review, I urge the Minister to make its scope explicit. Will the Minister commit today that any review will break down data by ethnicity? Because we need to know if this new system is leading to disproportionate outcomes for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ethnic minority defendants? Yes, I'll happily give way. Thank you. Giving way. She's making a very good speech and putting victims at good speech and putting victims at the heart of what she's saying. I do share some of her concerns about this legislation as it stands, but this legislation as it stands, but does she agree with me that we should vote for it today with the opportunity to influence it as it passes through the House and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

passes through the House and improve it in the interests of the public trust. And I thank the can. I thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank the can. I thank the Member for raising that point. Absolutely. I believe unless we work together to sort this out, we will not get a decent bill through that everybody can be happy with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But to just throw it out at this stage serves absolutely no purpose to anyone. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Will the Minister also commit today that any review will break today that any review will break down data by ethnicity? I think I said that because we need to know if this new system is leading to disproportionate outcomes for ethnic minority defendants. Madam ethnic minority defendants. Madam Deputy Speaker, the crisis in our courts demands action and the government is right to act. I urge the Minister to commit today to strengthening the scrutiny of these measures, to putting a clear review on the face of this bill, and let us prove to my constituents that their faith in justice is still well placed.

I look forward to working with the justice team in the Committee to strengthening this clause. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
17:39
Lloyd Hatton Portrait Lloyd Hatton MP (South Dorset, Labour)
-
-
Lloyd Hatton. Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. >> And I'm delighted to speak as an enthusiastic supporter of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. Before I Courts and Tribunals Bill. Before I start, I would just like to put on record my thanks to both Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend, the Member for Finchley and Friend, the Member for Finchley and Golders Green for their excellent work before this bill came to this place, consulting with backbenchers at every opportunity. This, of course, is a critical piece of legislation that will go about rebuilding our currently buckling criminal justice system.

After years and years of neglect, I will keep my remarks focussed on the important context within which this Bill should be considered. We must, in this place, be absolutely clear that the previous government left the criminal justice system on the brink of collapse. It is important to acknowledge this challenging landscape so victims, those who work within the criminal justice system and the wider public can all appreciate exactly why this government is taking forward the bold measures within the bill.

Whichever part of the criminal justice system you inspect, you can see the devastating impact of the swingeing cutbacks and gross mismanagement of the previous government, cuts to the prisons, cuts to the probation service, cuts to legal aid, cuts to the Crown Courts, cuts to policing and cuts to the CPS as well. What I find most frustrating is that in this place, we too often forget the inheritance and we must not forget that when we go into the voting lobbies this evening, we cannot forget the chronic backlog of in the Crown courts that we inherited.

And we must always understand that this is not a static problem. It is a compounding problem. Without the measures going in this bill going forward, we will not be able to improve the situation of the Crown's courts. Instead, it will deteriorate further and the backlog will simply spiral out of control. Now, this situation is simply inexcusable. We must understand that it is impossible to defend it, and impossible to defend the status quo without the structural reforms in this bill, the criminal justice system will continue to buckle.

And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is why I'm such a keen advocate. I will happily give way. For Tim, for giving way. He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For Tim, for giving way. He seems entirely ignorant of the success in Liverpool Crown Court, success in Liverpool Crown Court, where from June 23rd, Operation Expedite reduced court delays by one third, does he not think it's worth replicating that experiment, which has been so successful in Liverpool before curtailing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liverpool before curtailing the right to trial by jury? I completely accept that there have been successes in some parts of the country, including Liverpool, but not elsewhere, and therefore a much wider structural package of reforms is essential. I firmly believe, in response to that point, that we must pull every lever at our disposal to stabilise the system and begin to turn the corner on the rising backlog in the Crown Court, only with transformative change backed up by investment and modernisation, can we begin to fix the problem.

This is not optional. It is essential. That's why my view the reforms in this bill are a coherent package designed to deliver a system wide change. We cannot indulge in a game of pick and mix and simply implement the measures that we prefer. We must understand that to relieve the scale of pressure currently facing the Crown courts and the wider criminal justice system, that we that this bill must make its way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through this place, I will give way. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. And if he believes that giving way. And if he believes that we shouldn't have a pick and mix approach to Sir Brian Leveson proposals, why does he think the government has only chosen some of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government has only chosen some of the measures and not others? I point out that the government can put certain measures into one piece of legislation, but there piece of legislation, but there could be other ones down the line where you can pick up recommendations of a review. I recommendations of a review. I think to conclude, madam, Madam Deputy Speaker, we must also remember that magistrates, prison and probation officers and police officers will not thank us if we preside over an unreformed system with the Crown.

Courts are allowed to crumble and backlogs are allowed to balloon for years to come. Every aspect of reform is required. Otherwise, cutting backlogs and providing more timely justice will never be acknowledged. And we in this place will have done too little. Finally, I would just like to add my voice to the chorus of parliamentarians who have been speaking up for victims who have so far been failed by the status quo. At the heart of the criminal justice system are people waiting for justice, waiting for wrongs to be put right, for fairness, for their day in court and for closure? The progressive case for court reform is not a technocratic exercise in efficiency.

It is a fundamental argument about how our legal institutions serve the British people. Because when the criminal justice system breaks down, it is the most vulnerable who always pay the highest price. And we must not lose sight of that. Today, we can either manage the slow decline of our courts, watching as victims are neglected and abandoned, and public confidence drains away, or instead we can support this bill and modernise and repair the system so that justice is delivered quickly and fairly.

I enthusiastically choose the latter option.
17:44
Imran Hussain Portrait Imran Hussain MP (Bradford East, Labour)
-
-
Imran Hussain Deputy Speaker and >> Imran Hussain Deputy Speaker and I draw the House to my register of interests as a member of the bar, I interests as a member of the bar, I rise to oppose plans to curtail jury trials because restricting jury trials is wrong in principle and wrong in practice. Trial by jury is not some quaint tradition we can trade away when Ministers feel the pressure. As has been already said, it is one of the great democratic safeguards in our justice system, and ordinary citizen, judged by their peers, with the power of the state held to check.

So let us actually look at the danger of challenging this principle. There is a reason there is a balance between the state and the citizen, and it is a dangerous road to go down to change that balance in favour of the state. And we only have history to look at that teaches us that and the power we are given this state. Madam Deputy Speaker, is not a power that will simply allow the state to give you a fine.

We are talking about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people's liberty being lost here, and therefore, of course I will. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I too am a passionate believer in the jury system. But considering that Sweden, which is number one in the World which is number one in the World Justice Project global rankings, does not use jury trials at all, neither does Norway, Germany or the Netherlands, and in France, Denmark Netherlands, and in France, Denmark and Canada, only the most serious cases are dealt by juries.

He is not suggesting, is he, that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not suggesting, is he, that they are not, that they don't have liberty. Imran Hussain. Well, what I am saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, is there is a reason we protect this liberty, this cornerstone of our justice and democracy system. Because I'll tell the hon. Lady this when we see this level of shifting change to state power, I tell the hon. Lady who is at the receiving end of this first, it is Bame communities, it is working class communities, it is elderly communities and it is women that are disproportionately impacted.

And let us be clear about what these proposals mean in practice. Of course I will. Hon. Member for giving way. Does the hon. Member agree that the restriction in jury trials for some cases is just one particular measure in a whole range of measures? And does he also agree that in order to protect those really vulnerable victims, for example, rape victims who will have a jury trial, we need to make the process quicker for them. And that does necessarily mean that for some other cases, the decision to take away juries is a measure to protect those who are most vulnerable.

Imran Hussain let me say this. These are not competing interests. Let me first thank all the hon. Members here today who have made brave and passionate speeches, and I salute their courage. Of course, we want to see justice delivered to victims as soon as possible, but there isn't a shred of evidence that suggests by curtailing jury trials, we are somehow doing that. And I think the hon. Lady for Waltham Forest spoke with great passion earlier on to address that point.

Madam Deputy Speaker, let us be clear about what these proposals mean. In practice, the government are suggesting that people could face lengthy prison sentences following judge only processes in a new category of so-called swift courts. Now, frankly, that should send a chill through every Democrat in this country. Ministers claim that this is about efficiency. Well, there's been no argument being put forward in this debate today. You know, restricting jury trials will deliver only limited time savings in the Crown Court system.

Hon. Members have made that case time and again today. And the core point here is undermining fundamental rights will not fix a backlog caused by years of under-investment, court closures, reduced capacity and a criminal justice system stretched to breaking point. Ministers have published impact assessments, but they have still not shown that curtailing jury trials will meaningfully solve a backlog caused by years of under-resourcing. And here is the real fear. Before I come on to the real fear I will give him.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's very generous in giving way, and he's making some very important points about potential overreach of points about potential overreach of the state. But might I say to him that today is not the end of the day for this piece of legislation? If there are concerns and people If there are concerns and people are rightly raising some issues, that we can progress those through the Committee stage and subsequent readings to make sure that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

readings to make sure that this bill is where it needs to be to retain public trust. Well, I'll come on to that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know I'm Madam Deputy Speaker. I know I'm not getting an extra minute. Will I get an extra minute? Oh, OK. Well, maybe I've been perhaps too generous with my time. But the real fear here is these changes will not simply speed things up, they will change how justice is done. And in the limited time I have.

I do think it's a tragedy that we have three minutes to debate. I have three minutes to speak in a debate of this magnitude, amending cornerstones of our democracy. But I say to the Justice Secretary this please take advice from the hon. Member that he was a number of years ago, because he actually made some of the most powerful arguments for the jury system. I ask him to look back at his old self.
17:50
Tristan Osborne Portrait Tristan Osborne MP (Chatham and Aylesford, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Tristan Osborne. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And firstly, can I pay tribute to all of those members who have contributed this afternoon with with their life experiences from barristers, prosecutors, criminal justice experts, but also the really powerful victim testimony we've heard from colleagues across this chamber. And also to welcome to the balcony today, those victims who have put themselves forward to articulate their convictions, to improve the lives of all of our residents and communities.

