Lords Chamber

Tuesday 27th October 2026

(began 1 day, 4 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:35
14:37
None Portrait Introduction(s): The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
-

>> >> Charles >> Charles III. >> Charles III. By >> Charles III. By the >> Charles III. By the grace >> Charles III. By the grace of >> Charles III. By the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of other realms and territories. of other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the faith. To the right. Defender of the faith. To the right. Reverend, our right trusty and well beloved Noel Michael Roy, Bishop of beloved Noel Michael Roy, Bishop of Bath and Wells, greeting. Whereas our Parliament for arduous and urgent affairs concerning us.

The state and defence of our United Kingdom and the church is now met at our City of Westminster, we strictly enjoining command you upon the faith and love by which you are bound to us, that, considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending. Waiving all excuses, you be personally present at our aforesaid Parliament, with us, and with the prelates, nobles, and peers of our said Kingdom, to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid. And this as you regard us, and our honour, and the safety and defence of the said Kingdom and church, and dispatch of the said affairs.

In no wise do you omit. Witness ourself at Westminster, the 18th day of August, Westminster, the 18th day of August, in the fourth year of our reign.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Michael Lord, Bishop of Bath and Wells, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty. true allegiance to His Majesty. King Charles, his heirs and successors according to law. So
14:41
None Portrait Introduction(s): The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells Baroness Murphy (Crossbench)
-

14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
None Portrait Oral questions: Meta's updated Commercial Terms: UK business users and AI development Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-

Fourth Oral Question Lord Clement-Jones. >> Leave to ask the question. >> Standing in my name on. >> The Order Paper.
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
>> Questions on. >> A statement made in the House of Commons on Wednesday, the 21st of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

October, on the jackdaw gas field. My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Amy Acton and Buckthorn. I start, my Lords, by warmly congratulating the government on approving production from the jackdaw field. Which will strengthen our energy independence and security and add substantial tax revenues to the Treasury. Will the Minister now confirm that the government is looking to approve the type acts from the tornado field to the Greater London infrastructure, the Abbey and Baker Field tie back in the southern basin? The development tied back to the bittern infrastructure and the Montrose in a subsea tie back.

Indeed. Does she agree with Offshore Energies UK, who say the industry has identified 111 projects within existing licences that could unlock £50 billion worth of private investment, create thousands of jobs, generate substantial tax income to government and, importantly, reduce the higher carbon emissions from imported gas from either Norway or indeed LNG from the US. Does she also recognise that the government may have underestimated the recoverable gas reserves within the UK? Yes, with OE UK estimating that there could be more than double the government's projections. Given that the government are in the spirit of supporting the production of domestic oil and gas expansion.

 Perhaps she could commit to reviewing those current projections as well. My Lords, we also warmly welcome Ed Miliband's Damascene conversion to supporting oil production and on a major scale, as evidenced by his approval this month of the production licence for the giant Sea lion oil field, with gross full field to sea resources estimated up to 917 million barrels of oil. Located 220km north of East Falkland. With the production. My Lords sold into international oil markets via offtake tankers. We are glad that the Foreign Secretary believes in the policy of exporting our oil, not least given the fact that the government has recently closed and overseen the closure of two of our six refineries, would the Minister confirm for the record that the Foreign Secretary had every right to turn down the production licence under the Offshore Minerals Ordinance, 1994, but chose not to, and I should, for the record, inform the House that I know this ordinance well.

Having been party to the previous 1992 ordinance when Minister for energy. My Lords, Rosebank is half the size of sea lion. So given this recent history of government decisions, can the Minister provide the House with any intellectually sound arguments which the government could muster to reject Rosebank whilst approving oil from the sea lion field to be sold on international markets and indeed gas from jackdaw? Can the Minister tell the House whether she agrees with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that the economic case for approving Rosebank is inarguable, or whether she agrees with the Energy Secretary, who has recently been deserted from his post by the Foreign Secretary on this subject, that the field should remain undrilled.

My Lords, unlike jackdaw, which is already near complete construction, Rosebank could add nearly 500 full time equivalent jobs on average over its lifetime, including decommissioning. But in addition, my Lords, it would add billions in tax revenue that this project could generate. So does the noble Baroness, the Minister, see the approval of Rosebank as an opportunity to regenerate the northern Scottish economy, and one, my Lords, that the government must take my Lords UK fossil fuel dependency at the end of the Conservative government's time in office, with 75.1% in 2024, a record low. And, my Lords, of course, it is the final burning of hydrocarbons, not the extraction and production from the North Sea, which creates the CO2 emissions.

Yet under this government, fossil fuel dependency this winter is predicted to rise to 76.6%, which covers all our energy needs, including transport, heating and electricity generation for as long as this lasts. Does the Minister agree that we should maximise UK production to minimise our exposure to imported LNG and imported oil and gas products included, including imported aviation fuel refined from Russian crude in India, which is part of the aviation fuel used on every flight.

Taking off today and every day from Heathrow and Gatwick. logic.
15:29
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Of this decision. >> But approving a new gas field in a climate crisis is proof that Britain has not moved nearly fast enough to cut demand for gas in our homes and transport. Jackdaw was licensed decades ago. The decision is late because the conservative government failed to do the necessary preparations, and North Sea workers and the industry have paid the cost ever since. We accept that gas will be needed for decades during the transition, but burning fossil fuels causes climate change, and this summer's wildfires and heatwaves shows us the true cost. While we could have properly invested in our transition towards cleaner, cheaper and more efficient energy, successive governments, some more than others, have instead left the UK in a state of energy insecurity by scrapping insulation schemes.

The Conservatives built around 1.6 million homes to lower efficiency standards, costing families in those homes an extra £5 billion in bills between 2017 and 2025. They also blocked onshore wind and cancelled zero carbon homes, leaving us far more exposed to the ever rising global gas prices. The Conservatives and Reform still talk about the North Sea as though it were a magic lamp. The facts are that it is a basin in terminal decline. The Conservatives latest so-called evidence is the outward is the onward report which carbon briefs fact check found, assumes that gas prices will fall back to pre-war levels and stay there for 20 years.

One Imperial College professor called the modelling said the modelling has more holes than a Swiss cheese. Even on its own terms, it would mean an extra 524 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and slower electrification. The Climate Change Committee estimates that a single fossil fuel gas spike on the scale of 2022 could cost as much as the net additional cost of reaching net zero across every year to 2050. Jackdaw will not bring energy bills down. It can only add to the margins of our energy security. Jackdaw can play a short term role only if it displaces the most polluting LNG, if it leads to more, and if it leads to more technological green investment.

So I ask, what guarantees are there that this will happen, and will the government publish the evidence and report on it each year? Rosebank, on the other hand, is different. The vast majority of which is oil and is sold on the international market, so it will not lower our bills. And the evidence shows that it fails the climate test. We wait that decision and we hope we will hold the government to account. The government has also said that tax revenues will go into the new energy wealth fund to invest in green technology, which we welcome.

 But the OBR forecasts North Sea tax receipts falling from 4.1 billion in 20 2526, just to just 100 million by 2030 31. A 98% drop. That jackdaw cannot reverse. How will Parliament know how this money is spent? My Lords, the real answer to energy security is home grown renewable power whose price we control, and to electrify everything at speed. This government is slipping ever further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behind. Labour cannot argue Both that we need more gas because we failed to transition at speed while slowing their own electrification ambitions. The vehicle mandate requires 80% of new vehicle mandate requires 80% of new cars to be electric by 2030. Reports suggest Ministers are leaning towards cutting that target to 60%. Does the noble Baroness Vere Minister accept that this Vere Minister accept that this would be a disaster, sending the wrong signal to manufacturers, ChargePoint, investors and drivers? I asked the Minister to rule out any weakening of the 2030 target and to say when the review will report our heat pumps.

The target has been cut from 600,000 a year by 2028 to 450,000 by 2030. We are among the slowest in Europe because electricity costs are so much higher than gas. On insulation, the Warm Homes Local grant has upgraded just 5470 homes as of July. 0.1 percent of the 5 million target by 2030. This government must commit to a national electrification strategy and to a ten year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation for the lowest income households. I welcome the commitment in the statement to take levies off electricity bills. But. But Ministers have committed to remove only two thirds of the renewable obligation, and for just three years we must remove it fully and decouple electricity prices from that of gas.

I am concerned that new North Sea production, airport expansion and new data centres are adding emissions while grid electric grid. While developing the grid, electric vehicles and heat pumps are falling behind. When will the government receive the Climate Change Committee's advice and will they commission a fundamental new assessment of our carbon budgets? The just transition is not delivering for North Sea workers and their communities. Labour should establish a Just Transition Commission as we have called for. My Lords, jackdaw must be the very last. This may be a pragmatic decision, but it must not become a precedent.

The only lasting group to security and human survival is to enable the end of additional. Our addiction to oil and gas.
15:36
Baroness Curran Portrait Baroness Curran, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much. Can I thank my noble Lords for those very my noble Lords for those very substantial contributions, and I will do my very best to address them as much as I can, and I am sure we will have countless opportunities to address them again. The noble Lord Moynihan began by mentioning a number of other North Sea oil and gas projects, and as you will know, I am sure I cannot comment on other projects as they are undergoing relevant quasi judicial processes, but I lodge the general point that he makes, and I am sure that is one that we will continue to discuss on Sea Lion.

As the government has said in this chamber before. The government maintains a consistent position on the right of the Falkland Islands to develop its natural resources. This is integral to its right of self-determination, which is grounded in international law. UK oil and gas licensing policy does not apply in the Falkland Islands. I think if I could return to some of the points that he makes, that a. I want to be absolutely clear and I began with quite a positive note. I did get some congratulations. So I want to register my appreciation of that. If it did not last very long, particularly the North Sea remains a vital asset.

It supports jobs and communities and our energy security. And even in the path to net zero, the UK will still require oil and gas for decades to come. And as we make the clean energy transition, and I think the fundamental disagreement between our positions today is that I would return to the challenge that the noble Lord has given me is that he failed to mention the challenge of climate change. And after the summer that we have had and all the signs that surrounds us, I think that is essentially a dereliction of duty. And we cannot just look at the production of gas and how we consume gas.

We have to look at our carbon emissions, and we have to have a plan to deal with that. And that is why this plan, this decision, is so vital. Jack Doll starts supplying gas to British homes and businesses in coming weeks. At its peak, it is expected to increase UK domestic gas production by around 6% and it is a meaningful production. But it is still in line with our climate change commitments, and those climate change commitments are central to the policy of this government, and that is why our approach to the North Sea goes hand in hand with our ambitions for a managed, orderly and prosperous energy transition.

As confirmed by the Prime Minister, whom I do agree with this government, and you should wait until the Prime Minister makes formal decisions and any Minister makes formal decisions. This government will hold the target of reaching net zero by 2050 to meet the climate challenge and transition from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear. Let us be clear the jackdaw project will not prevent the UK from being able to meet its legally binding limits on carbon emissions and achieve net zero by 2050. But as noble Earl Russell indicated, Britain is a price taker, not a price maker.

The price we pay for gas is ultimately determined by international markets. So while domestic production supports our energy security, producing more gas cannot by itself protect British consumers from volatile international prices. And that is the charge. I would also return to the noble Lord about. You talk about the challenge of relying on renewables, but you do not take responsibility for the impact that the that volatile gas crisis has had on British consumers and the knock on effects of that. And we talk about developing the North Sea and continuing to do that. And can I remind the noble Lord that under the previous Tory government, 70,000 jobs were lost in the North Sea, which indicates that there are challenges there and you cannot see this as this is only just increasing production.

There is a solution. If I can now return to some of the points that were raised by Lord Russell. And I must say I did appreciate his introduction to his questions, which is quite interesting. We have heard very little from the Conservatives about the onward report. We have heard very little about their cheap energy plan, mainly because they to that. She mentioned that Energy Wealth Fund, which was announced alongside the announcement of the jackdaw decision. Its purpose is to use Britain's energy wealth to invest in clean energy industries of the future, and it will invest in renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure across the UK, helping to unlock growth and supporting the low carbon economy.

 You also talked about zero emissions vehicles mandate. And in the 14th August, the government launched the Mandate Review Consultation, which seeks from views from the public and stakeholders to consider the Zev mandate and ensure it is fit for purpose. The consultation forms an important part of the long committed mandate review and has just closed. As we all know, the government has a long standing commitment to publish that review to ensure that we are taking a pragmatic and balanced approach to the transition for transport. The government has launched this consultation, so views from stakeholders and the public can properly inform the review.

No policy decisions have yet been made, but I can assure them that the government remains committed to the zero emissions vehicle mandate. He also mentioned the warm home plan. The Warm Home plan represents the biggest ever programme of home upgrades in history and is already helping households to cut their energy bills through solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and insulation and heat pumps, which he referred to as specifically under the boiler upgrade scheme. The government has supported over 90,000 heat pump installations and issued over £600 million in grant funding to homes in England and Wales.

I take the general point that he makes about the renewables obligation and and the work that we have done on that and the delinking that this that we need to undertake in this country. And Britain has already moved from gas, setting the price of electricity for about 90% of the time in the early 2020s to around 60% today. So we are on that journey and that is a journey that we want to continue to be on. Through the government's clean energy mission, it is estimated that gas will set the wholesale price for around half of the time price for around half of the time in 2030.

A. And can I just return to the general point of the production of legislation itself? The jackdaw decision is absolutely fundamental into the decisions that we are making as a government. It does not affect prices, but it will help with production and give a small but meaningful contribution to energy security. And to re-emphasise that Britain has a secure gas system that has consistently met demand, including during periods of global market disruption, and will continue to do so this winter. We have also emphasised economic benefits. The to the to Britain. The developer estimates that will support nearly 300 jobs and contribute around £2.9 billion to the UK economy and a.

And I think that was a decision that. I am very pleased that most of us welcome today. Thank you very much.
15:43
15:45
15:46
15:46
Baroness Curran Portrait Baroness Curran, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank my noble friend for that question? The Energy Wealth Fund is an important part of the announcement that was made the same day that the decision was made on jackdaw, because it. For once, I think we must acknowledge that we should make use of the the receipts that we receive, and we want to feed that back into the clean transition. It will be beneficial because it will be clear where that money is being spent. It will help fund clean transition. As I said, it can help with many part of the infrastructure that we need to facilitate clean infrastructure.

And whilst that will not be a direct read across to bills, it will certainly help in the long term as we establish our energy security and get off the fossil fuel. Roller coaster, roller coaster, because that is what will help protect affordability in the long run. And again, with that kind of investment focussed in that way, I think that will help us develop the energy, clean energy industries of the future. And as we know, there is growing investment in that field. I think it is £110 billion, I think was a private investment in the clean energy sector.

And that, of course, will have a rover to jobs. And of course, many of them are skilled, high paying jobs, which is vital to my nation of Scotland, but also vital, as we now know, throughout the United Kingdom. know, throughout the United Kingdom.
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:05
Baroness Antrobus Portrait Baroness Antrobus (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Majesty the King to appoint the house that his Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Armed Forces Bill, has consented to Armed Forces Bill, has consented to place his interest so far. It is affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I will now make a short statement on. The position. Regarding legislative legislative consent on the Bill. I legislative consent on the Bill. I am pleased to inform the House that legislative consent has been secured from both the Scottish Parliament and the Senate, and I thank Ministers and officials in thank Ministers and officials in both and both governments for their constructive engagement throughout the bill's passage. Despite engagement with Northern Ireland engagement with Northern Ireland Ministers and officials, it has not been possible to secure an agreed position from the Northern Ireland Executive. I therefore regret to inform the House that legislative consent has not been secured from the Northern Ireland Assembly, having carefully considered the position.

However, the government has concluded that there are compelling reasons to proceed with the Bill without consent. First, the proposed extension of the covenant duty in clause two seeks to ensure that the public bodies, within its scope, give due regard to the needs of serving personnel, veterans and their families, including the bereaved, when exercising relevant functions. Excluding Northern Ireland would leave a gap in the coverage of the extended duty, resulting in different statutory requirements depending on where members of the Armed Forces community live. Second, excluding Northern Ireland from the relevant service justice provisions would create a gap in the protection available for victims.

 For these reasons, while we regret that consent has not been secured, we consider it necessary to proceed so that the benefits and protections of these provisions extend across the whole of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

United Kingdom. I beg to move that this bill now be read a third time. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now read a third time. As many as I have that opinion will say as I have that opinion will say content order. Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. after clause 52. Amendment one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Antrobus. My Lords, this amendment amendment one fulfils the undertaking I gave on report to bring forward a government amendment on settlement fees for non-UK Armed Forces personnel and
16:07
None Portrait Amendment:g1 Baroness Antrobus (Labour)
-

their families in support of our manifesto commitment. I am particularly grateful to the noble particularly grateful to the noble and gallant Lord Lord Craig of Radley for his persistence in pursuing this issue and for his pursuing this issue and for his constructive engagement. He has championed the interests of those who serve and their families with who serve and their families with great commitment, and I am pleased that we have been able to respond to the concerns he raised in to the concerns he raised in previous debates. This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to amend the Immigration and Nationality Fees Regulations so that eligible applicants under the relevant armed Forces settlement routes are exempt from the applicable settlement fees.