And I thank you and salute you for your service. Can I also thank the time given by Sir Brian Leveson to come forward with these proposals, and also the time given by the ministerial frontbench? To me, I know I've had Westminster Hall debates concerning issues around Kent Court waiting times, and I found the frontbench to be very respectful and engaging on issues. So can I pay Testament and thank you for that. As a former police officer, I always say that you should judge an individual on their patterns of behaviour.

And of course we have, as many of my colleagues have testified, inherited a terrible situation in our criminal justice system with policing, with record low morale and seesawing numbers of police officers with rising crime. We've seen a probation service privatised, a botched privatisation and a prison system which, quite frankly, was left in a state of disrepair when we inherited that in July 2024. And I'm afraid their track record is, is is, which is in the dock today, is testament to the part of the reason why we are here debating these issues.

And the Nao report is, as a member of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, the report on our reducing court backlog has been critically clear, and the Leveson report does give a number of different guides around the solutions to reducing this. And I'm going to touch on three points in my minute and a half that's remaining. So first of all, the criminal justice system has never been in aspic. We've seen evolution over the course of time. We've seen sentencing guidelines change. We've seen different types of cases referred in magistrate and dealt with in magistrates.

Even in the last government, we extended magistrates sentencing to 12 months. And we've also learned from international guidelines in Canada and Australia that they've also gone through similar challenges around these issues and have moved into a stronger position and place. And I believe that we should learn from those international lessons. And so the criminal justice system is always evolving. Second of all, I can I welcome the investment into the criminal justice system, an extra £2.2 billion. It's going to reform our court systems with a removal of the cap on court sitting days, digital improvements in the court system.

But fundamentally, my my constituents want to see justice delivered. And I cannot stand by and watch idly when I have people in my surgeries waiting 3 to 4 years to hear court cases because of a failed system. So I believe all of these reforms should be debated at bill committee. And I'm very disappointed that the opposition are not going to be supporting that process and and asking and voting for it to go to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that committee. Thank you. Ian Lavery. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of my constituents are telling me that absolutely disillusioned with politics and with the with politics and with the institutions that actually shape their lives, they feel alienated with a system that appears remote, unresponsive and unaccountable. And here we are again, a feeling all here we are again, a feeling all that my right hon. Friend, the Justice Secretary's proposals to limit the right to trial by jury risk deepening these issues and the mood of cynicism and distrust.

I just think it's encouraging that I
17:54
17:54
17:54
Ian Lavery Portrait Ian Lavery MP (Blyth and Ashington, Labour)
-
-
be looked at very, very closely in the other stages. If the Bill does a a cultural importance to jury a a cultural importance to jury trials, nearly two centuries, legitimacy of criminal justice system has rested on a on a simple idea that guilt should be judged not by the state alone, but by a person's peers. It's quite simple, really. The public sees trial by jury as a fundamental right, one that embodies fairness and equality before the law doesn't exist.

Mistrust of judges and magistrates. And you wonder why, when three quarters of the judges are Oxbridge graduates, three quarters the majority attended public schools and only 10% 10% of magistrates and judges are from ethnic minority backgrounds. You know, this sort of thing has got to change. Madam Deputy Speaker, it really has because it's not acceptable. There needs to be more scrutiny on the proposal to limit defendants rights to appeal and magistrates Court convictions, because the current position, quite frankly, is indefensible, not acceptable.

The right to appeal is fundamental to natural justice. And if this proposal reaches the statute book, it would trigger, in my view, and that of many experts, an avalanche of judicial reviews and appeals to the European Court. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are commendable elements in this bill, particularly those strengthening protections for women who have suffered sexual violence, as we've experienced today. But the proposals to curtail the right to trial by jury offer no discernible benefit.

The risk undermining centuries of legal tradition, damaging trust in our institutions and threatening social stability at a time when the fabric of our society is all already under strain.
17:56
Linsey Farnsworth Portrait Linsey Farnsworth MP (Amber Valley, Labour)
-
-
Linsey Farnsworth. the criminal justice system knows that the Crown Court crisis has been years in the making, underfunding, austerity, Covid and the changing nature of crime. With cases becoming increasingly complex and evidential volumes growing exponentially have compounded the issue. The changes in this bill offer a pragmatic solution, and it's important that we're all clear about what is being proposed here. This bill does not abolish jury trials. It simply adjusts the threshold at which a case warrants a jury's involvement.

Now, magistrates are absolutely capable of hearing cases commanding a sentence of up to two years. They already do in the youth court. And there's been no outcry that young people don't get justice because of this. Now, as the Crown Court backlog has increased, so has the percentage of cases committed to the Crown Court because defendants overruled the magistrates decision. And this is in spite of the fact that the sentence in the most serious version of the Crown's case would not exceed the magistrates maximum powers.

1st May wonder why a defendant would seek to take his case to court a court with greater sentencing powers, but the calculation is clear the longer the wait for a trial, the harder it will be for witnesses to have a clear recollection of events, and the more likely it is for the victims to withdraw. Or, in one of my cases, a defendant who hoped that the 96 year old victim of burglary would die before the trial took place on give way.

Of course, I thank my honourable Graeme Downie and this is the crux of the issue that we're discussing today is how do we make sure that justice is being given to victims as quickly as possible? Would my hon. Friend agree that this bill enables us to do that? Yes. I absolutely agree with my friend on that point. And and defendants do indeed gain the system to prevent that. Now, arguments about the against the Crown Court Bench Division seem to presuppose some measure of unfairness of having a single judge deciding guilt or innocence.

But district judges have sat alone in the magistrates court for decades, and there's been no campaigns suggesting that they should be abolished on the grounds of unfairness or otherwise. The Crown Court Bench Division, is predicted to save 5000 sitting days in 20 2829, as well as and, as well as reducing the time spent in the courtroom. Fewer jury trials will also free up administrative staff, who are also feeling under immense pressure. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, for those that suggest that greater investment and inefficiency inefficiencies alone will be sufficient, I remind them that Sir Brian Leveson has said that this alone cannot solve this crisis, and that accords with my experience as working for a Crown.

As a Crown prosecutor from 2003, right up until just before the general election, during which time countless efficiency initiatives were introduced, but were ultimately unable to stop the crisis from developing efficiencies. Cannot alone turn this around. If, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for making an eloquent speech, does she not share eloquent speech, does she not share my concern that if we were to walk away from the crucial bill reforms in this bill, that police officers, in this bill, that police officers, prison officers, CPS staff, those who work in our Crown courts would not thank us for the mess that we'd not thank us for the mess that we'd be leaving them with a Crown Court system that, frankly, grinds to a halt and backlogs ballooning.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

halt and backlogs ballooning. I absolutely agree with my friends, and I thank all of those people that work within the criminal justice system who, frankly, have been propping up the system with the generosity of their time, working extra hours over and above, giving everything. And and they have propped the criminal justice system up doing that for years now. If we do not act now, the wait time for cases to reach trial is projected to increase, and the consequences are stark.

First, justice is delayed. That means victims waiting years for closure and a chance to heal. It means the wrongly accused waiting years to for their name to be cleared. And it means those who have offended waiting years until they can be rehabilitated. Second, we will not fix a vicious cycle of interconnected crises, a staffing crises, a prison crises, a recidivism crises, and a VAWG crises. Madam Deputy Speaker, we finally, finally have a government brave enough to grip these problems through record levels of investment, through the Emergency Early Release Scheme, through through sentencing reform and the measures in this bill.

This bill rebalances the criminal justice system to ensure that jury trials are always available for the most serious cases, that cases are heard sooner and victims are treated more fairly, and that our criminal justice service continues to provide justice now and future proofs it for years to come. I wholeheartedly support the government with this bill.
18:02
Catherine Fookes Portrait Catherine Fookes MP (Monmouthshire, Labour)
-
-
Catherine Fookes. >> Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. >> And I rise to speak in favour of the Bill. But first, I want to the Bill. But first, I want to remind the House why these reforms matter to victims. When the powerful wave of the MeToo movement washed over us in 2017, almost ten years after the incredible Tarana Burke began the MeToo programme in US schools and women began to share their stories. I froze when I heard on the radio what Harvey Weinstein had done, had been doing In Plain Sight, and I spent the rest of the day scrolling through courageous women's stories online.

And despite my horror at each of their experiences, I felt relief and hope. Relief that we could share our stories. Stories of what I know every single woman in this chamber, and every single woman and girl in the UK, unfortunately, has at some level had to endure and hope. Hope that this would be a watershed moment, that it would mean no more Harvey Weinstein's. But recently, we've come to learn that the monstrous abuses committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, reminding us that this fight is by no means over, regardless of whether a victim has survived a high profile repeat offender or abuse from someone they knew and trusted at home or at work, they deserve justice.

The Tories utterly failed victims in their 14 years. They ran up a huge backlog. Some women victims have said recently they've waited ten years and that's a ten year sentence for them. We cannot accept these delays. Over 90% of all criminal cases are already heard fairly without a jury by magistrates. Clause eight of the proposed bill puts restrictions on evidence or questions about a survivor's sexual history. It should never have been part of the trial ever in the first place, and clause 17 means that courts will no longer have to start from that presumption that parental involvement will always be in the interests of a child.

Women's aid have called this a significant shift in the pro contact culture that put children at risk, and this change will be incredibly encouraging for one of my constituents, whose ex-partner was convicted of child sex offences and has seen her children's well-being massively impacted. And I pay tribute to the campaigners here today who've worked so hard to make this happen. So today we can move the dial towards a system that does not unfairly advantage a perpetrator and does not retraumatize victims.