It also requires the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent, setting out the estimated cost to public funds of implementing the fee waiver and a timetable for implementation. This will give Parliament a clear account of how and when the waiver will be delivered. It puts a duty to deliver the fee waiver into law and provides for parliamentary scrutiny of its implementation. Turning to amendment two, I recognise that the noble and gallant Lord Lord Craig of Radley is seeking a timetable for the delivery of the fee expects exemption and for this to be implemented within the first half of the next financial year.

I can confirm that the government will implement the exemption before the end of September 2027. This will apply to service personnel with four years Reckonable service. I hope this assurance provides the certainty that the noble Lord seeks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and feels he can withdraw the amendment. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment one be agreed to. The amendment proposed after clause 52. Insert
16:09
16:09
Lord Craig of Radley Portrait Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
-
-
to and encourage others to support amendment two and to thank the government for bringing forward my government for bringing forward my report. Stage amendment 54. But the House has heard from the noble Lady, and I thank her for the courtesy of and I thank her for the courtesy of informing me of her intention that the government will implement the the government will implement the elimination of fees by the end of September 2027. Indeed, some days better even than my amendment called for. Of course, my Lords, that is excellent news and it comes from the Dispatch Box and so is binding an honour.

It more than meets my amendment, and I will be happy to withdraw it. I do not wish to detain the House long, other than to explain why I had initially not asked to fix a date. Being a manifesto commitment, I had assumed after two and a half years since the election, and that over 18 months ago, the Other place had been assured by Mod and Home Office Ministers that they were working actively together on the issue that there would by now have been an oven ready announcement for Ministers to use. It has nevertheless taken recent discussions with Ministers and the debates on the floor of this House to get to the point of fixing, not later than implementation date.

I very much thank Ministers and government for their understanding on this point. I beg to move. Amendment proposed as an amendment to amendment one in subsection two, paragraph B at end insert, which would bring the exemption into force within the first half of the force within the first half of the 2020 728 financial year.
16:11
16:11
16:12
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, may I firstly apologise to the House for not being present last week for Report stage, and I must thank everyone who so thoughtfully sent good wishes. And I also hope that the noble Lord Lord Coaker is making a return to full health, and we certainly look forward to seeing him in his place. And I'm so sorry to learn that the noble Baroness Lea Smith of Newnham is unwell, and I certainly sent her the best wishes of these benches and hope that she is soon on the mend. Happily, my noble friend, the Earl of Minto, is indestructible, fit as a butcher's dog.

And here last week here today, and I want to thank him for his doughty efforts in my absence. I was watching avidly on my iPad from the dining room table, and I think we all agree that his adversary, the noble Baroness Lady Antrobus, plunged in at the deep end, equipped herself admirably for, as my noble friend said last week, these benches support the amendment which was tabled by the noble Lord Hannett. Lord Lord Craig of Radley and Harry divided the House. We would have supported him. So I welcome that the government has addressed this issue with their amendment, and I am delighted to hear that the noble and gallant Lord is now content with the position.

I know it is no longer accepted practice to thank a cast of thousands at Third Reading, but if noble Lords might indulge me for a moment, I would like to pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lord Lord Craig of Radley. Not only did he serve our nation with distinction for 40 years, but he has continued that distinguished service through his highly effective work in your Lordships' House for a further three decades and at the age of 97, and I do not know what he is on, but I want some of it. The noble and gallant Lord is still serving the nation.

I have to say, if ever there were a reason to abandon the plan to remove the over 80s from your Lordships' House, I think the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig encapsulates it. Yes, but really, all that's left for me to say is to briefly thank the noble Lord Lord Coaker and the noble Baroness Brady for their constructive engagement as Ministers during the Bill's progress, as also the Bill team and everyone else who has assisted the smooth passage of the Bill. But in conclusion, may I say I am most grateful that so many noble Lords from across the House supported my amendment 22 and that report, and as my noble friend, the Earl of Minto, said, I hope the government recognises not only the force of feeling across the House, but also the undeniable military authority underpinning it.

Helpfully, the success of 22 saves the department money at a time when the defence Secretary is scouring the books, looking for every penny of saving he can identify. So pleased to be of service, my Lords. My Lords, this is not a party political issue. There's simply no appetite in this House for the reorganisation of the RFCA, and I urge the government to reflect, to drop the policy when this bill goes back to the other place. place.
16:15
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Portrait Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Contribute very quickly to the Third Reading. I declare my interest as the Assistant Chief of interest as the Assistant Chief of Defence Staff, Air reserve forces and cadets, and therefore, in this slightly odd role that I am slightly odd role that I am responsible for the policy team of one specific element of this bill. one specific element of this bill. It is traditional that at Third Reading we. We thank many of the Reading we. We thank many of the civil servants who have been involved in the preparation of this bill, and I want to, because I'm so personally involved, take that opportunity.

My. My staff were very involved in addressing the amendments which your Lordships House bought towards clause 22, and indeed work incredibly hard over many days to try and address those issues. And they were probably slightly surprised when your Lordships' House, you know, decided to reject those amendments. But I simply take this opportunity because I have no view. I look forward to working very closely with the are in in the future to acknowledge the many hours of work that they put in, in trying to come to a compromise. And those members of staff are Kerry Breaker, Nicholas Allen, Brigadier Christopher Palmer, Richard Hartwell, Lieutenant Colonel Martin Starling and Safir Shaheed.

And I'm sure that your Lordships House would wish also to thank them for their sterling efforts in the work on the course of this bill. Thank you.
16:17
16:18
16:19
Lord Craig of Radley Portrait Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
-
-
Not quite yet. The House is debating amendment two in the name of Lord Craig of Radley. Does he of Lord Craig of Radley. Does he wish to withdraw that amendment? My Lord? Thank you very much. Now I Lord? Thank you very much. Now I conclude by expressing my warmest thanks to all those members of the thanks to all those members of the House who either spoke in support or voted on my earlier amendments. I also thank the Ministers so closely involved in dealing with this issue for their willingness to meet and discuss how to progress it, and made all the difference to harmoniously reaching this satisfactory conclusion.

And indeed, may I thank the noble Lady Baroness Goldie for being more than kind with her remarks about me. But, my Lords, we should not forget that the beneficiaries of this government approach will be. Those who up till now have faced fees amounting to five figure sums for a family of four, on top of airfares and relocation costs. Waiving these fees by a set date in the future gives certainty and is a fair military covenant way to treat veterans who, with their families, have given their service, often of many years to this country. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Your Lordships pleasure with amendment two be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment one Baroness Antrobus moved formally. The question is that amendment one be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will many as are of that opinion will say content not content The contents have it. contents have it.
16:20
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

I beg to move that this bill do now pass.
16:21
16:21
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

My Lords, I apologise for not
16:21
16:22
16:22
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Thank Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. To Thank you. To move Thank you. To move the Thank you. To move the bill, be now read a second time. I thank all noble Lords who have met with me to discuss this bill over the last few weeks, and I'm especially grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, for his independent review of the Criminal Court, which provides the foundations for this bill. I have now met the noble Lord, Lord Leveson several times, and I hope he will continue to work closely with me and the government as this bill progresses.

And, my Lords, I'm always conscious of the extraordinary depth of legal expertise in your Lordships House and in this debate. I know the government will greatly benefit from that, that wisdom as this bill progresses. My Lords, with some notable exceptions such as fraud and online crimes, crime rates are on a long term downward trend. Nevertheless, we prosecute and sentence more people every year, and the length of sentences has doubled over the last 30 years. Despite that, a majority of the public continue to believe that crime is going up and sentences are too short, the prisons are full and the courts have a substantial backlog.

In other words, there is an entrenched breakdown of public confidence in the criminal justice system. And that is at the heart of this bill's purpose and all the government's criminal justice reforms. These are not reforms of expediency or efficiency, my Lords. They are principled reforms to a criminal justice system which is steeped in the best traditions, but has also never stood still. The nature of crime in contemporary society has changed. Criminal networks are ever more sophisticated. Cases are more complicated. Evidence can run to literally millions of digital pages. As noted in the Fisher Review and the pressures on judges, advocates, prosecutors and court staff are now acute.

Today, almost 81,000 cases are outstanding in the Crown Court, more than double the number in 2019. Nearly 24,000 have been waiting for more than a year, and more than half of those involve violent or sexual offences. Imagine my Lords being the victim of a serious sexual assault, finding the courage to come forward. Going through the investigation, steeling yourself to stand in court and recount what happened and then at the last moment, being told that your trial cannot go ahead for some victims, my Lords, the weight becomes intolerable and they understandably give up on the prospect of prosecution.

Cases collapse and victims are denied justice. Defendants are denied the opportunity to clear their names, and the guilty do not face the consequences of their crimes. They simply walk free. Other victims face the extraordinary prospect of waiting longer for justice than the convicted offender may ultimately spend in prison. My Lords, justice delayed is justice denied. That is a phrase that's been used a great deal in this debate, and I'm sure it'll be used again today. But it is the heart of our concern. Last year alone, the number of cases requiring a trial was nearly a quarter higher than in 2019.

And the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson's conclusion was clear we need investment, modernisation and, crucially, structural reform. And this government is. Acting on all three. Let me set them out in turn, dealing firstly with investment. We have put record investment into the courts, including £287 million in court repairs and digital upgrades. We have recruited more judges and magistrates and put record funding into criminal legal aid. The government has removed the cap on Crown Court sitting days so that all available judicial capacity can be used to hear cases, and we've also committed more than £550 million to support services over the remainder of this Parliament to help victims through the delays.

Secondly, my Lords, can I turn to modernising, working with the judiciary, we are improving the way cases are listed, rolling out case coordinators for every crown court centre and investing in better video technology so more hearings can take place remotely. But we also need practical, proportionate structural reform to deliver faster, fairer justice for the 21st century. My Lords, the measures in this Bill are designed to ensure that court time is used proportionately to maintain the balance between victims and defendants, and to make clear that the court is the decision maker and not the defendant, my Lords.

Central to that approach is a significant strengthening of our magistrates courts. The magistrates courts already deal with the overwhelming majority of criminal cases fairly and efficiently. Yet too many cases that could be resolved by magistrates are pushed into the Crown Court, adding to pressures on a Crown Court system that must also deal with murder, rape and the other most serious offences. The bill addresses this in 3 in 3 ways. Firstly, by providing the power to extend Magistrates Court sentencing to 18 or 20 magistrates sentencing. Sorry, let me get that right. First, by providing the power to extend magistrates courts sentencing power to 18 or 24 months for offences that a triable either way, and I can tell the noble Lords that the government is.

Intention is, depending on when we get Royal Assent for this Bill, we expect to increase sentencing powers to 18 months later next year. This does not increase the maximum sentence for any offence. It simply allows appropriate cases to be concluded in the magistrates courts, which deal with these cases around four times faster than the Crown Court. Secondly, by changing who decides where some cases are heard for either way offences, defendants will no longer have an automatic right to elect for Crown Court trial. Instead, magistrates and district judges sitting in the magistrates court will determine the appropriate venue.

Having regard to the seriousness and complexity of the case, decisions about where cases are heard should rest with the courts, not with defendants, who may have an incentive to prolong proceedings in the hope that a case might eventually collapse. This will help ensure that valuable Crown Court time is reserved for cases that genuinely require it, but it will also ensure that that all cases that can be heard by magistrates are heard in the magistrates court far sooner and more quickly than if they had joined the queue for the Crown Court. Third, by reforming appeals from magistrates courts.

At present, an appeal to the Crown Court requires a complete rehearing, even where the grounds for the challenge are weak. This places further demands on court time and can require victims and witnesses to relive their experiences unnecessarily. This bill therefore introduces a permission stage to filter out appeals without sufficient merit, while preserving the right to bring a proper challenge. We will also enable audio recording in all magistrates courts, providing a reliable record of proceedings. My Lord, these are ambitious reforms, but it is essential we have the capacity to deliver, to deliver them by investing in courts, certainly, but also investing in the magistrate itself.

I'm sure we are going to discuss today and in the later stages of the bill, capacity in the magistrates court. So I want I want to set out straight away that we are on track to reach our target of 21,000 magistrates in place by 2029, having recruited almost 1500 new magistrates in the last six months alone. And alongside them we are strengthening judicial capacity, boosting the ranks of our district judges who have the expertise to hear more serious and complex cases in the magistrates court. Last year we recruited 50 new deputy district judges and have identified a reserve list of over 80 additional candidates whose appointments are now under way.

Alongside this, recruitment is underway for 30 district judges. As I say, strengthening judicial capacity, capacity and giving us flexibility to tackle growing demand. Finally, my Lords, the bill retains jury trials for almost all defendants facing trial in the Crown Court,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

while bringing Forward a narrowly defined provision for judge alone trials in provision for judge alone trials in the longest and most complex fraud and financial cases. These and financial cases. These exceptional trials can last for months, placing considerable burdens on jurors through prolonged burdens on jurors through prolonged absence from work, lost income and disruption to family life. The disruption to family life. The primary purpose of this measure is not to save court time, but to protect ordinary citizens from the disproportionate demands of serving on such lengthy, serving on juries, on such lengthy and complex trials.

And it is also about ensuring our justice system keeps pace with the changing nature of crime that I have described. And financial offending becomes increasingly complex. We must ensure our courts are able to deal with these cases swiftly and effectively now and in the future. My Lords, some of the current problems are simply unfair. The burden of court delays is not shared equally. People from black and mixed ethnicity backgrounds are more likely to be victims of crimes, while defendants from minority ethnic backgrounds are also more likely to be remanded in custody before trial, a fact highlighted in the Lammy review of racial disparity in the criminal justice system.

So the bill also includes a provision for an independent review of the impact of these reforms on defendants from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. The reviewer will be appointed within six months of the first reforms taking effect, with an initial report within 12 months and a full report within five years. Those findings will be published and laid before Parliament. My Lords, I want I want to emphasise again that this Bill is about far more than court capacity. It is about rebuilding a system that works better for everyone, perhaps especially improving the experience of victims. For too long, victims of rape and sexual violence have faced not only delays as I have described, but harmful assumptions and insinuations about.

They should have, how they should have behaved, how they should have responded, or what a victim is supposed to look like. This bill therefore introduces important reforms to improve the way evidence is given and make special. Is special measures easier to access as recommended by the Law Commissioner? Alongside this, this government has announced £23 million to improve the experience of victims of rape and serious sexual offences in court, including specialist courtrooms, better facilities and additional support. And each year, the Witness Intermediary Scheme enables over 10,000 children and disabled witnesses to give evidence to the police and courts.

We are also committed to strengthening protections for children in family proceedings. The Bill will repeal the Presumption of Parental Involvement from the Children Act 1989, ensuring that children's safety and welfare continue to be the foremost concern of the courts. My Lords, this month marks 12 years since the tragic death of Claire Throstles. Two sons, Jack and Paul. Indeed, today marks the anniversary of Jack's death. I'm sure noble Lords will join me in remembering them and in paying tributes. Claire Throssell, who has campaigned with extraordinary courage to ensure other children do not suffer as her sons did and are better protected from abusive parents.

Finally, my Lords, I turn to the remaining measures in this bill. First, our intention to bring the leadership of tribunals in England and Wales, which until now has been separate into the judicial structure headed by the late Lady Chief Justice. The new structure will support more flexible working and deployment, as well as wider judicial career options, recruitment and morale. Secondly, changes to magistrates expenses rules which will ensure that expenses reflect modern working life, compensating magistrates appropriately for the important work they do. And finally, a technical change which will primarily preserve the unique status of the Old Bailey as the Central Criminal Court.

To avoid confusion with the new Salisbury Square development set to open in the City of London next year, my Lords, I began my remarks by speaking about public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system. Trust that when someone reports a crime, the system will respond swiftly. Trust that when a victim finds the courage to give evidence, the courts will be ready to hear them. Trust that when a defendant faces an allegation, they will receive a fair trial within a reasonable time. We are protecting the principles that have made our justice system respected the world, while having the courage to change the practice, preventing it from working as it should in the 21st century.

Our task is to deliver justice that is fast, fair and worthy of the public's trust and our reputation in the world. Not simply to clear the backlog today, but to rebuild a system capable of meeting the demands of tomorrow. That is the purpose of this bill. My Lords, I beg to move. This bill, be now read a.
16:39
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
Second time. >> My Lords. >> I begin by thanking the noble Lord, the Minister, for his introduction to the Bill. I look forward to the contributions of the great legal minds we have across this chamber. I am not a lawyer myself, but I hope that I can offer the common sense perspective. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord Lord Stewart. I am sure his expertise will be valuable to the House. Before I address the content of the bill, I want to acknowledge the backlog facing our court system and note that we absolutely appreciate the desire to provide victims, witnesses and defendants with justice in a timely manner.

The statistics show 81,000 cases awaiting resolution in the Crown Court, of which nearly 24,000 have been waiting over a year. We absolutely agree with the government that victims should not have to wait years for their cases to be heard. Nor should defendants spend years awaiting the resolution of proceedings that determine their freedom. However, that does not mean we agree on the reforms to the criminal justice system that have been set out in the bill. There is a need to balance the efficiency of the system with the fairness of the justice system. I do not believe this bill strikes that balance.

 This bill, as currently drafted, is not the right way to reduce the court backlog. It is worth noting that the bill we are presented with now represents a significant departure from the one that entered the other place eight months ago. The original bill proposed a significant attack on jury trials. The ancient English right to be tried by a jury composed of your peers was not protected. I thank my right hon. Friends for their tireless work in opposing these measures, and I am grateful for their voices, alongside the voices of numerous experts who were able to convince the government to drop its clause.

However, despite the removal of the most egregious clause, there remains serious problems throughout this bill. My Lords, I will now turn to my concerns regarding the measures in the bill we have received here, as introduced by the noble Lord, the Minister. We are particularly concerned by the removal of a defendant's right to elect for a trial by jury for either way, offences. The increased power proposed for magistrates courts, the removal of juries from complex and lengthy trials, the expansion of the definition of complex and lengthy cases through secondary legislation, and the removal of presumption of parental involvement.

I will first turn to the removal of the defendant's right to elect for trial by jury. In either way, cases. The right to a jury trial is an ancient English right that dates back as far as the Magna Carta. If the government have accepted that this right is valuable, they should remove this clause as well as the previous clause three trial by jury. Trial by a jury of your peers is an important safeguard in our criminal justice system, and one that people have immense trust in. By eroding this right, the government are attacking a functional aspect of the system.

Does the noble Lord the Minister, have evidence that shows this change to the system will not reduce the public confidence. I understand the government's desire to reduce the backlog of cases, but there is insufficient evidence to suggest that diverting cases away from the current court will have such an effect. In fact, by placing all these cases on the magistrates Court, it is likely to have the effect of simply shifting the caseload from one place to another rather than causing a meaningful reduction in the backlog. This will increase the pressure on the already strained magistrates courts.

 Indeed, analysis from the Institute for government notes that these proposals will increase the speed at which cases are heard in the Crown Court by only 1 or 2%, and the government's own assessment indicates these measures will not take effect until 2020 829 at the earliest. These numbers highlight how little impact this would have on the victims and defendants facing these backlogs. It certainly does not seem a sensible trade off to infringe upon the right to trial by jury for this negligible reduction. My Lords, next I will turn to my concerns regarding the extension of the magistrates sentencing powers and the changes to the arrangements for appealing their decisions.

This Bill would increase the maximum custodial sentence available to magistrates courts for relevant either way cases, as well as replacing the existing automatic right to appeal to the Crown Court with a permission based process. These changes together represent a significant departure from the existing system. Magistrates courts are undoubtedly important, and we recognise their indispensable role in the administration of justice. However, increasing their sentencing powers will allow them to deal with more serious cases, whilst also requiring permission to appeal will add a further procedural hurdle for defendants. These proposals seem to rest on the misguided assumption that the magistrates courts have sufficient capacity to work through a proportion of the Crown Court backlog.

What consultation have the government undertaken as to whether magistrates courts are prepared for this additional workload, and if they're not prepared, what support will they be given? How will they monitor the changes to the appeals system on the number of appeals and the time taken to resolve them? Now I turn to the provisions allowing certain complex and lengthy cases to be tried by a judge alone. Although certain cases can be demanding, this inconvenience cannot be the reason for the removal of juries. Indeed, in Jonathan Fisher's Fraud Review, he sets out that the measures in this bill send that and I quote, the wrong message to the seriousness of fraud.

Cases and juries are able to handle these cases perfectly well when they are. And I quote again, properly managed and presented. What evidence do the government have to suggest that this isn't the appropriate way to reduce the backlog? As well as this, the government are leaving the list of complex and lengthy cases open to amendment through secondary legislation, with the only exceptions to be homicide offences and sexual offences. Schedule one, which lists all the offences to which a judge only trial applies, can be amended through secondary legislation and. And although the explanatory notes suggest that this would be through the affirmative procedure, this is not evident on the face of the Bill that is highly concerning and leaves the potential for serious changes to be made through Statutory Instruments with far less parliamentary scrutiny.

 Fundamental changes to legislation should not be possible through secondary legislation. Delegated powers ought to be used for the implementation of technical provisions, but as drafted, expanding the definition of what constitutes a complex or lengthy case seems significant. The provisions that repeal the presumption of parental involvement under the Children's Act 1989 are also of concern. Let me clarify that we wholeheartedly believe the safety and welfare of the child must always be paramount. Courts should absolutely have the ability to respond and prevent contact where there is evidence of abuse or risk of harm. However, it is equally important to recognise the value of a safe and meaningful parental relationship.

The existing presumption allows a court to consider the individual circumstances of a child, but it starts from the position of recognition that parental involvement generally will benefit the child unless the opposite is shown. This bill repeals this without providing any sort of replacement. The objective should be to strengthen the protection of children, rather than simply removing the importance of safe parental involvement. My Lords, there are further provisions in this bill that deserve careful scrutiny and. And although we do not have the time to list them all where necessary, we will seek to provide constructive amendments.

Where there are measures that demonstrably improve the delivery of justice, we will support them. This legislation must be tested on its ability to not only decrease the backlog, but to deliver justice in a fair manner. I look forward to the minister's response to.
16:48
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords from these benches. We very much welcome Lord Storey to your Lordships House and look your Lordships House and look forward to his maiden speech later on. And I also welcome Lord Ashcombe to the conservative Front Ashcombe to the conservative Front Bench. I, too, am not a lawyer. It's good to have a non-lawyer on these very legal debates. My Lords, the Courts and Tribunals Bill has been a long time coming to your Lordships House, and my note during the Second Reading, my noble friend Lord marks will be focusing on the changes in the court system, and I am going to focus on the experience of victims in the bill as we are seeing it.

The bill is originally introduced in the Commons created measures in line with the recommendations made in part one of Lord Levison's independent review of the criminal courts. This included the establishment of a Crown Court Bench division to hear lower level cases without a jury. But, my Lords, the bill we're hearing today has removed a large part of the proposed changes to cases without a jury. But the reasons for those proposals remain, and that is how to clear a very large waiting list. And I thank the Minister for sending us the fact sheet on current problems in the system.

That was extremely helpful. Statistics in September this year show that the Crown Court backlog stands at nearly 81,000, over double what it was in 2019, even if it has reduced a bit. The figure from the magistrates courts is significantly worse. In June of this year, there were 380,230 open cases. So can I ask the Minister how on earth the magistrates will be able to add cases that will now come from the Crown Court to this already massive list? And I don't understand why we don't refer to the magistrates court open cases lists as a backlog, because clearly it is Lord Lemos was right to say that justice delayed is justice denied.

And in the House of Commons, the Liberal Democrat justice spokeswoman, Jess Brown Fuller MP, proposed that better use be made of court buildings to allow each courtroom to be used for two trial hearings a day. A morning hearing from nine till 1 p.m. and the second from 2 to 6 p.m. Now, her proposal is based on pilots that were undertaken during the Covid era, which courts cleared an average of 3.5 trials per week, compared with fewer than one per week in the current courtroom system. Will the Minister consider her proposal? Other key reforms need to be considered, including renegotiating transport contracts to ensure defendants are delivered to court and the dock on time cancelling real term cuts to the Ministry of Justice, capital budget.

The poor state of the courts is also a key factor in delays. We hear regularly about literal buckets being put into courts to stem leaks coming in from above, and unavailable advocates and interpreters, as well as the rights of women's groups, have pointed out to your Lordships. But above all, Liberal Democrats want to see victim led, intensive case management. Now, there are some good proposals in this bill in clauses 7 to 16 in relation to victims and picking up on the commissioner's recommendations. But they aren't universal. We like the restrictions on evidence or questions about complainant's sexual history, evidence about previous false complaints relating to sexual offence.

But what is needed is a fundamental change in approach to support victims. For anyone suffering in this particular type of of of crime. So at Committee stage, we will probe to find out exactly how these proposals will work. And it is still frustrating. No matter what Parliament says, the judiciary can continue not to choose not to have full training for judges in both the criminal and family courts, to ensure that victims get the support that they need as they access the criminal justice system. And I note that the new courts for Rape and Serious sexual offences, known as Rasso cases, will have training for the judiciary in trauma informed and victim led support throughout the process.

So can I ask the Minister by the same would not be true for other serious cases because, my Lords, the victims experience of the court system is just not consistent. Not everyone within the system is trained. Security staff on the door can push defendants and victims through security. At the same time, court staff seek a victim in a seat that happens to be next to the dock so that they are sitting beside their alleged attacker. My Lords, this is Revictimization, the victims Commissioner brought six victims to meet a number of peers a fortnight ago, and they told us of their own experiences in the court system.

In that debate, what happened to them was second to their experience. Once the whole system started to work. We heard from Emma, not her real name. She was stalked and after her stalker broke through two doors of her home, he was arrested. Emma disclosed that he'd been physically abusing her too, and she felt unsafe even in her own home. But she had no idea how bad things were going to get all in the court system. The magistrate court proceedings lasted two and a half years. There were 34 adjournments, she said. A court date is not simply a date in a diary for a victim.

You prepare yourself emotionally. You rearrange your life around it. You try to get yourself into the right frame of mind to attend and participate. Now that court decided sentencing should go up to the Crown Court, paperwork was delayed. Special measure arrangements were promised. Three years later, an appeal was heard and the case was overturned. During that appeal, material was put to her while she was giving evidence. She felt exposed, overwhelmed, underprepared and understandably let down when the appeal was granted, Emma said the impact was profound. It has caused her to have dissociative seizures, which now affect her ability to work.

Her general health has deteriorated and each court process forced her to revisit what had happened to her. Originally, Emma and the other brave victims we heard, were not just speaking on their own account. They were speaking for all victims. Women's aid and other victims organisations welcome the repeal of the legal presumption of parental involvement in family courts, as we do from these benches, and we disagree with the Conservatives on this, because, my Lords, in domestic abuse, some perpetrators manipulate the family justice system to further their abuse. It sits alongside invisible abuse that has taken years to get coercive control taken seriously.

And I thank the last government for recognising that. But the abuse of the family courts by a limited number of parents is truly shocking. Since Women's Aid began reporting on this issue, the legal presumption of involvement has cost the lives of 67 children, including Claire Russell's beloved sons, Jack and Paul. She has headed a 12 year campaign to have the presumption repealed. I know the Conservatives oppose this repeal in the Commons talking about parental entitlement to access, but my Lords, this shouldn't be about the parent. It should know must always be about the safety of the children.

Finally, my Lords, from these benches we are concerned about clauses 21, 22 and 23 on the powers to make consequential amendments and traditional excuse me, and transitional and saving provision. And in 2023, the power to state the effects of provisions commencement for sentencing conditions and amendments. My Lords, there is a very, very wide scope in these three amendments for Henry the Eighth Powers, which could substantially undo the changes that the government has announced since the passage of this bill and the bill arriving here in the Lords. So we will be laying probing amendments to make sure that that will not happen quite to the extent that we fear it may.

My Lords, there are good elements of this Bill which we support, including the desire to repair the damage to our court system. But there are other parts we believe do not go far enough, and through the passage of this bill, we will be laying probing amendments and discussing the issues with the Minister in the most positive way that we can.
16:57
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
I welcome this bill for two principal reasons. >> Which brings. >> Together the leadership. Of the courts and tribunals under the leadership of the Lady Chief Justice. We cannot underestimate the importance of firm single leadership and the long held need by the judiciary for the reversal of the mistakes that were made in 2003, 2005 and 2006, when the leadership was spilt split. I therefore welcome this, and we can already see that the effect of this decision by what is happening in the tribunals. For example, there is a great increase in the number of disposals being made in the immigration and asylum chamber.

But secondly, I welcome, more importantly, the commitment to the structural reform that is being proposed to the criminal justice system. I have no doubt that structural reform is needed. Greater focus on good leadership, greater efficiency, and above all, greater resources will make a big difference. But on their own, they cannot cure the problems so clearly identified by Lord Leveson in his independent reports and in the update since then. In short, we would delude ourselves if we thought structural change was not necessary. James has been regularly carried out over the centuries of the history of our criminal justice system.

We are at a time when structural change is again necessary. Our task in this House is therefore to subject these proposals to careful scrutiny so we can try and be satisfied that government in this legislation has made the right choice on structural reform, or whether modifications need to be made. There are three areas which I believe should be examined, and I will try and take the three in turn. First, the choice of the type of court to try the less serious cases that presently greater the Crown Court. This is not an easy question, and the difficulty is shown by.

First of all, an examination of the options that have been considered. First trial by judge alone in the Crown Court. I am glad that was rightly abandoned by the government. Secondly, trial by a judge and two magistrates, an intermediate type of court as proposed by Lord justice Earl as long ago as 2001 by Lord Leveson in his reports, and favoured with all the evidence clearly set out by the times, Crime and Justice Commission, I considered that was the right solution. In 2001, and everything that has happened since has strengthened my view that that was right.

I very much hope that this is something that we can examine during the passage of the bill through this House. And the third option is trial in the magistrates courts, either by three magistrates or. And I emphasise this trial in the magistrates court by judge alone, with greater sentencing powers being given to the magistrates courts. In effect, what we have is an increase in effect in the compulsory jurisdiction of the magistrates courts. Now, looking at those options, looking at those options, we also have to take into account the issues that have arisen about the choice who is to make the choice as to where the cases to be tried, and more importantly, we have to look at the choice of the choice of the criteria to be used in making the decision as to where the case is to be heard, and the role of Parliament in setting the criteria and the way the choices to be made.

Should we, for example, should we, for example, reclassify offences such as those that are triable in the magistrates courts, not what the Bill proposes? Should we retain the present system of either way offences, making the decision principally on the basis of the likely length of sentence, with other criteria being taken into account, are the criteria that should be taken into account, clearly set out, and is account to be taken as to whether the trial is to be for three magistrates or judge alone, I believe that our task is to look at this at some detail, but principally at the.

And how the allocation between the Magistrates Court and the Crown Court under the government's proposals is to be made and to do our role. I do believe we need one not to know much more about the impact on the Magistrates Court and the Crown Court of the decisions, and, secondly, much more about the criteria on which we are to govern. The decision to be made as to whether the case is to stay in the magistrates court, or whether the case is to be transferred to the Crown Court and if retained to the Magistrates Court, there is to be any change in the position as to which cases are to be heard by a district judge, as that will be trial by judge alone or by three magistrates.

These are difficult issues but need our careful scrutiny. Secondly, I turn to the question of appeals. I have no doubt that a system for appeals where there is no restriction on the right to appeal, has rightly been abandoned across the entirety of our of our system, elsewhere and in many other countries in the world. It is now the time to reform that, in the interests of efficiency and in the interests of victims, the Bill is plainly right in principle in requiring a permission stage. However, we do need to scrutinise this reform which about which there is so little detail as to how it has worked.

For example, as the grant of permission will depend on the decision of the judge reviewing the papers on the strength of the argument as the safety of the conviction or the length of sentence, what is to be done about improving the way magistrates and judges and district judges record their decisions? And when will the provision be properly made for the provision of a transcript? We will also require, I think, of the provision of an office system for this work. The Court of Criminal Appeal cannot function without an office, and I don't see how this can function without such an office.

 We have no details at all. And thirdly, what is to be done by way of legal aid? Are defendants convicted to get the same right as they have in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division to Legal aid for advice. Furthermore, all of this is to take time and we need to know the timescale because this is a vital change on which, in my view, too little attention has been focussed. And can I then turn to the third aspect, which is trial of fraud and other complex cases. The way in which transactions are effective is almost invariably recorded in written or digital format, and the issue in such cases is one of honesty in complex transactions.

It is my experience that the issue of honesty is best determined in the context of a full understanding of the business background. That is why there is so much to be said for the recommendation made by Lord Roskill as long ago as 1985, for a trial by judge and two lay members with business and financial expertise, that would be the ideal solution. But in the absence of that, I think better justice is better served by trial before a judge who will have a better and fuller understanding of the business background.
17:05
Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Portrait The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, as a Christian, I believe that justice should be grounded in the recognition that grounded in the recognition that all people, victim and perpetrator alike, possess an unyielding human alike, possess an unyielding human dignity given to them by God. Today, I will focus on how this bill might serve to uphold that dignity for some of the most vulnerable who encounter our justice system. My right reverend friend, the Bishop of Gloucester, is unable to be here today, but I know that she will follow this bill closely and will take up these points at committee. I begin by expressing my strong support for the measures in the bill, which would increase the threshold for admission of sexual behaviour evidence in criminal trials.

This is a reform that's long overdue for survivors of sexual offences. The process of reporting and testifying can be deeply harrowing and retraumatising in too many cases, we see that when sexual offences are reported to the police, previous disclosures of rape and sexual violence are used as evidence of the survivors so-called bad character. There are many accounts of the ways in which, during trial, questions about survivors sexual history have been used to cast doubt on their credibility. I pay tribute to those who have had to endure such an ordeal. Around 85% of rape survivors do not report the offence to the police, when those who did not report were asked why, the most common reasons were that they did not think the police could help, that they were embarrassed, or that they thought that reporting would be humiliating.

These statistics are alarming, but can we really be surprised by them when our justice system is permeated by myths of consent and fabrication? We know that many survivors will never report to the police, but those who do so must be given the confidence that they will be treated with dignity, compassion and fairness. The measures in this bill, most especially those which seek to dispel such myths, will go a long way towards achieving that aim. It's my hope that they will also help foster a culture in which all survivors feel able to come forward, confident that they will be taken seriously and their perpetrators held to account.