It is almost.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. On that point. There are there's a backlog in the family courts of a backlog in the family courts of 110,000 cases more than we are discussing now, and legal aid rates for family law have not gone up for family law have not gone up since 1997. Does she agree with me that this is an important move? But we need to do more. Yes, I do agree with her. We need to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with her. We need to. Do more. And as a recipient of legal aid myself in the past, I know how so important it is that know how so important it is that that Budget is increased. So to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's almost ten years since the birth of the MeToo movement. We must now ensure that we deliver on the hope that it engendered. Real change is needed. Add back domestic abuse and sexual violence survivors

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and therefore I back the bill. Rachael Maskell Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rachael Maskell Deputy. Speaker, when debating justice, I'm first reminded of the victim's right to a process producing a fair right to a process producing a fair and timely verdict, and defendant to know that justice has been served fairly without delay. There served fairly without delay. There is much to commend in the Bill the removal of presumption of parental involvement, protecting children
18:05
Rachael Maskell Portrait Rachael Maskell MP (York Central, Labour )
-
-
involvement, protecting children from becoming the proxy target of perpetrators abuse, and the better handling of evidence. But the listing of backlogs is not universal. When visiting York's Crown Court there listing for 20 2627, the government must learn from successful courts and indeed think about instituting things like Nightingale courts to deal with the backlog. I was told about the dysfunctional IT system and how difficult it was to connect to achieve better evidence. Videos. I was told about the PECS contracts and I say to the government, we should insource that work to ensure that we are not seeing the delays and also a state improvements are vital, not least to ensure Crown Court like York, built in 1777.

But I want to really focus on today on the issue of the removal of jury trials. We know that the judiciary lacks diversity, as we've heard, and I fear unconscious bias. As academic papers have pointed out. But also we need to ensure that we have got stronger deliberation of of trials and therefore, to hand that to a jury would give more security. But the final point I want to impress upon the Justice secretary is a political one. When victims and defendants have lost confidence in the establishment, the elite, including the judiciary, abridged to maintain confidence between them and their communities and the justice system is vital, as was put to me.

Without this, the victim is less likely to believe that someone who experiences are a million miles from their own will have confidence, and likewise, the defendant have been failed by the establishment time and time again. Therefore, maintaining the bridge to justice with people who have walked in their shoes, grown up on their streets and face the same challenges, enables the victim and defendant to know that at least the court understands, even if it has not found in their favour, to be able to have your truth told to those who have come, and to serve from your community on a jury, to know that the evidence will be deliberated well, upholds confidence in the courts and in justice.

But to break this trust breaks justice and builds barriers. Justice must not only be done, but be seen and felt to be done. It is easy for Ministers to get lost in the data and miss the purpose of justice. And I believe that it is this miscalculation that we wrestle with today. It is about who holds power and ultimately trusting that power.
18:08
Andrew Cooper Portrait Andrew Cooper MP (Mid Cheshire, Labour)
-
-
Andrew Cooper thank. Constitution is that everyone is bound by and entitled to the benefit of the law. But the long running crisis in our justice running crisis in our justice system has stretched that principle to breaking point. Other honourable and right hon. Members have covered and right hon. Members have covered in depth the disastrous decisions from the previous government that has got us to this point. I would only add that on my visit to Chester Crown Court last month, they told me about a recent trial that had to finish at 3 p.m.

each day because they could not get the light bulbs replaced in the court. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has put in significant investment in court infrastructure into legal aid and in Uncapping sitting days, but it's clear that investment alone won't be enough to deal with this crisis. We also need to reform the system and make it fit for how criminal justice operates today. There are a raft of measures in this bill that will do that, as well as important reforms such as the removal of the presumption of contact.

I intend to focus specifically on the proposals on the Crown Court. Bench Division Parliament has taken a view as to where the line should be between offences that should be disposed of by magistrates, and which are at a different level of severity and jeopardy for the defendant as to require a full Crown Court trial with a jury. Elsewhere in our system, it's not unprecedented for serious matters to be decided by a judge alone, such as in the Family Court. The question is whether the government has struck the correct balance in its proposals, and whether there are sufficient safeguards for defendants.

And on this, I want to make two points in Sir Brian Leveson report. He intended that whilst the three year threshold in the presumption for whether a case should be allocated to the Bench Division judicial discretion would be maintained for exceptional circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine of cases where the broader public interest will be best served through a jury trial. One wonders how the Colston four would have fared with a judge only trial. The last word on where these cases should be tried should sit with a judge having considered all of the arguments and nuances of the case in front of them.

Secondly, Leveson recommended that the bench division consists not only of a judge but also two magistrates, and he did so to retain community involvement in the judgement, as well as addressing the diversity gap amongst the judiciary, the Bill proposes to try by judge alone eliminates all community involvement from this class of defendant, treating them differently from those facing charges of both lesser and greater severity. The 2022 University of Manchester study into racial bias, and the bench found that over half of respondents had witnessed one or more judges acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant in their judicial rulings.

Summing up sentencing, bail comments or directions. Now, I've listened very carefully to Ministers arguments on this, but I'm nevertheless concerned that significant risks remain. I intend to support the bill tonight. The bill contains four important reforms to our criminal justice system, and it's essential we deal with the crisis that for too long has failed victims. But I also intend to continue to engage with Ministers, and I look forward to my concerns progresses.
18:11
Warinder Juss Portrait Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West, Labour)
-
-
Thank you for Mr Speaker. was raped more than three years ago. Her initial court date was set for February last year, more than two years after the offence. My constituent prepared for that day practically, mentally and emotionally, only for the hearing to be pushed back by 24 hours at the last minute. This happened three times in a row three nights without sleep, three mornings of preparation, three days of reliving her trauma with no progress being made, and the case was then postponed again, this time for an entire year.

She went through another 12 months of stress and uncertainty until January this year, hoping to close this painful chapter of her life. But once again, the date was pushed back, this time until November. All my constituent wants is to move on with her life and to receive the justice that she deserves. Our justice system is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

failing victims. It is delaying justice, and justice delayed is justice denied. My hon. Friend. Yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, of course. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I really feel for his constituent. In the case that he described in Warwickshire, we he described in Warwickshire, we had one of the worst records for police charging in cases of rape, police charging in cases of rape, and they've turned that around and now have one of the best records in the country. But does he agree with me that for the police to continue doing their work investigating the accused, we must have a court system that can support a fair and timely trial, and only then will we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

restore public trust in our justice system. I thank the hon. Member for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for her question. Yes, these measures are all about getting that timely justice, and that is why I will be supporting the Bill. This Labour government inherited the system on the brink of collapse, where cases the brink of collapse, where cases like my constituents are all too common. We must all recognise that action is sorely needed and I welcome this government's commitment to reform. I do want to thank Sir Brian Leveson for his detailed and thoughtful review, part one of which was completed last July.

So this bill is not being rushed, and his reviews have played a significant role in shaping the reforms set out in this bill. I know that there are mixed opinions about the proposed changes to jury trials, but the independent review of the criminal courts was carried out because of the truly appalling backlog in our criminal justice system. I've heard of trials being listed in the most seriously affected courts in into 2030. I heard this morning that victims are saying that waiting three years for their case to come to court was worse than the rape itself.

Jury trials do take longer, and I would have preferred the government to have followed Sir Brian's recommendation of the creation of the new Bench Division, where we have a judge and two magistrates to try cases without a jury. However, I do trust this government to take the necessary steps to repair our justice system whilst preserving the sanctity, fairness and integrity that underpins justice in this country. Any proportionate and appropriate amendments to the Bill can be made at the Committee stage.

I also welcome the investment that this government has made into modernising our court system and trying to reduce the backlog, whilst ensuring that victims do not face the unnecessary delays and the insufficient, inefficient processes when seeking justice. Yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I recently. Visited Leeds Crown Court, where I saw the benefits of some of that investment benefits of some of that investment in a victim support suite which ensured those victims, particularly of violence against women and girls cases, were able to be safe and secure. Does he agree with me that it is both the investment and the it is both the investment and the reforms that we're considering today that are necessary to deliver

**** Possible New Speaker ****

swift and fair justice for victims? Absolutely. I've had discussions with Sir Brian Leveson on a number of occasions, and he does confirm that it's not just one particular measure that is going to achieve the reforms that we need. It's a number of measures, and the restriction in jury trials is just one particular measure. But we have to take all these measures together to achieve what we are trying to achieve. And I do also welcome the additional safeguards for victims in Russell cases, drawing on recommendations from the Law Commission, these new procedures will ensure that vulnerable victims of these horrific crimes are protected throughout the justice process, preventing further trauma and moving away from lines of questioning that perpetuate harmful rape.

Myths and stereotypes. Yes, the backlog in our courts and the delays denying justice to victims do require bold and drastic action. And this is needed now. And I therefore welcome this government taking the concrete steps to address the crisis that we have inherited. And I will be supporting this bill. As I've already said, although I've concentrated on jury trials, there are other measures in this bill which are also very welcome. The move away from the presumption of parental involvement in family courts, which has already been mentioned, and it will allow this government to put the best interests of children first.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we do need drastic action and we need to take this action now. And so I welcome all that the government is doing at this moment.
18:17
Kim Johnson Portrait Kim Johnson MP (Liverpool Riverside, Labour)
-
-
Kim Johnson. >> Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. >> I want to start by saying that there's a lot in this bill that I there's a lot in this bill that I really do support, but restricting the right to jury trial is something I'm ideologically opposed to, because it undermines the foundations of our democracy. And I've not seen any evidence to show that it will go anywhere near tackling the backlog proposed. Madam Deputy Speaker, our jury system may be centuries old but is still fit for purpose today.

Successive studies have shown that, on average, jury verdicts are not affected by ethnicity, including in cases with all white juries. One stage in the criminal justice system, where Bame groups do not face persistent disproportionality, is when a jury reached a verdict. And Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not my words. They're the words of the current justice secretary. Written in a seminal 2017 review. And while these findings are nearly a decade old, the research by Cheryl Thomas on which these conclusions are based still hold true today.

And this is the report I'll give way. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend for giving way. Does she not agree with me that now, Does she not agree with me that now, having endured 14 years of conservative government, we have the opportunity to implement the Lammy Review in full?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lammy Review in full? I really appreciate it, my good friend intervention and I really do. It was a great piece of work and I think there's some really great recommendations that will work, particularly in terms of joint particularly in terms of joint enterprise. Currently, only 10% of Crown Court judges are from ethnic minority backgrounds and just 1% of black, a figure that has remained the same for a decade. And when we trust the police and criminal justice system remains chronically low among black communities, when we know that these systems produce disproportionate outcomes, particularly in relation to joint enterprise, why are we pouring yet more fuel on the fire? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, particularly when we all know that evidence exists.