I'm also pleased to see the government's focus on tackling the backlog of Crown Court cases, which sees survivors of rape waiting disproportionately lengthy times for their cases to be heard. However, this crisis must not be addressed at the expense of other minoritised communities. Whilst the government proposes that more cases be heard by magistrates courts, the eligibility threshold for publicly funded representation there is significantly lower unrepresented. Defendants can suffer serious disadvantages in court, including a limited understanding of the charges they face. This is particularly concerning given the proposal to increase magistrates sentencing powers. If these plans are to go forward, they must be implemented with changes to these thresholds from the outset.

Without clarity on this, in this bill, we risk embedding economic inequality into our justice system and limiting access to justice for those with the least means. I'm also concerned by the proposal to remove the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates Court to the Crown Court, as youth justice cases are ordinarily presided over by magistrates, this would have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable young people. As Christians, the God I worship and the God that others who are Christians worship is one of justice and also of mercy. We can express that mercy by offering young people every opportunity at rehabilitation and the chance to turn their lives around.

Restricting this right of appeal for children alongside increased sentencing powers, may be a threat to one of the key safeguards against judicial error. It may serve not only to increase youth imprisonment unnecessarily, but also further to entrench the disadvantages that often drove children into crime. Court backlogs are severe, but they've been exacerbated by decades of underinvestment. To address this issue, by simply restricting the right to jury trials may only serve to erode trust in the system without addressing the underlying issues that have brought us to this breaking point. Women older and racially minoritized defendants are more likely to opt for jury trial in a crown court.

Taking away this right therefore affects some groups more than others. Groups who are already more likely to experience disadvantage, and whose confidence in the system's fairness may already be fragile. We know that in their journey through the justice system, defendants face countless deprivations of liberty before any verdict is ever reached. We should be cautious to take this fundamental choice away before the resolutions that can be attained through sustained funding have been properly explored. Court backlogs must be addressed, but they've been exacerbated by decades of underinvestment. To address this issue, by simply restricting the right to jury trials may only serve to erode trust in the system without addressing the underlying issues.

To maintain trust, we should strive for a justice system where vulnerable people who disclose sexual violence can trust that they will be treated with compassion and believed. Where people of lower economic means can trust that their income will not define their guilt. If young people are to be given the opportunity to grow into the kinds of citizens who can contribute meaningfully to their communities, they must trust that their communities are committed not only to accountability, but also to restoration, transformation, and the possibility of a better future. This kind of reform cannot be achieved by a bill alone, but requires significant and sustained investment and a real commitment to upholding the dignity of all people.
17:11
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt (Labour)
-
-
I spent 35 years at the criminal bar as both a defender and a bar as both a defender and a prosecutor, and then I spent three years as a Crown court judge dealing with jury trials. And from dealing with jury trials. And from that, it is clear to me that our criminal courts are under pressure. That is unlike anything I have ever seen in my professional career. From inside the system, every day it can be seen that delay is not just a question of statistics, it's a daily reality. It shapes the experience of victims. It shapes the experience of defendants, and increasingly, it takes a toll on the judges, advocates and court staff who work tirelessly to keep the system functioning.

This is not spoken about as much, and there is insufficient time in this debate to explore the recruitment and retention crisis at the criminal bar, or its looming equivalent in the judiciary. But in summary, it's contributed to by the working conditions that are created by the backlog, which puts pressure on the system to speed up speed up throughput, sometimes at the expense of careful consideration of the individual case. My Lords, that's not justice, that's administrative crisis management, and it's not good enough. So we can all probably agree that this bill matters. What we may find it less easy to agree about is what to do about it.

My Lords, what I say next is said with great affection for my own profession. But lawyers do have a tendency to regard procedural reform as the first sign of constitutional collapse. Experience suggests otherwise. The history of criminal justice is a history of adaptation. The question is not whether change should occur. Change has always occurred. The question is whether it leaves the system fairer, more effective and better able to deliver justice. Some of the debate generated by this bill has proceeded as though jury trial were the only fair means by which guilt or innocence can be determined.

But with respect, that has never been the position in England and Wales. The vast majority, usually somewhere around 90% of criminal cases, are, and have always been dealt with by magistrates. I am a supporter of jury trial. It's one of the strengths of our system, but we have to be honest and we have to be realistic. It is expensive and it is time consuming. And that is precisely why, throughout our history we have reserved it. For those cases. Parliament regarded as sufficiently serious to justify that expenditure of time and resources. But what is meant by the most serious cases changes over time, and every government redraws the line as to which cases require it.

And that is why we no longer use juries to try breathalyser cases, as we did in the 1970s. The system was adjusted so that drink driving cases were dealt with by magistrates, and rightly so. And whenever somebody suggests that only a jury can be trusted to determine guilt or innocence in a fair way, I find myself wondering what precisely it is that they're saying about magistrates, because lay magistrates, the majority are members of the public. Just like juries, they give their time voluntarily. They bring experience, judgement and common sense. And throughout my career I saw them dealing conscientiously and fairly with difficult cases.

Magistrates deserve recognition as a cornerstone of our system, not dismissal. As a second class form of justice. My Lords, there's an uncomfortable truth which we owe it to the public to acknowledge. At present, there are too many cases going to the Crown Court, and we also have to recognise that delay does not only affect victims and innocent defendants, it also changes behaviour within the system. The question before us is not whether defendants deserve protection. Of course they do. But protecting the innocent cannot be at the expense of allowing the guilty to play the system. Every Crown Court judge has encountered cases where one cannot help wondering whether or not a guilty plea owes as much to the attractions of delay as it does to the merits of the defence.

A defendant may calculate that by contesting the case they can secure not merely this Christmas at home, but perhaps the next one as well, and possibly even the one after that. And perhaps, if they're lucky, in the end, the victim will just give up a justice system that rewards delay should not be surprised when delay becomes part of the strategy. There are certainly occasions during my time on the bench when I looked at a case in the Crown Court and found myself asking, what exactly is that case doing here? My Lords, we should trust our magistrates to decide where the justice of the case means that it should be tried and we can trust them, even in the system as it operates.

At the moment, the statistics show that magistrates, often on the side of caution by sending cases to the Crown Court, where the eventual sentence was actually lower than the one that the magistrates themselves could have passed. But, my Lords, this Bill is not simply an exercise in reducing a backlog. It's an opportunity to address aspects of the criminal justice system that have required attention for years. Take appeals from the magistrates court. I have never really understood a process that effectively says you've had a trial before. Properly constituted court, you didn't like the outcome, so now you can have another go in front of another court.

That may have made sense in the days when there was no accurate record of what had happened in the magistrates court. But in the 21st century, the recording and transcription of magistrates court proceedings can and is going to happen. So only those cases where there's an arguable appeal should go ahead. And that's exactly, of course, what happens in every other court, including appeal from Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. My concern about the current system of magistrates court appeals is not, in fact, principally that it's grossly inefficient, even though it is. It's also unfair because behind many of those appeals is a victim, someone who thought that the process had finally ended with the conviction that he will now be required to relive the entire experience again, in all likelihood months, if not years later.

A proper appeals system is not about giving defendants a second bite at the cherry. It's about convicting the guilty whilst acquitting the innocent. My Lords, this government has rightly assessed that to improve the criminal justice system requires investment and efficiency. But the modelling makes it absolutely clear that alone these are not enough. There must also be sensible modernisation of our procedures. The question before us is not whether reform is risk free. It never is. But the real danger is not that we change too much, but that we change too little, too late. After a lifetime practising in the criminal courts, I have concluded that the public care far less about preserving our procedures than they do about actually receiving justice in a timely way.

It's our duty, my Lords, is to preserve what is best in the system, reform what is not, and leave behind criminal justice system that works better than the one we inherited here.
17:19
Lord Howard of Lympne Portrait Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-
-
I Lords, I declare my interest as a non-practicing barrister, and as a non-practicing barrister, and it's a pleasure, of course, to follow the noble Baroness, even though I feel unable to follow her conclusions. My Lords. In 2020, Mr. David Lammy, who was the ministerial author of the proposals in this bill, said jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. He said criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. And he said jury trials are a big contribution that flow out of Magna Carta. My Lords, he was right on the first two and almost right on the third.

And here I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Ashton as as the noble Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, who cannot be here today, has shown in his magisterial recent Selden Lecture on the History of Jury trial. It actually began just a little while after Magna Carta, when Pope Innocent, the third, banned trial by ordeal in November 1215, after which, following a writ of King Henry the Third in 1219, travelling judges began to use a local jury to determine guilt or innocence. But, my Lords, whether it began in 1215 or 1219, jury trial has long been part of our national history.

The traditions which make a country what it is, are like a tapestry, a tapestry which has many threads. And if you start to remove those threads, the tapestry begins to unravel and becomes threadbare. The traditions start to dissolve and the soul, the essential soul of the nation, bit by bit, begins to get lost. Jury trials are a part of that tapestry. The principle that we are entitled, if accused of a serious offence to be tried by our fellow citizens, has become deeply embedded in our national psyche. So, my Lords, why the removal of the original clause three of this bill?

I view with great concern the proposals to curtail the right to trial by jury, which remain, some of which go beyond the recommendations of the Leveson Review. I'm particularly concerned by the provisions of clause one, which would remove the current right of an adult defendant charged with an either way offence to elect for a Crown Court trial. What are these either way offences? They include theft and shoplifting, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, fraud, drug offences. Quite apart from the obvious consequences of a conviction for these offences, the reputational damage could be even more severe. And that is not something which a court would be entitled under the provisions in the Bill to take into account when deciding the appropriate venue for trial.

And I also have concerns, among other provisions, about clause three, which removes the right to jury trial in long and complex cases, and clause six, which removes the automatic right to appeal to the Crown Court against conviction or sentence in the magistrates courts. But, my Lords, I recognise as indeed we've just heard, from the noble Baroness and previous speakers, that not all your Lordships will share these concerns. But there is one provision in this Bill which I hope all members of your Lordships House will unite in opposing. That is the provision in part two of schedule 3ZA, which would enable the Secretary of State to add by order.

 By order, my Lords, to the number of offences which come within the scope of the clause. That is, the number of offences in respect of which jury trial would be no longer available. As the government's own explanatory notes put it. This would enable the Secretary of State to add offences which are not related to fraud or financial crime, to the schedule. He could add any offence, any offence, my Lord, by order to the schedule. My Lords, this is monstrous. Your Lordships have long been accustomed to what has been termed, not always accurately, Henry the Eighth clauses.

My Lords, this is not a Henry the Eighth clause. This is a Joseph Stalin clause. It is an absolute outrage, and it should not be allowed to remain in the bill. Whatever the fate of some of the other provisions to which I've referred. My Lord, there is much. My Lords, there is much scope for your Lordships to improve this Bill. I hope we make the most of this opportunity.
17:25
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, when the noble Lord the Minister started this debate, he said that our court and judicial system has never stood still. I think for many of us in this chamber, not only do we feel it has not stood still, I think many of us feel it's been going backwards in recent years, and I think that is very much the backdrop to to today's debate. We have had several years of what to a non-lawyer appears to be managed decline, some of it benign, some of it unthinking, some of it. If you are uncharitable, marginally malign.

And as ever, it has had unforeseen consequences. I would like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness Baroness Levitt for her speech, because I think it is a cardinal example of the rule of physician. Heal thyself. And I think she does know what she's talking about. Like Lady Baroness Brinton, I would like to focus on the people at the bottom of this problem. Who are the victims. And while all areas are under strain, indeed, as the noble Baroness Goldie Levitt said, the strain on the participants in the system, the people responsible for administering it must occasionally be almost unbearable.

But the experience of victims is profound and traumatic, and I think for many of them, what they feel they are experiencing is not a million miles away from what the noble Lord, Lord Howard, referred to as trial by ordeal. Because I think for many of them, that is precisely what it what it feels like. My Lords, I think there are three particular asks from the victims point of view that those of us concerned for them would be hoping for. From this bill. The first, clearly is to tackle the backlog. The second is to improve the victims experience of the court process.

I think those of us who were present at the briefing that the victims commissioner gave to us a few weeks ago were pretty horrified, particularly those of us who are not lawyers by what we heard. And I was particularly horrified to learn of a process that is known of as the pooling of rape cases and the pooling of rape cases is when a group of cases involving rape are put together in a category where it is deemed more than likely that the person who has been raped will actually withdraw from the process because of the trauma of going through and the fact that that should be a syndrome, that is, that is known and is present is indeed an indictment of of our system.

And I think, thirdly, to strengthen accountability and oversight. And I do think one thing I would like the government to think about seriously is to find a way of using the victims experiences as a core measure of measuring court performance and effectiveness. As we go forward. There must be a way of doing that in a way that is meaningful and a way that is live. There are clearly some potential red flags in this bill. Jury trials are highly trusted by many minority groups who, as they look around at the court and judicial system, may not see a great many people in it who look and sound and feel like themselves.

 So for those reasons, I think when they look at many juries, they see more people that they feel, understand them, come from their communities, know some of the trials and tribulations they've been through. And of course, I think that is often particularly the case for women. And I do feel that magistrates are are in danger of being overwhelmed if we are not very careful in how we decide to place new burdens upon them, particularly when we have a large number of new magistrates that we are recruiting, which is good news. But I do feel that many of them are in danger of slightly being thrown in the deep end.

I would like briefly to return to the individual that Baroness Brinton was talking about earlier. The young lady called Emma, who spoke very movingly to us in the victims Commissioner's presentation, and I would just briefly like to add some of what she told us she was. This is not her real name. And she was clearly being extraordinarily brave and was finding it very difficult to to talk to us. She read from it. It obviously was very carefully constructed and it is extraordinarily moving. And she said there are consequences I continue to live with. Long after a hearing has ended.

The court process has required me to revisit what happened, prepare to give evidence, wait through delays and face further uncertainty. And throughout that time, I've also been trying to manage my health and rebuild some sense of normality. And there have been times when simply functioning day to day has been incredibly difficult. But I've kept going because I wanted what happened to me to be taken seriously. I wanted to engage with the justice system, to try and see the process through. But I've had to do that while my health has deteriorated and while I have struggled with the physical consequences of trauma, I do not think that it should take a person reaching this level of physical distress before the impact of a criminal case is properly understood.

I am not a case number. I am a person whose health has been profoundly affected, whose body has been through repeated physical crises, and who is still trying to recover from what has happened. I wanted justice, I wanted to feel safe. I wanted to be able to move forward into my life. And I'm still trying to do these things. My Lords, to summarise, the success of this bill should ultimately be judged by whether victims can access, can access justice within a reasonable time frame through a process that supports their participation and confidence, without fundamental trauma or delay.

And now, since the only thing that sits between not me and the cocktail hour, but myself and Lord Alderdice, I will sit down. Here. My Lords, it is a profound honour for me to address your Lordships for the first time. I'm incredibly grateful to noble Lords from across the House for their warm and generous welcome. I'd also like to thank all the staff of the House for making my arrival so enjoyable. The doorkeepers, the clerks, the catering staff, Black
17:32
Lord Stace Portrait Lord Stace (Labour)
-
-
Rod and Garth, the principal King of arms. Your help and humour have carried me through to this moment, to my supporters. On my day of introduction, the Leader of the introduction, the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord Timson, as well as the Chief Whip, Lord Kennedy. I echo publicly what Lord Kennedy. I echo publicly what I have said privately. Thank you for your kindness, your friendship, and your encouragement, and for and your encouragement, and for reminding me that my imposter syndrome, including at this particular moment in time, is perfectly normal, perhaps even desirable, if that means that we are humbled by the importance of this place.

I'm keen to address certain aspects of the bill, but first I want to share the journey that led me here, which I hope will give you some clarity on how I will spend my time here in this House. I strongly believe that where we come from matters because it shapes what we believe is possible. I grew up in Brighton, or as the Housing and Communities Secretary recently called it, Manchester South East seagulls summer crowds crashing, waves on Pebble Shores and most autumns party conferences, a local comprehensive, a tough school and a loving family. I was the first in my family to go to university at Hull University.

I learned a lot from noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth about the importance of politics and that it can and should be an honourable profession. Apparently, he also knew a thing or two about the Constitution, and I now wish I'd paid slightly closer attention to those lectures after I graduated. It was wonderful to see my mum, Irene, go through the Open University, and today my wife Emma works for the Open University. May I pause to commend Michael Young, the late Lord Young of Dartington, and Jenny Lee, the Baroness Lee of Asheridge and all the other pioneers of the fantastic, life changing Open University.

Michael Young also founded which, where I was deputy chief executive before running the Australian equivalent called choice. No matter where in the world and no matter which sector, I've tried to improve the lives of those who are most vulnerable, something I know stemmed from my upbringing. Although from an early age I knew that my mum Irene and my dad Tim were a political odd couple. Irene at times only a cigarette papers width from being a communist. Tim, a devout Thatcherite. Now Tim may well be listening to you and may well be embarrassed or perhaps emboldened by those cheers from the benches opposite.

For me, over breakfast, there was a choice to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made should I read the Daily Mail or The Morning Star. Of course I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Morning Star. Of course I read both. Both parents, in their own way, were passionate about improving the lives of others. And improving the lives of others. And I learned that you can argue about means while agreeing about ends means while agreeing about ends without falling out too much. It is why I have always enjoyed good relations with people with relations with people with different ideas, perspectives, and politics, and I hope to continue that here. Our personal history shape us in ways we welcome and in ways we do not. I've spent my career working with people whose circumstances narrowed their options and squandered their talents.

Young people without work, people in prison, people whose livelihoods have been destroyed by war or climate change. The people I encounter, whether Kyiv or Coventry, are not wheat people. Often they have huge inner strength, but they lack the conditions to allow them to flourish. Many feel our system is something done to them, not something they belong to. Changing those conditions, building those platforms that everyone can thrive is how I want to spend my time here. I've worked for much of my career supporting young people. I was the chief executive of the Prince's Trust, now the King's Trust.

His Majesty's charities are truly life changing, and I've set up three charities to help young people. Today, I lead on global impact for Howden, the insurance group. In 18 months we have helped to create a public private philanthropic solution called Humanity Insured that is already supporting 2.6 million people, including smallholders, across Africa and Asia. And that's just in the last 18 months. As an insurance business, we are also helping to reconstruct or helping to make the circumstances possible for the reconstruction of Ukraine, giving confidence to investors to pump billions into schools, hospitals and homes, rebuilding lives and livelihoods.

My Lords, from the breakfast table to world affairs, I have come to realise that solutions to the greatest challenges our world faces seldom lies with one sector or one immutable ideology over another. From the rehabilitation of prisoners to tackling youth unemployment to rebuilding Ukraine, I've learned that the answers lie in partnership and pragmatism. Innovation and inspiration. I will now turn to the bill before us. I would like to thank my noble friend, the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, for arranging a prior briefing on this bill. It is so important that we tackle the inhumanity of a system that allows victims to wait for many years for a court listing and a resolution.

As my noble friend the Minister said, justice delayed is justice. Justice denied, delayed is justice denied. And this bill is a welcome step in bringing about greater efficiencies. But I know my noble friend the Minister will agree with me that we must also develop a more ambitious systems wide approach to reform. Otherwise, we risk shifting the problem, not solving the problem. Given my background, it may not surprise your Lordships to hear that I am an advocate for doing everything we can to prevent people from offending or reoffending in the first place, which in itself will relieve pressure on the courts system.

At the King's Trust, it was our mission to help young people find their purpose, provide hope and seek to divert them from what, for some, can be an inevitable pathway to prison. As chair of the Prison Reform Trust, I see our brilliant work in helping create the environment where prisoners can leave prison as productive and successful members of society. As our Prime Minister recently said, you don't make Britain safer by leaving a younger generation without hope. Stuck at home looking at screens. You do it by giving young people hope again. Alan Milburn's review is a generational moment to make our society happier, healthier and with hope for the next generation.

If we do that, our criminal justice system will also be more efficient and fair. At this stage of my speech, I am reminded of advice to speech makers attributed to Franklin D Roosevelt. Be brief. Be sincere. Be seated. My Lords, the House mandates I be brief. I have been and will always be sincere. And now I shall be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seated. Yeah yeah yeah. Yeah yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah yeah yeah. Yeah yeah. I'd like to congratulate my noble friend, Lord Stace, on a very noble friend, Lord Stace, on a very thoughtful and personal maiden. A friend that I've known for over a friend that I've known for over a quarter of a century. Century. Both of our families lived and grew up
17:40
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Portrait Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Labour)
-
-
of our families lived and grew up in south London and south London. Labour politics, as we've just heard, Lord Stace brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to your Lordships house. He didn't do justice to the work that he did when he was the CEO of the Prince's Trust. Now the King's Trust. In the 40 years history, the Prince's Trust then had helped over a million young people, supported them as a new CEO. Lord Stace or Nick then set an ambitious target over the next decade of helping 1 million more. He also didn't touch on his time as the CEO of Saga Travel, known to many of us in your Lordships' House.

Well, some of. Or some of us. Remember when. When Nick became CEO, he was under the age of 50 and had to get special dispensation to attend and to travel on some of the saga cruises, which I'm sure he thoroughly enjoyed. But finally, what an apt bill to make your maiden speech as chair of the Prison Reform Trust. You bring an understanding and a compassion that will be greatly appreciated and respected across

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your Lordships House. Nick Lord Case. Welcome. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I'm turning to. I'm today's Second Reading. I welcome the Second Reading. I welcome the government's determination to confront the crisis in our courts. Behind every delayed hearing are people whose lives cannot move forward. And I want to approach forward. And I want to approach this bill through the lens of social justice. The question is not simply how many cases can move through the system. It's whether someone without money, without influence, or the knowledge of the law can obtain justice, and whether victims can secure a hearing before delay, exhaust their confidence. Those are not competing objectives.

A fair justice system must and can deliver both. The scale of the challenge is stark. Ministry of justice figures show that at the end of June, there were over eight 80,000 open Crown Court cases and over 380,000 open cases in magistrates courts. For a victim to delay can mean, can mean repeated preparation for a hearing that does not happen for an innocent defendant. Defendant. It can mean a livelihood, a reputation and family life suspended. DeLay is therefore not merely an administrative failure, it is a social justice issue. That is why doing nothing cannot be the answer.

And that's why I welcome the government's willingness to listen and its decision not to proceed with the proposed Crown Court Bench Division changes. I also welcome the provision concerning evidence in sexual offence proceedings and support for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. These recognise that access to justice means more than just entering a courtroom. It means being able to give evidence safely and effectively while preserving a fair trial. But the remaining structural reforms require careful examination, examination, removing the adult defendant's right to elect crown Court trial, increasing magistrates sentencing powers and introducing permissions required for appeal must be considered.

Together, their combined effect matters more than any provision viewed in isolation. So my concern is practical if more serious decisions are taken in magistrates courts, with greater consequences for liberty, what safeguards will ensure that those least equipped to navigate the system are not disadvantaged? First, we need credible capacity before additional responsibilities are transferred. The magistrates courts are not empty reservoirs into which Crown Court work can simply be poured. Their open caseload is already at record levels. The justices committee chair puts it plainly a clear plan to ensure there is capacity to meet increased demand is vital.

Well, my noble friend, the Minister, publish a plan covering magistrates, district judges, legal advisers, administrative staff and court facilities before these changes take effect. As someone whose working life has included representing working people, I would add reform must be designed with the workforce, not simply delivered to it. The people preparing files, supporting witnesses and keeping hearings running know where time is lost, their experience and that of their trade unions should help inform implementation. Secondly, access to an appeal must remain meaningful. A permission requirement may look like a modest procedural change, but for someone with limited literacy or learning disability or no effective legal assistance explaining why a decision may be wrong can in itself be a formidable barrier.

Will the Minister explain what practical support will be available, particularly for those most vulnerable? Efficiency should mean resolving cases correctly, not making errors harder to challenge. I welcome the independent review examining the differences in treatment or outcomes by race, race and socio economic status. That is not special treatment. It's a test of whether equal treatment exists in practice. But a review must be capable of prompting action. Will there be a clear baseline, published findings and a commitment to explain how any adverse effects will be addressed? Parliament should not discover, years later that a reform intending to improve justice has deepened inequality.

 Legislation cannot substitute for making the existing system work. The latest statistics show that one quarter of Crown Court trials listed to start don't. They did not proceed as scheduled and require another listing. Better case preparation, reliable prison transport, functioning technology and properly maintained buildings are not glamorous reforms, but they matter enormously to the people waiting outside the courtroom. My Lords, I support the ambition to deliver swifter justice. My test is whether these reforms improve the experiences of those with the least power victims waiting to be heard, defendants entitled to fairness, fairness and families living with uncertainty.

Let us reduce delay without reducing confidence. Strengthen capacity before transferring responsibilities and make equality before the law a practical reality. That should be the social justice purpose of this bill. Thank you, my Lords.
17:49
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
It's a pleasure. >> Noble Lord. Lord McNicol for. >> Two reasons. First of all, because I agree with everything he said about his noble friend Lord said about his noble friend Lord Stace, who has just made what the noble Lord described as a noble Lord described as a thoughtful maiden speech. And in a sense, I'm not in the least bit surprised knowing what I do know about the noble Lord, and I expect the House to benefit from his contributions on many occasions in the future, and I to welcome him to his place. I also agree with the noble Lord Lord McNicol for the practical approach that he applied to this Bill and the measures that it seeks to introduce in order to deal with some of the plain and obvious problems that the the criminal justice system faces.

But before I come on to the substance of the bill, may I be forgiven for making what I suspect might in other places be called a pleading point, and that is that. The amendment advanced, or that to be advanced in later on this evening by the noble Lord. Lord Rooker, is an amendment which so far has been ignored by the government. This is a bill of huge constitutional, financial and practical importance for all of us as citizens and for the institutions of justice. And if I may say so, it's been treated by the government in the other place with some considerable disdain.

 There is a lot of this bill which is before us, which has not been considered at all or considered adequately in the other place. So it ought to go back there to be reconsidered before it comes to our House. And if it's not going to happen, and I suspect it won't. But if it's not going to happen, the noble Lord, the Minister ought to have the ability. I was going to say to condescend to us by responding to the points that Lord Rooker makes in his amendment. There's far too much of this bill which is ill considered and unconsidered, and it does us no service when we have to do the work or repeat the work that the Commons should have done.

And I hope that when we come to deal with the Committee stage of the Report stage, and indeed the Third Reading stage of this Bill, that we will not shrink from applying a a serious application of thought and skill and expertise on the detail of this Bill, because it is, if I may say so, has been woefully considered in the other place. Now, I don't mind whether members of this House take a view about the. The merits of the Bill in its various aspects, one way or the other. But what I do care about is that if we are to produce legislation, it should be produced properly and well thought through.

That said, given the. The controversial nature of some of the provisions in the Bill, there isn't really time other than to point at 1 or 2 questions which I think need to be thought about very carefully when we come to deal with this matter in committee, I will, if I may, and I do so with some diffidence since he's sitting right in front of me. Just pick up one point that my noble friend Lord Howard of Lim made. He chided our noble friend on the front bench for placing too much stress on the Magna Carta as the origin of the jury system, and he was entirely right to do so.

But he then relied on Pope Innocent, the third, as being the founder of the modern jury system King Innocent, King, King Edward the Third. Well, I think that we may now be getting to a point of agreement, because what we should be doing is looking at the six acts, the six statutes of Edward the Third, because that is where a proper interpretation of article 39 of Magna Carta comes. That having been said, and gosh, can I get to the church by way of the moon having been said? I think what is more important about the development of our jury system is not what happened in the Middle Ages, but what happened in the post Civil war period with the mead and pen case, with the development of the Bill of rights, with the development of universal education, with the increase in the economic power of of our country and the removal of power from the Crown and the Barons to the wider population, and the involvement of that wider population in our justice system through the jury.

And it is important, it seems to me, that we recognise the Democratic input that the jury system provides in our criminal justice system. I think it's also, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Lord Hardie on this. It's also important to remind ourselves what the previous Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, David Lammy, did in introducing this whole subject in the first place, and I have some sympathy for the noble Lord noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, who has twice now been asked to carry out inquiries and write reports for two different governments, and has not found that they have met universal approval.

By the by the politicians. But I'm afraid that's the fate of report writers. I've. I've had that problem myself, but I borne it with such fortitude as I have been able to muster. The serious point, however, is this Mr. Lammy asked himself the wrong question, and then came up with the wrong answer to the wrong question, and the question he ought to have asked himself is what. In practical terms? And I look across to the noble Lord who spoke immediately before me what in practical terms can best be done to reduce the backlog of cases in our criminal justice system?

Bear in mind, only 10% of all criminal cases get before the Crown Court. As somebody has. I think it's the noble Lady, Lady Levitt said. The magistrates. Carry out the bulk of our criminal justice work, and they are to be praised, and they are to be supported, and their work is to be reinforced with adequate resources and a decent. Premises and so on and so on and so forth. But by reducing the ability of the citizen to get before a trial in front of a jury, I suspect you are not going to reduce the backlog, which now, as we're told, stands at 81,000 cases.

And cases will be certainly the non-violent cases are going to be pushed back well beyond 2029, 2030 at the current rate. But let's let's think of 1 or 2 practical points beyond those that the noble Lord mentioned a moment ago. I confess I used to sit as a Crown Court recorder and as a civil law practitioner. It may well be wondered by people like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, what on earth I was doing in a criminal court, and I see that the great God of time has already enabled me to curtail my remarks, when I know the whole House is absolutely itching to hear what I have to say.

But it seems to me, my Lords, that the time will come and it will come in in committee when we will have to dismantle this bill and reconstruct it and reconstruct it in such a way that we can reduce the backlog, but without reducing access to justice and without and unless we pay attention to the state of the buildings, to the ability of the delivery service to get people from remand to the Crown Court in time without being able to have enough judges, be they part time or full time, without being able to get enough court staff.

All of the things that the government thinks that this reform will do will be lost because the same mechanical problems will still

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exist. I'll stop there. It's always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Garnier, follow the noble Lord Lord Garnier, which I seem to do quite often. It's also a great pleasure to It's also a great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stace, and to congratulate him on his and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I note that he sat down almost exactly on eight minutes, which is a very good augur minutes, which is a very good augur for the future, and because it's my first opportunity to do so, I
17:59
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven Portrait Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (Crossbench)
-
-
should also like to welcome the Minister to the House and particularly to the government particularly to the government front bench. He may recall that some 20 years or so ago, when I was head of the CPS, he was one of our non-executive directors, and I may say, one of our very best ones. Of course, you'll also recall that in course, you'll also recall that in those days we both had somewhat darker hair, although rather annoyingly, he seems to have retained more of his. I should also like to welcome and. And delighted to see in his place, because it's my first opportunity to do so again.

 The noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson of Liverpool. I'm sure his contributions to the House are going to be both erudite and penetrating, although that doesn't guarantee that we'll always agree with each other. I think it's important that we acknowledge, during the course of this debate, that we are dealing with the consequences of a funding crisis, and that's too often forgotten. Governments in recent years have made the choice not to invest in criminal justice, and the direct result of that has been the backlogs that we now see. The Minister of Justice and the other place claimed recently in the media that even if there wasn't a funding crisis, even if there wasn't a the backlogs that we are presently confronting, the government would be proceeding with these reforms anyway, as a matter of principle, I found her unpersuasive on that point.

I think we are dealing with the results of a funding crisis. My own service, the CPS, in the not so distant future and past, I should say, lost some 30% of its budget, some 30% of its frontline prosecutors. Imagine the situation if the National Health Service lost 30% of its frontline doctors. Courts went dark and barristers, because of the collapse in legal aid, left the criminal bar in droves. And that's the situation that we are now confronting. Covid did not help, but successive governments have used this as a shield for problems which pre-existed Covid. Now others have dealt with this in this debate with matters of principle.

Of course, I accept that people can have fair trials in front of judges without juries. That is obvious. All over the world, people have fair trials in front of juries and in our commercial courts. People have fair trials, sorry, in front of judges and in our commercial courts. People have fair trials in front of judges. But I want to deal with a more practical issue. And this is the issue that I want to address the Minister upon directly, and that is, will the magistrates Court be able to cope with the massive influx of work which this Bill will direct towards it?

With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, there was there were some things about his report that I disagreed with. Indeed, we debated this. Disagreements or these disagreements publicly on a podcast. I rather took the view of the Institute for government that the reforms that he was proposing would save so little time in the Crown Court that they weren't worth the loss of the amount of jury trials that would be lost as a result of them. But I do think that his report had one singular merit. It had many merits, but one singular merit that I want to refer to now that most of the cases removed from juries under his proposals would be presided over in said by a Crown Court judge and two magistrates.

 Now, the government's new proposals they're resigning from his report were rather trailed in the press as the government saving jury trial. Indeed, the new Prime Minister, during his by election campaign, expressed his great attraction for jury trial and rather implied. I thought that the Leveson report would be dead as a result of his affection for jury trial. But that's not what has happened. And the proposals which are before the House now, the bill, which is before the House, doesn't succeed in creating any diminution, it seems to me, in the right to jury trial, and that may be necessary for all the reasons which noble Lords have expressed.

But I seriously question whether the Magistrates Court, in its current condition is in a fit state, even with the additions of magistrates which have been described, even with the additions of new district judges that have been described that it would be capable of dealing with this influx of work. At the moment, the trials that are conducted in magistrates courts are of very minor matters. Very, very, very rarely lasting longer than a day. That is going to change. Magistrates will keep within their jurisdiction cases which will last for 2 or 3, four, perhaps five days. Now it's very easy for a lay magistrate to get a day, a month off work to do their duty in the magistrates court, perhaps even two days a month.

But persuading an employer that they should have 3 or 4 days, which might stretch into 5 or 6 days because the trial takes longer than is expected, is a very different kettle of fish. Journalism is not always terribly accurate, but I found this piece of journalism quite persuasive a couple of months ago, maybe a little longer. The times sent a couple of journalists down to a magistrates court in the south east of England. They found a situation of absolute chaos. Not enough magistrates, barristers not turning up, prisoners not being delivered, witnesses not turning up absolute chaos.

And if the magistrates now are to deal with two, three, four, five day long cases, with more serious cases, with more powers of sentencing, two things will be necessary. First of all, we will need many, many more magistrates than we presently have. And secondly, we will need many, many more district judges than we presently have. And we'll probably need more buildings, and we'll certainly need a more efficient means of delivering prisoners to the courts. I'm not, in principle opposed to courts making allocation decisions in most of the fair trial world. It's not the defendant who decides where he or she should be tried.

Indeed, in Scotland and Lord Keen will correct me if I'm wrong about this. In Scotland it's largely the prosecutor who makes that decision, so I'm not against that. But I am opposed to a situation which gives courts the right to decide allocation, but pays no account at all to the resources of the courts in question. And I do urge the Minister to tell the House what modelling has been done to convince the government that the courts are capable of taking on the magistrates courts, of taking on, capable of taking on this level of work and how much money he thinks is going to be necessary to enable them to do so.