It's just being ignored. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know all of us in this chamber today recognise that the backlog needs to be tackled and victims, given the swift justice that they deserve. A justice delayed is justice denied. But we need evidence based solutions focussed on what is causing the backlogs. The Institute of Government says it will only be between 1 and 2% to put this perspective, this means that rape complainants and victims are currently waiting around a year for the case to be heard, may see their cases brought forward by a week at least.

I was pleased to visit Liverpool Crown Court recently with the Criminal Bar Association. Just last month I had the pleasure of hearing from Judge Andrew Merry, under whose leadership Liverpool court can now proudly boast the lowest backlog in the country. His work in bringing together prosecution and defence teams to negotiate common sense solutions to avoid cases needlessly going to court, speeding up access to justice for victims and ensuring fair outcomes for defendants is a leading light in our country, and I'm pleased that the government are looking to roll this.

I know the Minister cares deeply about tackling racism in the justice system. He's been on record for decades trying to do exactly this, so I urge him to listen to the strength and breadth of feeling in the House today, across the legal profession and across our country. Listen to the 3000 signatories of the letter to the PM. Once this right is removed, we may never get it back again. Justice needs juries today. We must defend them. Thank you. Pam Cox.
18:21
Pam Cox Portrait Pam Cox MP (Colchester, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition has chosen to misrepresent this bill. That's their choice. But it does the their choice. But it does the delivery of justice in this country no favours. That misrepresentation has centred on one of its many provisions the proposed changes to mode of trial. Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill does not abolish jury trials. What it does do is move some cases to the magistrates courts, introduce bench trials for certain other cases, and introduce reforms to either way proceedings. If implemented, the bill will mean that the accused in those.

Either way, cases will no longer have the ability to overrule the decision of a magistrates court about mode of trial, namely where their trial should be held. I just want to offer a different perspective on this one, and the current right to elect a jury trial is not an ancient right. Rather, we could think of it as an anomaly, a legal practice created in the 1850s that survived reforms in the 1970s, and a practice that court modernisers have been calling to be closed down for decades.

I focus on the history because it's very important for us to be aware of how others before us have used democratic processes to enact judicial reform in the public interest. In 2001, Lord Justice Auld noted that our system is probably unique in that a large range of offences the accused, not the court, decides how and where he is to be tried, and Lord Auld recommended that this element be abolished. But this is the system that the opposition are currently defending, and when they defend that anomaly, they are delaying justice and undermining victims.

If we look at the numbers last year, more than 4000 defendants opted for a jury trial. The Magistrates Association reported to the Justice Select Committee that some will have done so in the hope that the resulting delay would deter victims from continuing. We know that many stopped prosecutions are caused by victims dropping out, demoralised, defeated, denied. Justice. This bill turns that dreadful situation around through its whole package of measures, but in part by ending the either way anomaly.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill preserves jury trials for the most serious cases. If it didn't, I would not be supporting it. It also allows those presiding over a bench trial to reallocate the case to a jury trial. If new evidence emerges to suggest that the defendant might receive a sentence of more than three years. And that's an important point that's been overlooked so far in this debate. There's more I would say about the other packages of measures introduced here. There's more I would say about the desperate need to do more for sexual offence victims to fast track those courts, for example.

I would love us to do that at pace, but we have a once in a generation chance to improve our courts. Let's take that chance today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. We've heard many. Moving speeches today.
18:24
Amanda Hack Portrait Amanda Hack MP (North West Leicestershire, Labour)
-
-
>> And I have to pay tribute to the Member for Warrington North and Bolsover for their personal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experience. Jury. Jury trials are a really important mechanism in the be. Taken for granted. So I wanted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taken for granted. So I wanted to share my experience. A number of years ago, I was asked to be a witness in a trial where somebody I witness in a trial where somebody I knew was being prosecuted for asthma. And then just a couple of years ago, I was the victim of harassment myself. The specific details of these cases isn't needed. However, the premises in that earlier case, the trial was judge led. Whilst in experience, I felt it was an environment where the judge and the legal representatives worked really hard to ensure both sides of the case were examined and presented as openly as possible.

Fast forward some years later and I found myself in a different situation. I was a victim alongside a number of individuals of direct harassment. In that case, the perpetrator wanted to proceed with a jury trial. They got that choice. The trial was the trial was postponed repeatedly and went forward after third rescheduled date. Each time, more cost, more. More time on the public purse and actually more stress for the victims. The delays were so extremely frustrating and meant justice.

Whatever the jury might be decided was actually delayed for a long time. But those of us who were victims, it meant we were able to move, unable to move on. And that's what it's like for so many victims. I'd be grateful for the Minister can elaborate how victims will be supported by these changes. In the first trial as a witness, I was cross-examined by the opposing counsel. In the second, I was cross-examined by the person that committed the crime against me. I could see the jurors were uncomfortable with this kind of approach, the perpetrator's line of questioning.

So we should spare a thought about those jurors. People from across society doing really important job for the public, serving on a jury, many of them would have had to rearrange work commitments, lose money if they were self-employed, maybe catch up on work in the evenings just to make justice happen. In my view, the defendant should not have been able to delay the case in the way they did, and those jurors should not have had to sit through a trial that could have been managed effectively with a just a judge.

Finally, spare a thought to taxpayers, including those in North West Leicestershire who have been in touch. I understand their concerns that they do not want to see the loss of a jury trial. They won't. We'll see a restriction of jury trials. They don't they don't. They actually also, I think, should recognise that too many cases where perpetrators can choose to go for a jury trial is now simply being used by people to delay justice. And as we've already heard, justice delayed is justice denied and victims deserve so much better here.

Doctor Marie Tidball.
18:26
Marie Tidball Portrait Dr Marie Tidball MP (Penistone and Stocksbridge, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> I rise to support this bill, particularly clause 17. Jack and Paul's law to finally repeal the presumption of contact in the family courts. The result of 11 years of campaigning by my incredible constituent, Claire Throssell, M.B.E. in the gallery today, following the tragic death of her beautiful sons Jack and Paul, killed in a house fire by their father, a known domestic abuser, their dad lured Jack and his nine year old brother Paul into the attic with the promise of a train set, but started 14 fires around their family home, killing himself in the blaze.

Their deaths happened during a two hour court ordered unsupervised contact visit, permitted by a family court and allowed to go ahead by Kafka's. The State failed. Jack and Paul Madam Deputy Speaker. It failed to put their well-being first after a decade of their father's abuse, neglect and coercive control towards them and their mother. This House must act today and vote through this bill to save the lives of a future generation of children by ending contact at any cost.

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

family courts. The honourable. Lady give way. I will. Does she agree with me that it is absolutely agree with me that it is absolutely crucial that we fund contact centres properly, so that there are properly supervised options for properly supervised options for courts to order? I do indeed, in combination with the provisions in the bill to effect structural the bill to effect structural reform, to stop criminals gaming the system and to triage trials effectively. Such measures will effectively.

Such measures will embed a child and victim centred approach in the court. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank her for giving way and I commend her on her exemplary campaigning on behalf of her campaigning on behalf of her constituent, Claire Throssell. Does she agree that it is not right that rape victims are waiting 400 days

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rape victims are waiting 400 days to be heard? I do. Indeed agree with the hon. Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

I ask this House to vote for this bill today so that we can collectively fulfil Claire's promise to her sons, Jack and Paul, so that children like Jack and Paul are listened to, not ignored, so that no more towns like mine are left to grieve. I urge this House to make this world a reality and support this bill. Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
18:30
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Portrait Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (Clapham and Brixton Hill, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now, whilst there's lots to welcome in this bill, I feel it's been completely overshadowed by plans to restrict jury trials. This is not what victims are asking for. They need changes that are backed by evidence and will see genuine improvements to the criminal justice system. Jury trials are not what has led to the backlog and these reforms won't reduce them. I have a close friend who is a survivor of rape. He was alarmed by this proposal, and after a three and a half year wait for her trial, the delay made her suicidal.

She desperately wants action on court backlogs, but opposes this and is outraged that her trauma, and that of thousands of survivors, is being used to justify what she sees as effectively as a cost cutting exercise. Learned friends will know that courts could be instructed to prioritise rape cases and have them heard in a set period of time, like six months. And just as my honourable and brave friend the Member for Warrington North raised, where are the specialist courts? None of these things require legislation.

We need to address the backlog in our criminal courts, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any steps taken should never justice. Friend give way. On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend give way. On that point. My good friend talks about equality and not jeopardising it. Does she agree with me that more needs to be agree with me that more needs to be done in terms of recruiting more people from diverse communities to ensure that our systems are for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ensure that our systems are for more diverse and represent the communities in which it serves. My friend is absolutely right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend is absolutely right and she will have heard many times in this chamber people talk about the lack of diversity in our judicial system now. Last July, I met with the Bar Council because when a sector has issues, we should talk to the workers. They more often than not have the solutions that, in my view, has always been the labour way. They had a number of recommendations that should be considered. For example, remand demanding defendants who are awaiting trial should be conveniently located at prison close to the court because Serco, the company tasked with prisoner transportation, persistently fails to transport prisoners in good time, wasting the court's time and resulting in a new court date having to be set.

So end privatisation, then bring prisoner transportation back in house, providing greater flexibility for hearings and allowing virtual courts so that more cases are heard permitting all available judges, including judges who have retired but are below the age of 75, to sit as many days as they are available, investing in more court staff and support and listening trials from Monday to Thursday. So all short matters are dealt with on one day, namely Friday, minimising disruption for all other courts court users such as jurors, witnesses and defendants.

These are all simple changes which would significantly maximise sittings whilst preserving the basic foundations of our criminal justice system. Madam Deputy Speaker, the wholesale change that we ought to be considering today should be the complete reversal of the austerity measures introduced by the coalition government which led to this mess. But instead this is over being overshadowed by this particular proposal. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, racial bias in our criminal justice system is well documented and any reforms should address this head on.