How many more new lay magistrates will we need, and how many more district judges will we need? Finally, I wanted to make this point very briefly. I've never understood why we don't allow defendants to elect trial before judge alone, if that's what they wish. I understand the government feels that such a proposal would be inconsistent with their new idea that allocation should be a matter for the judges. But I think that if defendants want to be tried by judges, they should be allowed to make that allegation. And I allocation that decision, and I urge the government to reconsider their position on that.
18:07
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
It's a it's a privilege to >> It's a it's a privilege to follow the noble Lord Macdonald of River Glaven and a. And a personal River Glaven and a. And a personal pleasure to see my friend the noble and learned Lord Stevenson in his. In his place, his richly deserved In his place, his richly deserved place. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Stacey on a on a humble and humane and incredibly promising maiden speech, if I may say so, I declare interest as a council member of the cross party, law reform, charity justice, and as a member of your Lordship's Delegated Powers Committee.

Well, let's just say the the spirit of the late and learned noble Lord judge is always in the room. Let me first thank justice for expressing and expressing so well. And the new Prime Minister for listening to profound and widespread concerns about the earlier version of this bill. The most obvious reason, my Lords, for the current crisis in our criminal justice system is years of savage cuts, bipartisan cuts by politicians quick to compete in law and order rhetoric, legislation being cheapened talk even cheaper. But they rendered tough words hollow, my Lords, by chronic underinvestment. And the noble Lord McDonald made the point about what if 30% of the doctors were off attempting to speed up justice by a dilution of due process is oxymoronic indeed.

I also joined the Bar Council in welcoming, amongst other innovations, the government's pledge to establish specialist rape and sexual offences courts as a means of achieving swifter and better justice without dispensing with jury trials. I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Brinton about the about parental responsibility, and I note the expert testimony from the group rights of women on the confidence that women caught up in the system place in juries. Their short briefing, I think, gives lie to any zero sum game between victims and defendants, and I. And I hope we might bear that in mind.

My Lords, may I explain why I think jury trials are so important in serious cases? Firstly, the democratic effect referred to by the noble Lord Garnier of Trial by One's peers. And I don't mean addressing your Lordships House that sometimes a trial. But. But not always. That is a crucial, participatory and legitimising factor of our system and society. Going back, can we say about 100 years? Will that will that work, or will I be called out by the the Middle Ages that the scholars of the of middle aged history on the conservative benches, let's say about 100 years, my Lords, without jury trials in difficult and polarised times, it will feel to many.

And that doesn't mean that I'm with my new noble friends mother in the Morning Star, but it will feel to many that one class sits in permanent judgement over others. By contrast, how wonderful that lay people may not only participate, participate in democracy, but play such a crucial part in delivering the rule of law on which that democracy is built. The statistics on women and people of colour having more confidence in juries add another crucial dimension. I would argue to this. Secondly, my Lords, juries protect our judiciary from the opprobrium. Sadly, often stoked in both old and new media, that would surely come with high profile acquittals.

In particular, my Lords, the enemies of the people type jibe and consequential threats to our precious referees would only be compounded in the context of findings related to criminal guilt, or the lack thereof. But thirdly, my Lords, for me at least, perhaps just as importantly, juries provide a priceless final safety valve against oppressive laws and prosecutions. Now, some might find such safeguards irritating, but I, for one, think it's important that there is the possibility of acquittal in a whistle whistle blowing case involving official secrets, or a protest case involving disproportionate policing. Contrary to the conscience of ordinary citizens.

Because this is not just about the government authorities and statute book of today, but over the years and, crucially, how things might be if our politics were to take an authoritarian turn. Judges and magistrates, my Lords, would find it difficult or impossible to acquit in the face of tightly drawn statutes, regardless of their consciences. So, my Lords, I. I maintain residual concerns about the dilutions to the right to jury trial that continue in the Bill the removal of the right to elect in either way offences, the increased and likely increased sentencing powers for magistrates, the removal of the right to appeal from magistrates, the restriction of jury trial in complex and lengthy cases which may be extremely serious for the accused and the building of the slippery slope towards every case involving what computer DNA or other technical or forensic evidence, especially via secondary legislation.

I don't need to invoke dictators of this century or previous centuries. I hope noble Lords will understand the point. My Lords, Parliament is meant to be the least imperfect means of representing the people in the context of legislation and administration. How bizarre. If it were complicit in removing their vital role in the adjudication of serious criminal liability. And my Lords, being an internationalist and European in the context of human rights should not come with a callous disregard for an ancient home grown right, cherished by our people and admired across the world. So I look forward to our further deliberations and remind my noble friends and government that you listen, is a dynamic and a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continuous verb. It's a pleasure to follow on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow on from the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti very eloquent remarks. Chakrabarti very eloquent remarks. I will focus mine on the proposed removal of the statutory presumption of parental involvement presumption of parental involvement as set out in the Bill and, as your Lordships know, unsafe child Lordships know, unsafe child contact has led to a number of terrible tragedies, and I'd like to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, the Minister at the beginning, about the tireless and courageous work of Claire Trussell, who lost both her sons in the most tragic of circumstances.

I hope that we can all agree across the House that when thinking about child contact, we're broadly trying to achieve two things. Firstly, that the contact arrangements for children decided by the family courts protect those children and the resident parent from harm, and secondly, that children should retain contact with both parents where it is safe to do so. And my concern is that this bill alone will not achieve either the former or the latter goal. It's not clear how the government will protect children from harm without losing sight of the problem. That the statutory presumption of parental involvement sought to address in the first place, that too many children lose contact with a parent after separation, and we need to have confidence that the government's approach will deliver both safe contact and long term involvement.

Where appropriate. The intention of Parliament expressed by the Children's Minister and the other place in 2013 were, and I quote, that having both parents involved in the child's life is the right course, where it is safe and in the child's best interests. And the question now is whether the presumption contributed to unsafe decisions, whether it led to longer term safe contact with the non-resident parent, and what will best protect children in its place. And sadly, we do not have data that allows us to come to a firm view on any of these points. The Ministry of Justice 2025 review raises serious concerns, rightly about unsafe contact and the pressure towards parental involvement, but it is not conclusive about the contribution of the statutory presumption.

Again, I quote from the review the apparent high incidence of orders, where there were indicators of risk, suggested that the courts were ordering direct contact between children and
18:18
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
parents who have caused or pose a risk of harm. Evidence around judicial decision making suggested judicial decision making suggested that the presumption was not routinely referenced, referenced by judges and magistrates when they judges and magistrates when they made decisions about contested child arrangement orders. When it child arrangement orders. When it was referenced, the presumption was highlighted as only one of a number highlighted as only one of a number of factors the court must consider when making child arrangement orders, end quote. The report notes that the data set used was at best patchy, and the judgement sample was heavily concentrated in just one court.

The review also stated that the lack of a clear evidence base about the long term outcomes of different forms of involvement ordered by the court was concerning, and that same data desert on outcomes for children following their involvement in family court proceedings still remains. And today, I would really urge the government that we must not legislate for unproven changes for children without a plan to test and to evaluate those changes. These limitations do not diminish in any way the seriousness of the evidence that children have been exposed to unsafe contact. But the review itself acknowledges that the presumption is not the driving force between the courts.

No stone unturned culture. So I have to ask the Minister what gives him confidence that the repeal will change the unsafe decisions identified, and what further changes in practice are needed alongside it? And if I may, I'd like to suggest some options that I hope the Minister can comment on when he closes, or that he will write to me. Firstly, surely it is critical that such a determination must be based on the social work assessment where one is required. Secondly, that the consistent and proper use of practice direction 12 J must be widely encouraged. And thirdly, that there should be a proportionate use of fact finding hearings.

The removal of the presumption must be accompanied by leadership and culture change within the family justice system that prioritises these things, and does not assume that the removal of a legislative provision will result in safety for children, because we all know that it will not, and we also know that it is far harder to achieve that culture change than it is to amend a piece of legislation. But I am optimistic about what the new child focussed courts can achieve. But their success will depend on the quality of implementation. As an example, the noble Lady Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws and I were privileged to go and visit the specialist Domestic Abuse Court in Westminster and witness the work of the Standing Together Partnership, which really highlighted the importance of high quality implementation.

And although the Family Court and the criminal court models are of course different, the importance of specialist expertise is common to both. So will the Minister set out the plan for training, funding and supporting the specialist domestic abuse services on which the child focussed court model depends, and how will that competence will be will be assessed and who will be accountable where that specialist support is not available? How will that provision enable or otherwise? The promised 40 day time scale for the filing of welfare assessments in the child focussed courts? And finally, I would urge the government to establish a baseline before repeal takes effect and commit to an independent evaluation.

Reporting to Parliament on children's safety, their experience of proceedings and whether safe and beneficial relationships can be sustained. We need to know more than just what orders the court makes. We need to know what happens to the children who are affected by them. OK.
18:22
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> It's a pleasure to follow the characteristically clear and persuasive speech by the noble Baroness. I also want to say how much I enjoyed the eloquent, moving and wise speech by the noble Lord. Lord Stace, we have much to look forward to in the future, from his contributions to this house. And whilst I'm at it, can I say I'm looking forward to the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Leveson? He and I go back a long way. 55 years ago we started appearing against one another in quite a lot of pretty knockabout cases, many of them tried by juries up in the North West.

We enjoyed every minute of it, I think, and I'm sure we'll enjoy being together in your Lordships House. My Lords, I've had the good fortune of appearing before juries in hundreds of cases, hundreds of cases over the decades. I have loved every minute of it. Well, almost every minute of it. I respect the attention and integrity of juries, their sense of justice in the eyes of a jury. Every case is a story, and they judge life's stories. Sometimes, unfortunately, life's horror stories. However, my Lords, it's not a perfect system. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, for example, was set up largely to deal with cases where there had been injustices before juries.

The jury system is vital. It works, but it is not set in stone. One of the things that has not changed in the English and Welsh jury system is the number of jurors. We have the apostolic number, as it's sometimes called. But if you look at some of our sister jurisdictions with the same common law background, or at least a hybrid similar background, a reference to Scotland in, for example, the Isle of Man, I have addressed a jury of seven in a long fraud case in Scotland. They have juries of 15 and if you look at the system we have again, which has.

Sisters in Australia and Canada. You will see if you look up the changes that have been in the jury system in those countries, although they're very much trying cases, as we do, many of the cases that are heard before Australian and Canadian courts are have been taken that were heard before. Those courts have been removed from juries for exactly the kinds of reasons we're talking about in this bill. And, of course, juries were required in civil cases when in some civil cases, when I started at the bar, the removal of juries was regarded as the end of the world as we know it.

In relation to some of those actions, for example, libel actions. But it's proved not to be the case. We have not suffered a crisis of injustice where in jury, where juries have been removed. And I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lim, for whom I have an enormous admiration, that if the tapestry has some tears in it, we actually can repair it by some fairly small darning around the edges. Now, my Lords, in a previous debate, one Labour member of this House, who I will not name, referred to the rather undistinguished fact that my first jury trial was not defending a TV star on a on a on a shoplifting case, but was actually doing a breathalyser case where the incident occurred outside Birkenhead Public Library and Breathalysers were tried by jury from 1967 until 1988.

If you were to say to barristers and solicitors, now let's put Breathalysers in front of the jury, they'd say you were mad. And indeed, if you look at the history of various crimes, low value criminal damage cases now up to £5,000 damage generally don't go before juries. Common assault and battery and a large number of quite important administrative cases. So in my view, we are simply adjusting the system. We in this place make new crimes trial by jury, quite a lot of them. And we have to make space in the jury system for those crimes.

And it's perfectly reasonable to place them before magistrates. But I do have some words about the extending of magistrates jurisdictions, which I hope the noble Lord, the Minister has been very helpful in meeting us in relation to this Bill will attend to. First of all, although he spoke of successful recruitment of magistrates recently, there's an awful long way to go in order to find enough magistrates of the right quality, with the right sort of experience and the right kind of judgement to do all the new cases, there will be trying. Secondly, we need to ensure that they are given effective, high quality training.

Thirdly, we need to ensure that they. There is commitment from a large proportion of them. It will not be satisfactory if a group of magistrates are seen to be trying. All of the former. Either way, cases in their court because they happen to be available, don't work, have more time or have a particularly sympathetic employer. And I would suggest to the noble Lord, and I think this is covered, intended to be covered in clause 18 of the Bill. That payment should be made to jurors, for example, to to magistrates who are replacing jurors. For example, if there's a case of more than two days, as the noble Lord Lord Garnier said earlier, some of those cases will go on for possibly up to five days or more.

Next, I would say that it's very important that in accordance with I'm afraid, I'm going to refer to a case, the case of the Queen against Civil Service Appeal Board, ex parte Cunningham, 1992. Provision of sound and concise reasons should be available. In every case, the Crown Court will not be able to decide whether permission should be given for an appeal, and I support adding a permission requirement if they do not see cogent reasons from the magistrates. That's going to take some time and it's going to take some training, and it's going to require that every magistrates court should have a really competent clerk or magistrates legal adviser in front of it to help them if they have any legal problems with their cases.

Further, my Lords, I would say that juries are not always the best choice and I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord MacDonald's suggestion that we should consider allowing people to elect trial by judge alone. I can think of quite a large number of cases I've done, and I would particularly single out some historic sexual abuse cases where I would have advised my client that he usually he would have a better chance of a fair trial in front of a judge alone, with a lot of the emotion removed from the case. And I can give an analogy, and it's a very loose analogy with non-jury trials in Northern Ireland, where the most recent available figures show an acquittal rate of 28.7% before a judge alone, compared with an acquittal rate before a jury of 21.8%.

We need to take facts like that into account in determining whether what is advised in this bill is wise. I believe in general it is, but we will no doubt be able to desiccate the Bill to ensure that that wisdom is of the highest order.
18:31
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
I always love following the >> I always love following the noble Lord Carlile. I love hearing about his exploits. I rather think, perhaps, that the story about the judge's acquittal rates are perhaps because they're deeply misogynistic. Perhaps. I don't know. And I Lord Ashcombe at the very start, talked about great legal minds, having quite a lot of them in the room, and I'm. I'm absolutely sure that there are clearly I'm not one of them. And I do have, however, a quite strong sense of fairness and justice, which means that I am. I do have some concerns about the bill.

I'd also like to apologise the noble Lord Lord Geddes for not hearing his maiden speech, but I promise to read it in Hansard and and give him feedback tomorrow that I'm sure he'd love to hear. Now, this bill, nobody disputes that 14 years of conservative underfunding have left our Crown courts with an appalling backlog, and that victims are paying the price. The government says it wants to get justice moving. And of course, I support that. And what I would like to see is the problems being fixed that stop courts hearing cases. It's moving around who gets to hear them and taking away some of the safeguards that protect defendants.

And I feel that's the wrong approach. The government has rightly dropped its proposal to remove jury trials for less serious cases in the Crown court, but keeping thousands of cases in the magistrates court without a choice is still a restriction on jury trials, and the government has still not shown that they will solve the backlog. We need to ask a simple question why are cases not getting to court on time and what would actually make a difference? The government expects its proposals to move around 25,000 cases a year away from the Crown Court. But where are those cases going into a court system that already has a huge backlog?

Fewer magistrates than it had a decade ago, and shortages of legal advisers. The organisation justice, has warned that there is insufficient evidence that magistrates courts can cope with this extra work. So why is the government pressing ahead? Moving cases between courts doesn't make the problems disappear, and removing some of the right to jury trials does not magically make a case straightforward, or ensure that a hearing can go ahead. The government's own proposals also risk leaving more defendants more defendants without legal aid. People who might have had a lawyer in the crown Court could end up representing themselves in magistrates courts, even when facing the possibility of prison.

That's massively unfair. It can also mean longer and more complicated hearings. It can mean the accused cross-examining victims on cases like assault. I think the government is chasing efficiency savings in the wrong places, while risking changes that could undermine them and our justice system. And then there's a right of appeal. Justice has highlighted how often appeals against magistrates decisions succeed. These appeals are a safeguard against wrongful convictions and wrong sentences, making people seek permission to appeal, often without a lawyer, to help them risk shutting people out of justice. If there's a risk that these changes will make an already difficult experience for the justice system even worse for people who are vulnerable or marginalised, we should examine that properly before going ahead.

 You can't always put things right after someone has been denied a fair hearing. And what about the age and background of magistrates who is able to volunteer during the week as the noble Lord? Lord MacDonald explained very clearly, if if the government is serious about clearing the backlog, it needs to deal with what is actually going wrong. Trials are delayed because witnesses are unavailable, defendants are not brought to court and court. Buildings and technology need investment. There are shortages across the criminal, legal workforce, and legal aid must be sufficient to ensure that people can get proper representation.

These problems aren't solved by taking away jury or making appeal harder. They are solved by making sure that hearings can go ahead, that courts have staff and facilities that they need, and that cases are properly prepared. Now, not much of that is in this bill. I will support the new measures for witnesses, but I can't support provisions that remove the right to elect a jury trial, restrict the right of appeal and expand magistrates sentencing powers. I also can't support the measure in here to allow the Secretary of State to add further offences to the list for judge only trials through secondary legislation.