But to conduct a post-legislative review on discrimination is deeply insulting to those communities that are impacted. This was our opportunity, as I said earlier, to fully implement the Lammy review and instead we we have a situation where there will be no automatic right to appeal and where black women are 22% more likely to be convicted. To quote one of the brilliant lawyers who was protesting outside today, if a Thompson, she said, in a justice system that already produces racially discriminatory outcomes, removing juries means removing one of the few spaces where ordinary people and some real diversity exists in our courtrooms.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we all have to have red lines, and racism in our justice system has ruined so many lives in our communities, and I cannot support this measure. And if it is not removed from the legislation, I will not be supporting this bill.
18:34
Sarah Russell Portrait Sarah Russell MP (Congleton, Labour)
-
-
And with. who has appeared before the tribunals historically. I want to speak very briefly today about the £1.3 billion maintenance backlog in our courts. We have heard that the Justice Secretary is going to commit £287 million to it. It is a very large sum of money, but it's not enough. I want to talk about the fact that we have seen legal aid rates that haven't gone up since 1997. The Justice Secretary is looking at increasing them very significantly, but unfortunately moving them from £40 an hour to £60 an hour when in private practice, most solicitors would expect to be billing about five times that.

To run their firms is just not enough. When we look at how much these measures. I'm afraid not. When we look at how much these measures will bring down the backlog in totality, it is simply not enough. When we look at the fact that from reporting a rape to actual trial is now, on average, six years. Bringing down the backlog slightly by the end of next Parliament is just not enough. I have significant concerns about the restrictions on access to jury trials.

Anyone who has read Baroness Harman's independent review into bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the bar should have real concerns about the attitudes of some barristers towards women and ethnic minorities. Of course, not every barrister exhibits these traits, but they are a systematic problem. She talks about the fact that a recurrent theme in the submissions was that there is a tolerance of misconduct at the bar, which is learned and passed down from generation to generation. I was told that some barristers, particularly men of the older generation, have no idea how outdated and offensive some of their views are, nor do they care about the impact of sharing those views on those who may be offended by them.

I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Justice Secretary identifies that we have these problems, and he that we have these problems, and he talks about the delivery of training to support people, you know, to be brought into the 21st know, to be brought into the 21st century in terms of racism and misogyny. Do you believe that those kind of training courses can work?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

kind of training courses can work? So thank you very much for my hon. Friend for the intervention. Obviously, not everyone is exhibiting these traits, and of course training can help. But my understanding anecdotally is that substantial numbers of members of the judiciary are currently not up to date with the training requirements that they already have. So I welcome hearing more from the Lord Chief Justice about exactly how those training programmes will be developed, brought forward and made mandatory in a way that is effective.

I also have significant concerns, though, about what Baroness Harman has recommended in terms of talking about the importance of the Judicial Appointments Commission, taking into account findings of misconduct when they are considering who to appoint as judges. It is astonishing that she has had to make a recommendation that this should actually be required. How has the Judicial Appointments Commission been operating to date, Madam Deputy Speaker? I stand here as someone who does not like to criticise the judiciary. I know that there are many very hard working members of the judiciary who have been operating in a very difficult environment for a very, very long time.

We have to be honest about the fact that actually most of the rates I'm referring to are not put up by the new Labour government either. We have had cuts to the justice system now for 25 years, and that is why it is on its knees. And we can do things within the context of the current system. That might make it somewhat better. But I go back to my original question. When rape trials are taking six years from arrest to prosecution, what are we going to do that actually wholesale changes that.

Nothing that I have heard so far has convinced me that what we are going to do here today, whichever permeations we go with, is fundamentally going to transform Mullan.
18:38
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And it's been a positive debate, I think, in terms of the exchange of think, in terms of the exchange of ideas, and I think there's been some fantastic contributions. I want to pay particular tribute to the Member for Bolsover and the Member for Warrington North for the very personal way in which they made their cases. And I think there's consensus today that for victims, the current waits are terrible. They are an experience that they shouldn't have to go through.

Not only is it damaging for them as individuals, some of them drop out as a result, and we see potential perpetrators who would have been found guilty walking away and escaping justice, and indeed not yet, and indeed, defendants who would be found innocent having to wait too long to have the accusations over their head removed. But we must have a serious discussion about why, and I think it's disappointing for those that have sought to lay forward a credible analysis about what happened that the Minister and most of the Labour MPs didn't even mention the word Covid once.

Because in reality, in reality, the backlogs in the Crown Court prior to Covid were lower under this government than they were than we inherited from the previous government. But it's fair to say that there's been an acceptance that for many years, 25 years, as the member before me just said, there hasn't been sufficient political attention paid to our justice system. The question is, what do we do about it? And there is no single answer to that question because there is no single problem.

There are a whole variety of things that we see in our justice system that are going wrong, like please, because of insufficient early advice, faulty courtrooms, lack of reports from probation services, problems with prison transport, all of these and others. Because these delays and these issues. But the central recommendation of the Leveson report was for more sitting days, 130,000 sitting days, and that will require more venues, more court staff, more prosecution staff, more solicitors and more barristers. But there are simpler things that we can do ahead of that, as I've mentioned, and we need look no further than Liverpool Crown Court under the leadership of Andrew Menary, when the average nationally for a wait from charge to trial is 321 days, that court manages 206 days.

As farmers are aware, the justice Minister and none of his team have been to visit that court to speak to that judge and hear how he does that. In one way, he achieves it through the use of early guilty pleas. Nationally, we lose court time because on the day of a trial, too many people, in fact, 31% of people plead guilty on the day. In Liverpool. That's just 6% that isn't bold reforms, that isn't things that allow a Secretary of State to give a grand speech and consider himself a great reformer.

It's just the hard work. Or, as one member pointed out, pretty boring stuff that gets the job done. And these reforms, actually, as the Member for Warrington North and Walthamstow pointed out, will not only not achieve what they claim to, but will be an overbearing, destructive distraction for that sort of hard work. And what will it gain them? Certainly not what they claim in the impact assessment, which is full of assumptions and fantasies, and certainly not anything like what you might describe as modelling.

It wants us to believe that 24,000 Crown Court days will be simply converted into 8500 magistrate days, without any evidence for that claim. It wants us to believe that trials without juries will be 20% shorter, without any evidence to support that claim.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. Thank you. The Shadow Minister. See the statement from the Ifg See the statement from the Ifg today, which has backed the government's modelling on this and overturned their previous position. And maybe you might want to reflect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And maybe you might want to reflect that in his comments. I wonder if I wonder I wonder if he actually read the entire statement, because what they actually said was that the modelling relies on several assumptions, some of which are highly uncertain. Did he read that particular part of the statement? I don't think he did, because they claim only 2% reductions in trial time as a result of these reforms. And what are we being asked? What are we being asked to to give up? We're being asked to give up 800 years of English legal history, a sledgehammer to the cornerstone and fundamental rights that we see before them.

For thousands, thousands of people accused who risk spending years in prison, losing their livelihood, losing their families, losing their homes, not being able to ask that simple request of having a form of their peers make that decision a part of the justice system that is trusted and supported more than any other. Which is perhaps why it's being so robustly defended by those within it. With just today, thousands of retired judges and retired and working legal professionals asking the Secretary of State to think again.

And what has the government's response to this been to denigrate the role of jury trials? As a result, we have the appalling sight of the Lord Chancellor comparing three years in prison to the scrape of your knee. We had the courts Minister saying that an offence of sexual assault, which could be considered either way at the moment as not a serious offence, an accusation that, if proven, would lose you your livelihood. It's shameful and desperate stuff from a desperate government. And of course, what did the Prime Minister say? In contrast, he said the right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual.

The further it's restricted, the greater the imbalance. And now he asks us to upend that balance in historically unprecedented way. But of course, we can talk about the facts and figures as woeful, as thin as they have been. At the end of the day, these deep, deep decisions come from political instinct, a deep sense of what is right and wrong. That's not a shallow thing. That's based on knowledge and years and years of experience, the sort that the Member for Kingston upon Hull East has, and the Member for Torridge and Tavistock has, that tells them before they saw the figures that this was not going to work, and they've been proven right by the figures themselves.

But is it any surprise that this Prime Minister doesn't understand that? Because we've seen time and time again, one thing he is absolutely devoid of is any sort of deep political instinct. His only instinct, his only instinct is how to chop and change his mind as it suits him on any one particular day. No wonder, no wonder he has been more than any other Prime Minister in recent history. An agent of the civil service. He's forgotten the golden rule that civil servants advise and Ministers decide.

And we have decided on this side. We have decided, yes, to more resources, efficiency, the hard work of getting things done. But no, absolutely no to eroding a fundamental right to more overbearing state power, no to gutting and scouring away the mechanism by which all of us watch the watchmen with the courts Minister telling us all it's on a point of political principle, not the argument members have here made about it being as a matter of necessity and resource.

Too often members opposite have said yes to a Prime Minister. They should have said no to. They have an opportunity tonight to say no when it counts, to say no to this Prime Minister. Let's hope they have the courage to do so.
18:46
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
Mr. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure to deliver the closing speech for this Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. I want to start by thanking right honourable and hon. Members for all their contributions. A consensus has broken out across this chamber, a consensus that the acute backlogs in our criminal courts represent an injustice, that a record and rising backlog of 80,000 cases behind each and every one of those cases, a victim, somebody accused of a crime, lives put on hold immiserated by the fact that we are seeing today trials listed into 2030.

So consensus has broken out that we cannot sit idly by and do nothing. We have to act based on pragmatism and what works and on principle on fairness, ensuring that every citizen in this country has the right to a fair trial. Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, waiting years for justice, whether you are a defendant or a victim, is unfair. Deeply unfair. Where victims lives are put on hold, where witnesses memories fade, where they're pulling out of trials, allowing perpetrators to walk away.

That is not justice at all. That is what we mean when we say justice delayed is justice denied. And so we have to act. How do we frame these principles? We make a choice. And the choice is this traditionally speaking, our justice system has had two central parties. On the one hand, the prosecution, on the other hand, the defence with victims hardly having all but a walk on part that changes because this bill and the measures surrounding it place victims at their heart.

And I want to pay tribute to them today. I think, again, consensus reigns in endorsing the fine speech of the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge as she paid tribute to her constituent, Claire Throssell, for her campaign and the measure that will be brought forward in this bill to repeal the presumption of parental contact. We have heard powerful speeches from the Member for Bolsover, Warrington North, North West Leicestershire, and their voices have added to the countless victims that I have met throughout this process, who have implored me to act, to act, to challenge the injustices in our court, the delays, and also the nature of the justice process.

Which means that so often it is they that they that feel put on trial. And it's why, as part of the reforms that we are bringing forward, we have centred victims a package of over half £1 billion to support victims services. Announcements today of independent legal advisers for rape victims changing the law on the rules of evidence, which mean that rape myths will be busted in our courts. And, of course, as the victims commissioner has said, the need to address the delays.

Now, we've been asked to vote on a reasoned amendment, a reason amendment, a reasoned amendment, a reasoned amendment that before I turn to the remarks made by other members, by the hon. Member for West Suffolk, the reason amendment would drive. I'm afraid you haven't been here for the entire debate. I'm not going to. The Member for West Suffolk puts forward a reasoned amendment, a reasoned amendment, hon. Members that would drive a coach and horses through this bill.

Politics is about choices, and to govern is to choose. We know what choices those on the Opposition Benches would make about our justice system, because it is writ large in how they gutted legal aid, how they shut criminal courts, how they capped sitting days. They have presented many criticisms, but one thing I haven't heard is an apology. Nor have I heard an alternative plan for how we address our backlog. This government has brought forward a plan, and it is a plan built on three pillars, three levers which we choose to pull.

The first investment uncapping sitting days, removing the financial constraint on how much our courts can sit, record investment in criminal legal aid. And I have heard the important contributions for the members from Hornsey and Friern Barnet, Mid Dorset, Chichester and Congleton about how we need to look at the question of the availability of legal aid, because of course, access to justice is vitally important. Important. The second lever. Modernisation. Many members across this House have pointed to the wasted time in our inefficient and broken court system, the time it's taken to bring prisoners to court, empty courtrooms because of the disrepair into which we are now investing, problems with listing, and how we adopt best practice from successful courts such as Liverpool.

These are all valuable suggestions, and they are all suggestions that, as a deputy Prime Minister said in his speech last week, we are taking forward because we've got to pull every lever. But the conclusions of the independent review of criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, were clear. Investment and efficiency alone will make a dent, but it will not bring down the backlogs. We have to bring forward structural reforms to alleviate the growing pressures on our Crown court.

Now that is not simply the cause of Covid. It's not simply the cause of lack of investment. These are long term changes in our criminal justice system that have been coming down the track for decades now. Crown court trials take twice as long now as they did 20 years ago. Police are making more arrests, and it's right that we have more procedural protections. All of this means that our system is creaking under the demand, and the modelling that we have put forward demonstrates that, of course, the way that we are going to bring about transformation is through people, the brilliant people who work every day in our criminal justice system.

And I am grateful to the members for Amber Valley, for Forest of Dean and Doncaster Central, from the CPS, the police, the prison staff, the barristers, defence and prosecution who power our criminal justice system because we will need you. We'll also need, as many have pointed out, our magistrates and I commend the members of Cramlington and Killingworth, Corby and East North Northamptonshire, all of whom, all of whom? All of whom have demonstrated how magistrates will power our system.

These are lay justices. I will give way, but I am mindful of the time, and I do have to wrap up on time. So I'll give way to my hon. Friend now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But will she just take away one point that I made and others made that people of good character that people of good character should have an absolute right to a jury trial? Just don't answer now. But will she at least consider that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point? Well, what I want to say to him in answer to that, I won't answer now, but what I will say is this there needs to be equality before the law, irrespective of background. And actually, this brings me to a And actually, this brings me to a point raised by the Member for Solihull West about rushing. We are not rushing this bill, as is seen in the vibrant debate we've had today, will receive ample scrutiny and I've taken on board the suggestions from right across the House, whether it's the Member for Pembrokeshire, his idea about district judges, whether it's my hon.

Friend from Kingston upon Hull East, because we engage in constructive dialogue to strengthen this bill, one of the most important ways in which we will do that is, as the Deputy Prime Minister has committed to a review, a review focussed primarily on the racial disparities and the inequalities in our system. I'm not here to defend the status quo. We know that for too long, marginalised communities, working class communities, racial minorities and I won't give way because I've got a lot of comments to cover.

But those representing those communities have been vocal in this debate, and we hear you. And it's why we'll be bringing forward a review at Committee stage. And I want to pay tribute to the contributions for the Member for Birmingham Erdington, Sheffield Central, Bradford West and East York Central, Poplar Liverpool Riverside. One of the things that came through in their comments is the importance not just of justice being done, but justice being seen to be done. The justice system that we reform needs to command the confidence of communities, and we will work constructively to ensure that the review that we put on the face of this bill will do just that.

But I return to the central theme the need to act. For too long, those on the benches opposite were prepared to sit idly by while they presided over a crisis in our prisons, a crisis in probation and now a crisis in our courts. We've heard it loud and clear from the members for Folkestone South Dorset, Chatham, Monmouthshire, Wolverhampton West and Hammersmith, that there is there is a necessity to this. There is a necessity to act, as Sir Brian Leveson himself said.

If not this plan, then what? And if not now, then when? Politics is about choices. Madam Deputy Speaker, this side of the House and this government, we choose modernisation over tradition, we choose investment over decline, and we choose to put victims and communities first in a transformed, modernised justice system in which our public and our citizenry can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have confidence. Ordered. The original question. Was. That the bill be now read a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the bill be now read a second time, since when an amendment has been proposed as on the Order Paper. The question is the Order Paper. The question is that the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no. Division.
18:56
None Portrait Division
-

The The question The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I Of the contrary, no. no tellers for the I's. David Reed Lincoln Jopp Tellers for the noes Imogen Walker Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes to the. Right 203.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right 203. The Noes to the left 311.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Calls.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 203. The nurse to the left were 311. So the nurse have it. The nurse have the nurse have it. The nurse have it unlocked hundred and 75. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the The The question The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no.

no tellers for the ayes Imogen Walker Stephen Morgan Tellers for the noes David Reed Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 304. The noes to the left 203.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Legislation that is Battersea. The ayes to the right were 304.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 304. The nurse to the left 203. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. The programme motion to be moved formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally. The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Money resolution to Formally. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We must now take the motion relating to deferred

**** Possible New Speaker ****

divisions. Minister to move. Them. To move. The question is the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the motion relating to deferred divisions? As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Carry open carry over motion to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved formally. Formally. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Motion number six on public procurement. Minister to move. I beg.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg. To move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now move on to the petitions petition Louie French. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. The rise in houses in multiple occupation within the old Bexley and Sidcup constituency is having a profound impact on the local community, leading to anti-social behaviour, parking pressures and pressures on local amenities and services. More than 2300 local residents have shown their support for preventing more family homes being converted into HMOs. Through this petition and a corresponding online petition. The petitioners therefore, request
19:22
None Portrait Petitions
-

that the House of Commons urges the government to introduce new legislation to prevent the loss of family homes through conversion to houses in multiple occupation, and to ask the Mayor of London to ensure the next London Plan realises the vital role of family homes in Bexley, and provides greater protection for them against

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being divided into HMOs. Yeah yeah yeah. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Petition houses in multiple occupation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

occupation. Everybody asking for. Petition Afzal Khan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker, I rise to present this petition on marking the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia in 2025, 45% of religious hate crimes committed in the UK were directed towards Muslims, a 92% increase since 2023, at a time when anti-Muslim hostilities on the rise online, in the media, on our streets and in our politics. The UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia is a time to come together to challenge this racist hatred and work towards a more tolerant and cohesive society.

The petitioner, therefore, requests that the House of Commons urges the government to take action to support marking the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia on the 15th of March across the UK, and the petitioner remains. ET cetera, et cetera.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Petition UN International Day to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Combat Islamophobia. That to move that this House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That to move that this House do now adjourn adjournment. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn Jayne Kirkham. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am a Cornish MP, and we are a I am a Cornish MP, and we are a people on the edge with three sea on three sides, and cut off from
19:24
Jayne Kirkham Portrait Jayne Kirkham MP (Truro and Falmouth, Labour )
-
-
England by river and a very precarious train line. We've become used to being at the centre of a world that's a long way from world that's a long way from everyone else. That's made us resilient, independent and proud. But being at the edge of the But being at the edge of the country has meant we're often at the sharp edge of climate change. We're closer to the effects of it, and the weather often hits us slap in the face. Even on a normal day, we know that extreme weather events we know that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent.

2025 was the warmest year on record, four of the five warmest years since 1884 have occurred in the last five years, and the record for the highest UK annual mean temperature has been broken six times since 2000. Last year, the Met Office warned the likelihood of experiencing temperatures above 40 degrees is now 20 times greater than it was in just the 1960s. In the summer, hosepipe bans are now common and we had one in Cornwall. Despite our copious rainfall that went on for months and into the autumn of 2023, this winter was also the Duchess wet duchess wettest since records began in 1836.

Cardinham had 55 consecutive wet days and we were battered by three storms in quick succession. Goretti,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ingrid and Chandra. I will. First of all, can I commend congratulate the hon. Lady for Truro and Falmouth for bringing Truro and Falmouth for bringing this forward. And she's right to refer to the the terrible weather we've had, I think, since Christmas. we've had, I think, since Christmas. For Christmas, I think we had 43 days in Northern Ireland where there was no sunshine. And that tells you about the weather we have. But flooding incidents aren't just happening in the hon. Lady's constituency, as she knows that they're happening across Northern Ireland, Fermanagh, down in Armagh as well, defensive embankments under strain and some areas remain vulnerable despite ongoing monitoring and mitigation.

Some even burst their banks in Newry Canal and the Shimna River in times of extreme storm and rainfall, so does the hon. Lady agree that we must prioritise investment in river embankments and flood defences, ensuring that high risk areas receive immediate attention. The very thing that the hon. Lady wants, and indeed the very thing I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we all want in this chamber. I agree with the hon. Member and we must prioritise flooding. Flooding is becoming more and more Flooding is becoming more and more of a risk every week when I get on the train, which has often been a bus from Cornwall to London, I see bus from Cornwall to London, I see what looks like a lake or sea. But it is in fact the Somerset Levels, it is in fact the Somerset Levels, submerged under flood water with I would.