That means a future government could extend the restriction on jury trials even more, without having to bring forward primary legislation for Parliament to debate. I will press the government to explain how it intends to address the real causes of delay, and to provide a properly funded plan for the courts expected to take on more work. The government was right to rethink this part of the Bill, but it should now look again at the rest. I'm also worried about the bigger picture here. I didn't expect to spend my time having to fight to defend basic civil liberties against this particular government, but here we are arguing about jury trials while the government expands kerbs to protesting facial recognition, surveillance and restrictions on people seeking asylum.

Taken together, they give the state more power over people while taking away some of the safeguards that are supposed to protect us from the misuse of power. And it's often minorities, protesters and people who challenge those in authority who are the most exposed to those consequences. Let's remember that we've only just repealed the Vagrancy Act of 1824 that grouped together the poor and the homeless with criminals. And that's how we saw them then. And I dread, dread the fact that the justice system is actually getting harder for people to access and harder on the people who need to access it.
18:37
Baroness Mallalieu Portrait Baroness Mallalieu (Labour)
-
-
Lord Oates, I congratulate Lord Case. That was a textbook, an Case. That was a textbook, an excellent maiden speech. I hope we'll have many more. I've got two interests to declare. I practised interests to declare. I practised at the Criminal Bar for 40 years, but I'm now long retired. Despite my warnings about the way in which the criminal justice system was deteriorating through chronic underfunding, my older daughter defiantly ploughed on to be a practising criminal barrister on the Western circuit. It's surely an irony that the two major achievements of the 1945 Labour government were the health service, and giving people without funds access to justice through legal aid.

The first consumes more and more revenue, the second has been starved of it to the point of near collapse. Of course, the government has realised that what has gone wrong? 380,000 cases waiting in the magistrates court and, as we've already heard, 81,000 in the Crown Court and victims of many sorts, not just those who are complainants waiting for trials, but those wrongly accused too. And public confidence is being eroded, eroded, and our system of criminal justice is seriously damaged. Well, just how bad has it become? One circuit leader. This was it fair to say three years ago.

Asked if there was one thing he could suggest which would make things better, and he said yes, a bucket to put under the leak in my courtroom ceiling. I don't make that one up. Courts in valuable locations have been sold off. There's been very little money spent on the court estates, with the result that there have been breakdowns and closures. Courtrooms have been closed through lack of judges or recorders, and revenue restrictions on the number of permitted days. Over some years, legal aid has been so severely restricted and reduced that no young barrister who wants to make a half decent living has chosen a criminal practice, and so few have done that on occasions.

My daughter, both prosecuting and defending, has gone to court to find yet another adjournment because there is simply no one available to take the opposing brief. And it's not just the barristers that are in short supply. There are so few court clerks that many court centres, far apart on occasions have had to share one or find one remotely. There's a shortage of interpreters because the rates paid do not compete with more lucrative fields. A court sitting day, whatever that means. And you might think it's a full day, but it very often isn't because the judge trying a case with a jury has to fit something in at 10:00, maybe even something in at 2:00, which can run on because there's no other judge to hear them.

 And all that time, the jury involved in the trial are sitting in a waiting room until that's finished. Prison vans, because of the inadequate contracts, routinely delay trials because they don't bring prisoners to court in time. So delays, postponements, adjournments and the waiting lists have grown longer and longer. There are measures in this bill which deserve support, especially those drawn from part two of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson's report and from the Law Commission. And there are, as the noble Minister has has said at the beginning. There are also things which the government has already started to do, which are having an effect and are beginning.

It looks as if. Let's hope they're stabilising the Crown Court waiting lists, more sitting days, reopening courts and legal aid to encourage more people to enter the criminal bar and also to train more magistrates. But the magistrates court list already, as we've heard, hopelessly overloaded as it is, I am glad and relieved that the government has stepped back from its earlier and to me, shocking wider position on the removal of jury trials. But this bill, as it stands, needs some more radical pruning in making changes to cut the waiting lists. The one thing we surely don't want to do is to further damage public confidence in the criminal justice system, and two aspects of the present bill in particular, I believe, would do that.

Both research and experience. As I think Lord Russell said, show that especially women and girls, black and minority communities place confidence in the present right to be tried by a jury. Of course, most particularly in serious cases. In other words, to be tried by a group of people with a range of experiences, some of whom may understand your condition better than a single, usually male, usually white judge. Your case may seem minor to others, but a conviction to you may destroy your job, your marriage, your family, your home, and your life. And that right should be automatic and retained.

Secondly, if you tried today in a magistrates court and a wrongly convicted, which happens especially as many of the accused are not legally represented, you want to know that you have the right to have a rehearing in the Crown Court. The Post Office workers who were wrongly convicted in the magistrates court were almost all sentenced to less than two years under that bill. This bill, they would have have no automatic right to a Crown Court hearing yet, and this is perhaps the most significant point. The figures from June of this year show that 56% of such appeals succeed.

 Magistrates' court should surely be for swift justice for low level crimes, not a tipping ground for Crown Court overflow cases. So that's where we are. So what's the answer? First, look at those Crown courts who have eliminated their backlog. Names of them we can find out. But I know Liverpool certainly is one of them. And there are others do what they're doing countrywide, which is essentially much better and more efficient case management. Also more courtrooms, more sitting days, more judges, proper resources, full court days, not requiring one judge to do the work of two because it's cheaper.

Incentives to plead guilty at the very earliest stages. More use of the so-called Goodyear directions. The judges being able to give realistic indications of sentence in the event of a guilty plea. Reviews of cases in the waiting list and removal of those no longer in the public interest. And of course, as has already been said, increased use of technology to reduce case management hearings using up court time. My Lords. 40 years in practice has taught me that whilst the result is not always right, jury trial is the best and the fairest system by which to determine guilt or innocence.

It surely about trusting the people which, if you believe in democracy and freedom, is what good government does.
18:45
Lord Bellamy Portrait Lord Bellamy (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Oates. >> Lord Oates. >> It's a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and to say at once that I largely and to say at once that I largely agree with everything that she has. She has said. Clearly something must be done about this unacceptable backlog in the Crown courts. But the question is, what, as Lady Mallalieu has just said, what is the answer? Does this bill get the balance right? My Lords, I will address only one point the removal of the right to elect jury trial. In either way offences. That is the removal of a right that currently exists.

It leaves mode of trial to the discretion of the magistrates. As far as one can see, without any appeal as to how that discretion is to be exercised in a particular case. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who has himself just said, we need, my Lords, to know a lot more about how this is supposed to work and what the impact is going to be. I understand, and the noble Lord, the Minister, will put me right if I've got got it wrong, that this proposal goes together with the increase of sentencing powers of magistrates to 18 months.

The general idea is that the magistrates will follow the allocation guidelines of the Sentencing Council, i.e. decide allocation according to the expected length of the possible sentence and if under 18 months, the case will stay in the magistrates court. There is, as I've just said, no appeal from the magistrates decision as far as one can see. Many will have reservations about this increase in magistrates sentencing powers. But among the questions are whether the right to a jury should be determined on a case by case basis, rather than set by Parliament on the basis of a very clear classification of particular offence of particular offences or criteria set out by Parliament in statute.

Should the length of sentence be the only consideration, should a discretion based on guidelines set by a third party here? The Sentencing Council, however respected, be a substitute for rules clearly defined by Parliament in this respect. The impact statement says that this measure and changes in the sentencing powers would remove about 25,000 cases a year from the Crown Court, which is about 30% of annual receipts, and save 5500 jury trials. But 5500 jury trials is about the number of jury trials that take place each year. So a very substantial reduction in jury trials is envisaged.

So I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to explain, if you would, what is the basis of these figures in the impact statement and following observations by other noble Lords? What work has been done to establish that the magistrates courts can deal with this substantial increase in their caseload and point? I shall come back to, in a moment. More generally, my Lords, and in common with other noble Lords who have spoken. Some of us greatly value public participation in the justice system. The idea that if citizens themselves who are administering justice and justice is not something that comes down from on high, from higher beings to to the lower to the lower echelons, any diminution of that is to be regretted and requires justification for the reasons given, among others, by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.

And as has been particularly mentioned, there is the situation of the ethnic minorities and the view very correctly expressed by David Lammy himself in his famous Lammy review, that the jury system is the only part of the criminal justice system that is fully trusted by the ethnic minorities. I welcome, of course, the minister's suggestion of some sort of review of this. This aspect. But if one is going to risk a diminution by the ethnic minorities of confidence in our justice system by Lord Ashton is very much playing with fire more generally. And these are points that have already been made.

I've not heard it suggested that the jury system itself has been a significant contributor to delays in the Crown Court. Rather, as the noble and learned Lord Levy reports emphasise, the Crown Court is and has been for reasons that have been explained, including underinvestment. However regrettable that may have been highly inefficient. Even today we're given to understand that 25% of all criminal trials are ineffective. The prison van does not turn up. The papers have been served too late. The council is unavailable. The interpreter missed the train. The. The witness is missing. And so forth. One is left with the impression that trial by jury is being emasculated because of efficiency failures elsewhere in the system.

And that is a cause of great concern. By contrast, as has already been said by several noble Lords, the backlog in the Magistrates court is rising. The shortage of legal advisers is acute. Legal aid is less available in the magistrates court. The legal aid rates are much lower, risking more unrepresented defendants. The magistrates in particular. The noble Lord Lord McConnell emphasised, have great difficulty in trying any cases that are of of a more complex kind, particularly cases that go over beyond the day or last for a few hours longer than the average that is going to pay.

 That is going to place the magistrates courts in great difficulty. I would pay tribute to Our Lady Magistracy, but I share the fears of other noble Lords that we are in danger of overwhelming them by this approach that we are adopting. So what is to be done? I suggest a twin track. Let us implement as rapidly as possible the extensive reforms proposed in detail by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, including the National Listing Framework, the unlimited sitting days already having an impact, and the various other suggestions made by, among others, the. The noble Baroness, Lady Molyneux, as to make the whole system a much more efficient and a much more joined up system, including the police and the CPS.

 At the same time, perhaps we should consider a move to a proposal to move a block of lesser offences to be defined by Parliament into the Magistrates Court, as also originally proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson. In my view, constitutionally it falls to Parliament to decide who does or who does not qualify for jury trial and in principle, on an issue as fundamental as jury trial. That decision should be taken by Parliament and not left to the discretion of the magistrates.

 However conscientious and hard working they may be.
18:53
Lord Leveson of Liverpool Portrait Lord Leveson of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, the criminal justice system is in crisis. The police, system is in crisis. The police, the CPS, the defence community, the courts and prisons and probation courts and prisons and probation all have different priorities and different financial pressures. The appointment of a new second permanent secretary in the Ministry of Justice is a welcome attempt to try to ensure that all those involved have a common direction and work together on top. I recognise that the judiciary has the unenviable task of trying to maintain the balance between the prosecution and the defence, and ensure fairness for all.

Prison vans may be late, but that may be a consequence of remand prisoners not being housed because of pressures on prison cells in a prison near to their court. Although I will come to deal with the crisis, the national, the rationalisation of criminal justice is indeed a principled objective unconnected to the backlog of cases. Reference is frequently made to the unalienable rights of trial by jury to decide the facts. But the impressive lecture to which the learned Lord, Lord Howard referred, given by my learned, my Lord, the learned and noble Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, last week to the Selden Society, utterly demolishes this argument.

 He notes that in 1751, where the average trial over four days took about 30 minutes, there was no choice of type of trial until 1847. Property ownership was a requirement of jury service until requirement of jury service until after 19651965, and that meant that 89% of jurors until then were men. When I started the bar in 1972, trials a day was not unusual. Occasionally, against my note, the noble and Lord, Lord Carlile. But what is the position now? The gravity of trials, of sexual offending, for violence and for organised crime is much greater complexity, along with protective measures for victims and defendants, have dramatically increased their length.

Communications data, body worn video, CCTV data. Generally scientific evidence, including DNA all have changed prosecutions, as have the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Disclosure of unused material. Special measures. Intermediaries. Interpreters. The list goes on. So what can be done? I could not seek to summarise my independent review before your Lordships. It is based as my learned my. The know Carlile mentioned on over 55 years involvement in criminal justice, of which for 18 years I was involved in the judicial management of criminal cases. Seldom has by has my homework been marked by so many in such a public forum.

At its core, however, is what I consider to be an undeniable truth that to be effective and to cope with the challenges of crime, its prosecution and justice in the 21st century, the component parts of the system need increased funding, structural reform, and increased efficiency. In my view, with great respect to noble Lords, it is a fantasy to believe that more money and improved efficiency will solve the problem. We have been trying to make it more efficient for years and years. Trial processes must evolve to fit modern circumstances. On top of that, we must consider the position in relation to the backlog or number of outstanding cases.

My reviews were published in July 2025 and February of this year. Given the opposition to change, of which I have heard a great deal this afternoon, you would imagine that every part of the system would be straining to improve efficiency and to demonstrate that structural change was not necessary. From April, the start of the period covering the most recent statistics, there has been no cap on sitting days, so you might have expected a great improvement. In fact, the system has gone backwards. I do not for one moment seek to rely simply on one set of figures, but they illuminate the problem.

At the end of June 2026, as your Lordships have heard, there were 80,829 open cases, double that in 2019 and 392 cases more than at the end of March. It's argued 392 is a small increase, but in that three month period, receipts fell by 7%. That is to say, there were 7% fewer cases sent to the Crown Court for trial. Disposals were down 4%. That means fewer than. That means 4% fewer cases left the system. Receipts have been decreasing since the middle of 2024, but the backlog grows. All the indicators are going the wrong way.

Worse still, median waiting times have increased almost 24,000 cases. 24,000 cases have been waiting for a year or more. For trial, and more than half of a violent or sexual offences. The number is 22% higher than the previous year. Some cities are better, but in London cases are being listed for 2030. This is grossly unfair to victims who need to be able to move on with their lives, but are caught in a time war from which they cannot escape except by withdrawing, which a number do. Witnesses are required to recall events of years past.

What an indictment of the state we have reached. I was required to consider long term options for the Crown Court reform to reduce demand and retain cases in lower court. I suggested a raft of structural proposals in relation to some. The government has gone further than I recommended magistrates sentencing powers and removing the right to elect, as opposed to reclassification of some offences from tribal. Either way, in relation to others, they've not been taken forward. This is for the government and for Parliament to consider and determine. I've been clear that although the package of money.

Structural reform is not a pick and mix, I was not suggesting a slavish commitment to what I recommended. As a result, however, I am not in a position to speak of the impact of the proposals in the legislation because they were not my proposals. But given that it does not address the large volume of cases waiting trial, I am apprehensive whether it is enough. Furthermore, the reduction in cases entering the system is unlikely to be reproduced, as the government rightly wishes to focus on public safety and in particular, violence against women and girls. These victims and their witnesses, and indeed defendants who wish to move on with their lives, are human beings who require consideration.

 And in that regard, I pay great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stace, whose humanity shone out of the speech of his maiden speech this afternoon. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord Lord Farmer, whose interest in offenders is particularly well known. It is worth noting that in 2014, 8% of cases tribal. Either way, elected trial by jury. In 2022, it was 17% because those who wish to play the system. Rather like the idea of having their trial deferred to 2030. I end with two simple questions. Putting to one side the demand of outstanding cases in our modern times, with the plethora of evidence lengthening every trial.

 If not this, then what? If not now, then when?
19:02
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, it's rather intimidating following the noble Lord, Lord Leveson, with such a compelling and insightful description of the crisis at the heart of criminal justice. But put heart of criminal justice. But put quite simply, no matter how bad that crisis is, rolling back jury trials can't be the solution. In fact, many of us were relieved that the government actually listened to the huge outcry against the earlier widespread removal of the jury trial. But if the Prime Minister was has given an inch, for which I'm a little grateful, forgive me for not being gushing in gratitude.

 And I say this because so many of my Labour friends have told me that the attack on juries has been halted by Andy Burnham, but that is just not true. And this bill continues an assault on juries, removing a defendant's right to choose. And I choose a Crown Court trial for either way. Offences. That is not nothing. It means sexual offences, violence and dishonesty can be treated as summary justice, like parking offences and with no right to appeal, magistrates roles have been completely rewritten. Now, with expanded sentencing powers to lock up their fellow citizens for up to two years.

And I just can only see this as a recipe for miscarriages of justice. The Bar Council calls it a dangerous experiment, and surely our elected colleagues in the other place would have not never nodded through such a dangerous experiment without a comprehensive parliamentary kerfuffle about what is in this bill. But sadly not because in the spirit of the noble Lord Lord Rooker, can I make a complaint that the report stating the Other place was only allotted 2.5 hours to consider dozens of the new government amendments, as the noble Lord Lord Garnier referred to and as Hansard Society considers those changes as fundamentally recasting the bill at Bill's own purpose.

That puts real moral pressure on this House to carefully consider if this bill is fit for purpose. The Law Society urges us to judge the bill by asking if it will help break the cycle of crisis management, or simply shift the problems from one overstretched part of the system to another. And it does seem to me to mirror how early release to tackle prison overcrowding has created havoc in probation services, and also put the public at risk. Now we threaten a perfect storm in magistrates court, and they've got their own backlog, and people have described how their workload is increased 65% in the last three years and so on.