I thank the hon. Member for would. I thank the hon. Member for giving way and also for security securing this really important debate. She mentions the Somerset Levels storm Chandra hit the Somerset Levels terribly badly, water falling on already very saturated land caused huge issues for many people. Farmers indeed are play a crucial role in in managing our flood water. One farmer, Mike Curtis, who farms in Muchelney, took me and the farming, the flood and water Minister out when she visited at the beginning of the month, just showing the amount of water that they are able to store on their land to save many other communities from flooding.

Thousands of homes in Bridgwater and Taunton. Mike told me that they are happy to store that water on their land to stop flooding further down the catchment, but does the hon. Member agree with me that as farmers are providing a public good like Mike, farmers should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

properly and fairly compensated for the public good that they provide. Here. I do agree with the hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do agree with the hon. Member that farmers have been incredibly helpful in so many ways. I'm thinking about Storm Goretti and all the work they did with clearing all the work they did with clearing trees and of course, hopefully some of the work this government is doing on the surface will also doing on the surface will also enable them to do that work to store water as well. We need to build resilience on a national and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a local level, but we're not currently fully prepared. Responding, I will. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and she and I worked together on the Environment Select Committee to push for the inquiry that her debate references on extreme weather events, often the first agency on the scene when we have flooding, a storm, a landslip, a wildfire is the fire service. And actually under the last government, the fire service was cut back significantly. So does she agree with me? They're being called out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more and more and the fire service is more important than ever. I do agree with that. The fire

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do agree with that. The fire service is absolutely fundamental and particularly in Cornwall, they did amazing work during Storm Greta, responding to the UK's third National Adaptation Plan, the Climate Change Committee called for Climate Change Committee called for the government to urgently refresh NAP3 as it fell short of the task of preparing the UK for the climate of preparing the UK for the climate change we're experience experiencing, and that adaptation progress is too slow, has stalled or is sometimes heading in the wrong direction.

We're still reliant on those short term emergency measures, which cost more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the long term. I will. Thank you. I'm grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'm grateful to the hon. Member across the border for giving way, and I congratulate on her on this debate. She will know her on this debate. She will know that the South West was hit particularly hard by the recent storm. Chandra, including parts of my constituency that were left submerged. Does she agree that we now need to embed a truly comprehensive climate resilience strategy across all government departments and agencies at the heart of decision making, one that shifts our posture as much as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

possible from reaction to prevention. I do agree with the hon. Member, and I was going to move on to say and I was going to move on to say that that kind of cross-cutting strategy across all the departments, because all the departments are because all the departments are impacted and can do things that could help, that is so important, and that's so difficult to do when and that's so difficult to do when the departments are so siloed. Sometimes I sit on the EFRA Committee and we have an ongoing Committee and we have an ongoing inquiry into climate and weather resilience.

Farmers are heavily affected by extreme weather events, and that impacts our food security and prices. British farm businesses were down 800,000,000 in 2025 because of crop failures, and three of the five worst harvests on record have occurred since 2020. But the risks extend. According to the EPA, 6.3 million homes and businesses are at risk of flooding. But over the last decade, 1 in 13 homes were still built in high risk

**** Possible New Speaker ****

flood zones. I would oh my goodness. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. I'd just like to point out is she's just like to point out is she's mentioned the Environment Agency and they are causing quite high levels of stress. I should actually, levels of stress. I should actually, Madam Deputy Speaker, declare an interest in that. My partner's a farmer and we had an 80 acre lake farmer and we had an 80 acre lake for some weeks on the farm. But what I would say is that unless the Environment Agency is funded properly, it can't actually make sure what happened when the storms came was of course, that was when they started thinking about bringing the pumps in.

Actually, what we need is to have pumps there. So when the storms are coming, they can start to pump the water away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Otherwise everybody gets flooded and it's really catastrophic. OK. I thank the hon. Member. And of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member. And of course, the EA has struggled with funding for the last ten years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When it was cut so badly. On that point. I would, I was waiting. I thank the hon. Lady for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She's been very generous with her time. Talking about the Environment Agency funding. In my constituency of South Devon, we've constituency of South Devon, we've got several homes along the seafront that have been very badly damaged by storms in February and are not able. The residents have all been evacuated, they can't be lived in at the moment. And the seafront protection, which is owned by the Environment Agency, is really key to the protection and the the ability of those houses to be lived in again.

But the Environment Agency is telling me that there is no emergency funding. They can't suddenly do something to shore up the sea defences. The work would have to go through their normal process of allocation, and it might take up to two years before money can be allocated to improve those sea defences. Coastal defences in front of the houses of Torcross, which obviously for the people who live in them, is an absolute disaster because they've been moved out of their homes. So would she agree with me that the Environment Agency, as we encounter more extreme weather events, is going to need to be more flexible and more nimble, and have access to funding much more quickly to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to shore up defences. Yeah. The hon. Member and I do agree,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member and I do agree, yes, that a great deal of work will have to be done in the future because this is not going to get better. It will get worse. better. It will get worse. Businesses that rely on electricity and broadband are paralysed by outages in extreme events like this, outages in extreme events like this, and hospitals risk losing power or water. Heavy rainfall has even led to overflowing septic tanks and sewage spilling out onto streets in Cornwall, creating serious risks to our public health in Cornwall.

So much of our economy depends on our coast. When beaches, cafes, coastal roads and car parks are under managed realignment under the new shoreline management plan, epoch, coastal places will lose their staple industries and entire communities can face existential threats from those rising sea levels and coastal erosion. A lot of work is being done across government, particularly on the water industry and flooding preparedness, which I welcome, but we need to protect communities from the inevitable march of climate and act with great urgency.

The urgency of the situation was obvious when storm struck Cornwall on the eighth and 9th of January. In 2026. It triggered a rare Met Office red warning, with gusts of around 120 miles an hour and inflicted severe damage on our homes and infrastructure. We lost over 1000 trees, 121,000 customers lost power, and thousands lost access to clean water. Roads were blocked, communities cut off, and schools, care homes and hospitals faced unprecedented strain. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way and congratulate her on bringing this really important debate to the chamber. Does she agree with me that in the infrastructure and the communications that we're talking about, the railway is absolutely about, the railway is absolutely key and we really must focus on getting the final phase of the Dawlish rail resilience completed, along with the other things. Dawlish and Teignmouth saw massive damage in these storms, with damage in these storms, with Teignmouth Pier washing up on Dawlish Beach and Dawlish Beach itself being absolutely destroyed.

But the railway going down would be disastrous for Cornwall. Does she agree?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member does feel. My pain. And yes, of course, we need a strategic plan for our rail need a strategic plan for our rail in the South-West. It is so fundamentally important. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come on to it later. But as my hon. Friend. My hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But as my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend raises the issue of Storm Greta. She attended as as did I. Greta. She attended as as did I. The online meeting of storm recovery with with Ministers two days off the event itself. And what troubled me in that meeting was the culture which exists amongst service providers and indeed government departments, which is always seeking to reassure Ministers that everything is under control and actually presenting a very different picture to the one which I was seeing on the ground in West Cornwall, as you know, was was the worst hit my constituency.

So so does she agree with me that what we need to do following Storm Goretti is to make sure that we genuinely learn lessons about what actually happened on the ground and how we can recover best and put the the right resources in place to to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to help communities in the future. Stan, the hon. Member's points and I know that his constituency and I know that his constituency was the worst affected with people losing their water as well as their power. So yes, I do agree we must power. So yes, I do agree we must learn the lessons from Goretti as we go forward. Utility teams work round the clock with local round the clock with local authorities, engineers and responders to restore essential services. National grid brought in 1350 staff from all across the country, and there were three surgeons deployed as well.

But we did see failures in the systems designed to keep people safe. The storm was a wake up call. It exposed vulnerabilities in our infrastructure and our emergency planning that could affect anywhere

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the UK. As extreme weather becomes more frequent. The way on that. Point, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point, I will. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She talks about it affecting any other part of the UK. affecting any other part of the UK. Does she agree with me that it's simply unacceptable that all six simply unacceptable that all six Cornish constituencies appear in the bottom in terms of mobile connectivity, and that any part of connectivity, and that any part of any plan to to improve our resilience has to include a focus on telecommunications and our ability to ensure that we can get messages into some of our villages that were completely cut off, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just in terms of physically, but in terms of communication as a result of Storm Goretti. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Obviously, as the hon. Member's constituency was next to mine, he will know that we had exactly the same problems in Truro and Falmouth, same problems in Truro and Falmouth, and I am going to move on to that next. I've had wash up meetings across my constituency since the across my constituency since the storm and we have been talking to Ministers, and I welcome the suggestion that Cornwall could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggestion that Cornwall could serve as a pilot area for emergency storm resilience measures, some of which I will talk about now. My hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I think there's been a huge amount of progress towards what a good devolution settlement for Cornwall should look settlement for Cornwall should look like. But I think it's also been increasingly evident since Storm Goretti that part of that deal has to be infrastructure resilient, resilient. So I really welcome the idea that we pilot some of these these storm resilience measures going forward. But will the will my hon.

Friend agree with me that that and ask the Minister that that we essentially speak to colleagues in, in the department of in MHCLG and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work to get the investment needed to underline that as well? Thank you. And yes, I do. One of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And yes, I do. One of the most profound lessons from Storm Goretti is to improve communications infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. Many of our constituents are left without power and broadband in areas that have weak or no mobile areas that have weak or no mobile phone signal, so struggle to get help. Although we're frequently told by the four network providers, told by the four network providers, they have 99% 4G coverage. This doesn't ring true to anyone in Cornwall, where we struggle to get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a signal on a regular basis. I will. And thank you very. Much for giving way. She's been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Much for giving way. She's been very generous of time and this has been a fascinating debate. Runnymede and Weybridge is Runnymede and Weybridge is frequently hit by flooding, and one of the in terms of responding to it, one of the things that I've noticed is it's a real problem is that there's so many different responders, sometimes seemingly acting independently. When acting independently. When residents contact the red line, the Floodline operates more like a sort of intercom service as opposed to taking on dealing for response.

I'm calling for a flood control centre, a single point of contact which can coordinate flood response and preparatory works in my area. I'm very happy to speak to after this debate, to talk about the work that I'm trying to lobby the government on, which I think will also help by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the sounds of things in terms of response in Cornwall. Sounds like an interesting proposal. Our local resilience centre would have been Exeter, centre would have been Exeter, which is, I think, why the category one responders didn't declare a one responders didn't declare a major incident because Exeter is a very long way away from us. So the idea of one flood centre may be. I idea of one flood centre may be. I can understand that when Goretti hit the Cabinet Office activated the national alert messaging.

This the national alert messaging. This was important and successful as an early warning system, but was impacted by that patchy mobile coverage. We do need a more truthful method of measuring mobile coverage and a means to apply pressure to the provider so they hit their obligations. Goretti also exposed that most mobile masts don't have backup generators or battery reserves, making them vulnerable to power loss. This contrasts with the expectations placed on water and electricity companies, which operate under more established resilience duties.

Telecoms is just as essential and the civil contingencies framework should reflect that in practice, not just in statute. With no internet and mobile signal, many residents then found during Goretti that digital landlines didn't work without power. Ofcom's rules require any one hour of battery backup for vulnerable customers, which is inadequate, and an Ofcom technical report from last year noted that about two thirds of the population would be able to make emergency calls in a power outage of under an hour after six hours.

That number was redacted and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

described as far fewer. We I would. I thank the Member for giving way and I was meeting constituents in Boscastle last week who reminded in Boscastle last week who reminded me of the terrible events of 2004, the huge floods that they had there, the huge floods that they had there, which was devastating. And on the hon. Member's point about having a one hour battery backup, which is absolutely farcical, totally absolutely farcical, totally inadequate. It was explained to me that actually, even with that backup battery in someone's house, you can still have problems with you can still have problems with the ISP unit, the street unit, which could be completely without power.

And therefore, even with those battery backups of unlimited life life usage, our usage, it would still mean that they don't have internet access in those emergencies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which is maybe why a satellite link across villages might be something that we could consider something that we could consider regarding broadband. Openreach and service providers don't have a good system of fault notification. During Goretti, they were unaware of faults and faults. Being notified solely through third party providers didn't work well. Residents struggled to get through a more direct method of reporting faults and an interactive map, faults and an interactive map, maybe like the National Grid do, showing their locations and time estimates to restoration might be helpful.

This is particularly pertinent in Cornwall, as last month wilderness withdrew from several Project Gigabit contracts, leaving nearly 8000 rural premises in limbo. Without the high speed broadband they've been promised. And we mustn't leave them behind. We must also ensure our transport systems are robust. We've talked about the recent storms damaging Dawlish, the sinkhole between Dawlish and Teignmouth also led to closure of the line, which is the only line in and out of the far southwest. When the alert went out, all of Cornwall's MPs were actually stranded in the southeast.

I couldn't get home, we had to hire a car the next day, so my son was alone in the house 300 miles away. The Valentine's Day storm of 2014 led to the far southwest being cut off for eight weeks. In that time, the region lost anywhere between 60 million to 1.2 billion, according to the Devon Maritime Forum. And since then work has been done to make the line more resilient. But a strategic long term plan that we've discussed for rail across the southwest is an urgent priority and without it, our economy will just stagnate.

I'd also like to mention energy resilience. I support the government's ambition to increase the UK's energy security by investing in renewables, and I was so pleased to attend the launch of the Local Power Plan last month, which will allow community communities to own and benefit directly from the energy they produced. Locally produced and managed power will be more resilient. Rural areas like mine have a high proportion of off gas grid properties. Approximately 14% of Cornish households rely on oil for heating, compared to a national average of below 5%.

There is an alternative in the form of HVO, which has been trialled in Cornwall, but the incentives aren't there. And meanwhile, I've spoken to constituents who've been refused planning to put solar panels or turbines on their properties that are listed or in conservation areas, as many in our area are ensuring as many people as possible can benefit from local renewable energy will allow us to be more resilient to shocks. One of the issues that became apparent during the storm was the lack of community emergency plans in my constituency.

Some parishes had them, some didn't. Even existing emergency plans didn't work. If people didn't know who should be putting them into action. The will was there and the Cornish spirit came to the fore. Neighbours checking on each other, farmers helping to clear fallen trees. But there was an overall lack of coordination on that point. Will I, will I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for calling this really important with v across Cornwall, particularly in south east Cornwall, collectors of data, and ensure that we know where the vulnerable people are and can be reached quickly is really crucial.

So that ability to use data in a responsible way is really important going forward. Does she agree that we must do more to collect that data and share it across Cornwall? I do agree that a better way of sharing data must be found. Different ability companies, the council all had different lists and the parishes couldn't get hold of them at all. That is really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important. Really, really quickly. Just on that point about utility companies, we had a gas of major gas outage in South Devon at the beginning of the year, and we had a problem which is probably very problem which is probably very familiar to you in Cornwall to to those MPs in Cornwall, which was that utility company couldn't trace who owned the second homes because the homeowners were not, were not the homeowners were not, were not there and because the utility company was working through an intermediary energy supplier, they didn't have the data on who the customer was, and it meant that the power was switched off off for about three days, when it could have been only switched off for a few hours.

And would she agree with me that this is this is a serious problem in areas like ours where there is a large proportion of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second homes. There are a whole other debate. Every parish should be able to Every parish should be able to identify a community hub where residents can go in an emergency with a generator, battery packs, with a generator, battery packs, blankets, food and pre-registered list of volunteers. I know that parishes in Cornwall are parishes in Cornwall are considering this, but if it could be encouraged across the UK and coordinated at higher tier council coordinated at higher tier council level and maybe across local and national level, we could look again at the Bellwin scheme and how category two and one responders respond to these issues.

Finally, there's also a conversation to be had about personal resilience. We all need to be more prepared. A basic emergency kit sounds simple

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but makes a big difference. When we should give way. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. Why did she join me in congratulating people like flood? Mary, who goes up and down the country, has done for many, many country, has done for many, many decades, having been flooded herself and tries to educate but inspire people into what they can do at their own homes to protect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

themselves. Exactly. And that's exactly what we need more of a camping stove, we need more of a camping stove, water, a battery powered radio. BBC Radio Cornwall were fantastic in Goretti. Torches, spare batteries, power banks etc. in conclusion, Storm Goretti highlighted to all of us how essential improving our resilience in the face of extreme weather events is. Cornwall is an ideal location to pilot national resilience measures and I hope the lessons learned will enable us across the country to become better prepared for extreme climate and weather challenges.
19:48
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Minister Madam Deputy. thanking my hon. Friend, the Member for Truro and Falmouth for securing this important debate, her dedicated advocacy for the resilience of rural communities, particularly in the wake of Storm Goretti, is well known across this house and I know in her part of the world she has spoken powerfully this evening about the experience of communities in Cornwall following recent extreme weather events, and I join with her in paying tribute to the local communities, first responders and emergency services who stepped forward in these moments of crisis.

Now, the government's first responsibility is to keep the country safe, and we are absolutely committed to taking all measures necessary to build national resilience against external shocks or threats that could cause disruption to our way of life now and in the future. The UK benefits from world leading weather warning and information services to provide information and advice to the public. When bad weather is forecast. Weather events can have wide ranging impacts on communities, including on homes, health, transport, energy and communications and the relevant lead department for each of those affected areas has a responsibility to work closely with stakeholders on the recovery from an emergency.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are absolutely committed to building resilience on both a national and local level. And while we acknowledge the Climate Change Committee's assessment of the Third National Adaptation Programme, we are not simply relying on short term measures alongside delivering the actions in the programme to address climate risks to the UK, we are taking significant long term action now to become more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as flooding and overheating. We are building new reservoirs and cutting water leaks to help secure our water supplies.

This includes a record 10.5 billion investment in flood defences to protect 900,000 properties, 30 million for. I'm just going to make a little bit of progress. 30 million for coastal adaptation pilots in the East Riding of Yorkshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and 104 billion in private investment for new water infrastructure. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was privileged to meet community members and first responders shortly after Storm Goretti and to hear firsthand about the challenges they faced. And I was very pleased to see His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales visit Helston last week in the hon.

Gentleman's constituency, shining a spotlight on the strong spirit and resilience of the people of Cornwall in the period preceding the storm. Our world leading weather warning played a significant part in the initial government response. The storm made landfall on Thursday, January the 8th, and saw the Met Office issue a rare red national severe weather warning across the Isles of Scilly and in parts of Cornwall. It also brought a combination of heavy rain, significant snow and strong winds to England and Wales.

Emergency alerts were quickly dispatched to half a million residents in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, advising them to remain indoors until the danger had passed. These conditions resulted in widespread power outages and disruption to transport networks. The national response was managed by the Cabinet Office, which coordinated meetings with health and environmental experts and senior government officials. The Cabinet Office has committed to a comprehensive review of the response to Storm Goretti, which aims to ensure that lessons across government are captured to improve our response to future severe weather events.

Now, the government is also acutely aware of the challenges faced by British farmers due to extreme weather, which can impact harvests and consequently influence food prices. Despite these challenges, the UK maintains a resilient food supply chain underpinned by diverse sources, robust domestic production and reliable import routes. During a recent visit to Aberystwyth University, I visited visited the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, a leading research institute dedicated to advancing sustainable production of food, feed and plant based resources.

I also met with Ali Jones, the former president of the National Farmers Union. Comrie, and we discussed the vital importance of securing our nation's food supply. I recognise that the government must work collaboratively with farmers and the NFU to ensure it is safeguarded for the long term. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, as has been mentioned, our telecommunications networks are a vital part of the UK's critical national infrastructure and our emergency response in weather related crises supported the functioning of essential services and keeping people connected when they need it most.

During severe winds, the public switched telephone network often relies on overhead cables that can easily be damaged, with most handsets also relying on power supplies. Telecoms companies are upgrading landlines from analogue to digital, with over two thirds of lines having already been migrated across the UK. We recognise that telecoms resilience is underpinned by resilience, power supply through close coordination with the energy sector, the emergency planning community and industry. We are strengthening backup power arrangements, improving situational awareness and ensuring the sector is ready to activate mitigation measures when risks escalate.

And. Madam.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page