But isn't this bill also offering them a poisoned chalice? I mean, saying to people who might be considering being magistrates or magistrates, you can now lock up more people for longer and assess all the evidence mitigating factors, write out a legal explanations and so on, and replace the jury. I mean, does the Minister have any evidence that magistrates who donate their public service want these new burdens? They are attracted to these new burdens. Isn't it changing the service completely? And one could have some sympathy with Ministers for harbouring a mistaken belief that removing increasing numbers of jury trials could save time.

But it's telling that juries were, and still are, one of the key targets of action rather than greater urgency. Tackling the numerous avoidable inefficiencies and mismanagement that we've heard so eloquently explained here. So I do worry that the government seems at ease with sacrificing fundamental rights to patch up its own administrative failures. Perhaps the Minister can also explain why did the government reject any time limited sunset clause that would at least have assured this curtailing of jury trial rights would end once, or if the courts backlog was cleared that was proposed in the other place.

But instead the Minister, Sarah KC, justified the erosion of jury rights as part of a, quote, lasting improvement in the operation of modernised, fairer justice system. Can the Minister clarify is the official position that less use of juries will be fairer? It is hard not to agree with Judge Rivlin, whose recent paper on this bill states I believe that the enormous, scandalous backlog of cases has become an opportunity, some might say, an excuse to recycle a long held antipathy to jury trial. And it's that implicit antipathy that worries me, particularly about clause three. It contains within it a prejudice that juries are just not up to the job of dealing with complex fraud cases.

In case the public find that insulting, the Minister today justified relieving juries of that onerous burden by saying that it's bad for their welfare and their family life. Having to sit on juries for too long a time. I mean, I do think that was insulting itself, but this bout of kindness towards the public's wellbeing might be more convincing, if not attached or part of the bill in which the Secretary of State outrageously, has conferred themselves with the power to add to the list of complex offences without parliamentary veto so passionately opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howard and I agree it is completely anti-democratic to do that.

What's more, the inference that some issues are much better dealt with by judge only trials full of clever experts and specialists not only indicates a disdain for the public's capacity or intelligence. It also gives up on the principle of open justice, abandoning the obligation to present cases in an understandable, intelligible way not only for the judge, jury, defendants and victims, but also for the media, for the public, because that's part of the democratic agreement. Also, as Jonathan Fisher KC explains, quote, trying fraud without a jury risked the perception of opacity or special treatment. He worries it could feed the narrative that powerful defendants are judged behind closed doors, and it just seems unfathomable that at this time of all times, when there's an existential distrust in the establishment and a widespread belief that there is unfair two tier justice that some members of the establishment were trying now to dismantle the one trusted norm of criminal justice, the right to be judged by your peers, and the one civic obligation that millions embrace despite the discomfort or the inconvenience that is serving jury service.

Those 12 randomly selected ordinary people with 12 different lifetimes of experience and knowledge create 12 chances for a lone voice to speak up and say, wait, something is not right here. That crucial voice is historically prevented miscarriages of justice and as also seen through the lies and denials of perpetrators, however respectable, and have checked state overreach. No nodding heads or voting fodder. Their juries embody fresh eyes, disinterested questioning, and the virtues of persuasion, deliberation, and the common sense pursuing truth. And to be honest, we could do with a lot more of it, not least in Westminster.

Finally, I'm very torn on clause 16 and the plans to remove the law of presumption in relation to parental contact, and it's been extremely well explained by the noble Lady. Baroness Barran. I just wanted to say that at some point we're told that removing this presumption sends a clear signal. But to who? And I'm not keen on using legislation for PR messaging purposes. I was also brought up short by a quote I read from the noble Lady Baroness Levitt, who said, being a parent is a privilege, not a right. The only right that matters is the child's right to safety.

But surely a privilege is something the state grants and can take away. Is the state saying it owns parents rights? And actually parents do have rights and I fear this is state overreach that also risks making family courts ever more antagonistic and actually is an attack on family rights. So I hope that the review that's been planned by the in this bill will extend itself to clause 16, because I think there's a lot of answers that are needed there.
19:11
Lord Jabbar Portrait Lord Jabbar (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Stace for his wonderful maiden speech. Having only given my speech speech. Having only given my speech two weeks ago, I still remember the relief that he must be feeling now, having done it. My Lords, I welcome this Bill and particularly the government's determination to tackle the very serious problem of delay in our criminal courts. I approached this issue from the perspective of someone who has spent his professional life assisting people caught within the criminal justice systems, particularly across the Commonwealth, in jurisdictions in the Caribbean, East Africa and Southeast Asia.

I should declare my interest as a director of the Death Penalty Project, an international legal organisation that represents individuals in criminal and constitutional matters within the Commonwealth. In that work, my Lords, I have seen what delay means for the people who depend upon those systems. Defendants whose lives and futures have remained uncertain while criminal proceedings have continued around them. And that experience has taught me that delay is not simply a question of the efficient administration of the courts. It is a fundamental. It is fundamentally a question of access to justice and ultimately, the right to a fair trial.

Of course, defendants are not alone in bearing the consequences of delay. We all recognise that victims and their families wait for justice, that witnesses wait to give evidence. Families on all sides can find their lives placed on hold, and delay can undermine wider public confidence in administration of justice. So my own experience is principally that of assisting defendants, and this is the perspective from which I wish to make my contribution to this debate. My Lords, the scale of the problem in the UK is stark. The Ministry of Justice Statistics at the end of June 2026 has been said by many.

 Today shows that the Crown Court caseload, reaching a record high of over 80,000, more than double the pre-COVID level. The magistrates courts caseload was just above 380,000, with more than 20,000 cases open for a year or longer. As Baroness Brinton referred to, this is what we describe in reality as the backlog current. Current estimates indicate that in some cases, trials may not take place until 2030. An unimaginable time frame, but a reality. And this does not even take into account appeals and further reviews. My Lords, is a troubling numbers, but they are not simply numbers.

Behind behind them are people whose lives are being placed on hold while a system struggles to deliver justice. And it is unacceptable. Let me draw three reflections from my experience across the Commonwealth. First, delay as a human cost. The year spent waiting for criminal proceedings to conclude a year of people's lives and time is not neutral. It impacts everybody. For a defendant, the passage of time can have consequences which go directly to the fairness of those proceedings. Witnesses become harder to locate. Memories fade. Circumstances change. Evidence may be difficult to obtain or test. All of this can affect not just the experience of justice, but the ability of a court to determine a case fairly.

My work involved assisting people who have faced the death penalty, some of whom spent many years on remand waiting for trial. I do not equate those cases with the problems confronting us here and the courts in the UK, but they have taught me one important lesson. The passage of time can itself become a profound part of a person's experience of the justice system, and ultimately the final outcome. So doing nothing, my Lords, is not an option and the government are right to confront this problem. My second reflection is this. Access to court is not necessarily the same as access to justice.

We can make a justice system faster, but faster does not necessarily mean fairer for a defendant. Real access to justice requires proper legal advice and representation, and the practical ability to understand the proceedings, participate effectively and enforce one's rights. The Justice Committee's work in its report, Access to Justice Legal Aid, for example, gives us an important warning. It found that the number of active criminal duty solicitors had fallen by a quarter since 2017, and that only 7% were under the age of 35, meaning an ever ageing cohort. Just some of the issues that threaten the operation of justice system in England and Wales.

 These concerns have also been made with representations by the Criminal Justice Bar Association, the Bar Association and the Law Society. Even the most efficient court process cannot work properly if there are too few lawyers able to advise and represent the people passing through it. For defendants, effective legal representation is central to ensuring due process, protecting their rights and securing the possibility of a fair trial. My Lords, if we make it faster to reach court but harder for someone to participate effectively once they get there, have we really improved access to justice? I agree too with my noble friend Lord McNicol, and welcomed the bill's provision for an independent review of whether these reforms create or exacerbate differences in treatment or outcomes between defendants of different racial groups and different socioeconomic status.

 Because we know from robust empirical studies carried the world over. Impact is never equal. So as we seek to make the system more efficient, we must ask whether the consequences of reform are being treated equally. My third reflection, my Lords, is that delay is a systemic problem and requires a systemic wide response. If we increase judicial capacity, do we have enough court staff, prosecutors, defence lawyers to support it? Resources are plainly necessary, but my experience across the Commonwealth suggests that resources alone will not be enough, and that has been expressly recognised in my Noble and learned friends.

Lord Leveson review. Many Caribbean states, for example, operate under much greater resource constraints than in England and Wales. Recognising this, these jurisdictions in confronting these problems have sought to set clearer time limits, improve case management, use technology more effectively and reform procedure. We see related approaches approaches in other Commonwealth states streamlining procedure and setting time limits. I am not suggesting England and Wales should simply import these solutions from elsewhere. The lesson is much more fundamental. My Lords, there is no single solution to delay. We should set expectations, measure performance and manage cases effectively, and we should ensure that defendants receive the due process for which they are entitled, and in turn, victims will receive their own due process.

The Commonwealth Secretariat's 20 2024 Guide to Case Management, in its introduction, sought to align efficiency with what it called enduring constitutional values underlying the administration of justice. What does that mean in practice? It means that efficiency cannot be considered in isolation from the fundamental principles upon which our justice system is underpinned. That is respect for the rule of law, due process, effective access to justice, equality and the right to a fair trial. These principles are not obstacles to an efficient justice system. They are one reason we have a justice system in the first place. And as we seek rightly to reduce delay, the question simply cannot be how quickly our case is moving through the courts.

We must also ask, are we delivering justice fairly? Efficiency is not an alternative to justice. My Lords, properly understood, it is a means by which justice is delivered, and it must always serve the ultimate purpose of the system fair, independent and timely administration of justice. My Lords, I support the government's determination to address delay and from the perspective of a defendant, it means ensuring the pursuit of greater efficiency that only if we do not do this, my Lords, it only leads to wrongful convictions and error, which in turn undermines confidence in the justice system. I look forward to working with the government to ensure these reforms deliver both.
19:20
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Lord Case congratulate the noble Lord Case for his excellent speech and particularly welcome the chairman of the Prison Reform Trust to this House. We need we need more experts on rehabilitation. I think here, my Lords, I formally questioned the clause 16 abolition of the presumption that children benefit from safe contact contact with both parents. I said we would need to mitigate personal and societal harms that were highly likely to come as a result, particularly as parents not using the courts will no longer have this as a starting point.

I proposed other changes to the Children Act 1989 that should accompany the rather blunt instrument of abolition, particularly improving the welfare checklist. My. My sense is that the government are determined to press ahead with abolition, but I am heartened that colleagues in the other place do not seem willing to discard the presumption without a fight. It was brought in under the coalition through the 2014 Children and Families Act by the Minister, Edward Timpson KC. It's an understatement to say that he's a specialist. A family law barrister with a focus before and after his political career.

In cases of vulnerable children, the presumption does not create an automatic right to contact and certainly does not elevate parental rights above children's welfare. The paramountcy of the latter was in no way compromised, but it was vital then, and still is now, to reinforce the principle that wherever safe and appropriate, children generally benefit from having both parents involved then and throughout their lives. Hence, the presumption is rebuttable and expressly qualified by risk of harm. Crucially, the intent was that the legislation should have an influence beyond the courts in what is called the shadow of the law.

We urgently need to encourage a wider societal expectation that both parents should continue to play a positive role in their children's lives following separation. Obviously, if it is safe for the children, for for them to do so, I would urge the government not to ignore this history because one of our besetting sins in this place is to ignore institutional memory. I do agree we must consider recent evidence and listen to current concerns about a pro contact culture and children and parents affected by domestic abuse. However, there are methodologies, methodological issues with the research, which is in large part being used to justify, if not require, this change.

The authors of the Ministry of Justice, October 2005 review, said they had used small, unrepresentative samples and did not access complete court files. The evidence pre-dated major reforms such as the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the updated practice direction 12 J. Crucially, they did not properly examine the effect on children of losing a relationship with a safe parent. As to whether there is a pro contact culture. Sir Andrew McFarlane, Previous president of the Family Division of the High Court, cautioned against using such a term. Finally, exercising the rebuttable presumption, given its qualifications, requires that all involved are aware of domestic abuse.

Evidence of poor practice is not the same as evidence that the statutory presumption itself has caused, or materially contributed to that poor practice. The tragedy that the campaigner Claire Throssell MP endured when her ex husband killed their boys whilst in his care, for example, pre-dated the presumption. Such tragedies, of course, must not be ignored, and they absolutely require us to examine the system and improve safeguarding. But we seem to have forgotten the maxim that hard cases make bad law. It is not at all clear that removing this presumption will make children safer. I was saddened to read the rather coercive emotionalism at the Report stage in the Commons, when the hon.

Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge harangued those opposing the repeal and accused them of audacity. Previous reviews, including yes. To be fair, those commissioned by previous conservative government did make certain recommendations. But it is the minister's responsibility to weigh the evidence presented to decide if it is strong enough to make a major change and not outsource the decision to researchers. It is not audacity to come to a different conclusion. I am concerned that the case for repeal has not been sufficiently established, and we are reaching for it as a badly targeted remedy. A large body of research says children's welfare is furthered by safe contact with and better relations with both their parents.

The ability to co-parent is a vital consideration and depends on parent parents relationships with each other. Hence my interest in improving the welfare checklist to take account of these. A proposal first made during the passage of the Children and Families Bill by Labour MPs and peers. Legislation and social policy did not give attention to relationships in the late 1980s. But that situation has changed utterly, so it would be highly appropriate to include them now. However, changes to the welfare checklist would not send the same signal as the existing presumption. Sir Andrew McFarlane's estimate is that 38% of separating families use the courts.

The remaining 62% do not. Hence, whilst welfare checklist is central to judicial decision making, it is not systematically applied to that 62% who are separating in the shadow of the law. To reiterate, the presumption was intended to establish a broader societal starting point about the importance of safe parental involvement. In summary, it is not proven that removing the presumption would improve outcomes for children as much as stronger risk assessment. Better judicial training to ensure the law is properly understood and applied, and more effective safeguards. The objective in 2014 was what genuinely serves children's best interests, and the most effective response to that end should be the one that we reach for.

 Women's aid have movingly written about 67 children who have died since 1994, many before the introduction of the presumption following unsafe contact with an abusive parent. They blame the presumption, despite it coming into force. As I say in 2014, as that causation is unproven. Why should abolishing the presumption prevent deaths? Removing it will, however, have lifelong negative effects for children. When safe parents are excluded from their lives. It will reverberate throughout whole extended families and wider society, which is already struggling with the damage of severed relationships. I fear clause 16 removal of the presumption will inflict damage far beyond any good it might do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord I. Thank him. For his his really fascinating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For his his really fascinating speech, which Will was about his his family, his varied career, and his family, his varied career, and his public service. And I just know that he will bring a great deal of that he will bring a great deal of that to good effect in this House. Now, I expressed wholehearted delight that the government's delight that the government's original plan to severely limit jury trial had been abandoned. A little did I know it would have been a grievous mistake and not the solution to the problems facing the criminal justice system. And I'm all too aware of just how terrible the situation now is.

I have a great fondness for Lord Leveson. I count him as as an inspiration and a friend. And while his analysis of the problems facing the system were more or less right, his central recommendation was utterly wrong. Now the justice system of this nation is greatly enriched by the role that is played by juries. I mean, for me, the central argument is that participation of ordinary folk, the rest, you know, the people in the processes. And it's so rare that people get that opportunity. They don't feel listened to. And here they are. They're brought in to participate in something so serious.

And I, you know, it's like deja vu standing up here to talk about this because in my early years of coming into this house, which is now 30 years ago, in my early years, I had great battles with my then own government, the Labour government, wanting again to do damage to the jury system. Fortunately, they didn't succeed, but I made myself rather difficult to to my own party by resisting the changes that they sought. And now here we are doing it again. And I just want to refer to the fact that this is one of the places where people have an opportunity of legitimising a very vital part of our system, and I think it's a great mistake.

It's about democracy. It's about something that is almost intangible. But, you know, I mean, I know that we all tell stories about taxi drivers, but a taxi driver said to me when taking me from here home one night, said to me, do you know that I have sat on a jury three times? And he said, it has been the most important thing in my life. I just drive cabs. But here I am making a decision that affects affects the lives of other people. And he said, I've acquitted and I've convicted. But he said to be in that position makes me feel that I have played an important part in something real and vital in our world.

So, I mean, I just don't think that we can underestimate that. And and I also think that it is I mean, it was mentioned by Baroness Chakrabarti. Judges are not understanding just how much
19:31
19:31
19:31
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
facts, the judges guide and make decisions on the law, that severance where the ultimate decision is in the hands of the peers of the persons in the dock, really protects judges from the really protects judges from the kind of ignominy and the attack and the and the the reprisals. And nowadays, the doxing, the ways in which judges addresses can be found, and they're more at risk than they ever have been in the past. It's really important that we think about the position of judges. Now, I don't support this removing trial trials for fraud or complex trials.

 I really think the idea of having a Secretary of State being able to, to decide to open the expansion up is really shocking. I too, want to quote from the fact that Judge Rivlin, who sits at Southwark Crown Court, who probably has tried more fraud cases than any other living judge, has a very strong argument that juries are perfectly competent to judge such cases. You don't have to have a maths degree to judge when people are being dishonest, and that's what fraud trials are all about. Now, I think that the government should think again about removing the defendant's right to elect trial for, for for jury in both cases.

And I also think that this idea that you can't appeal from the magistrates courts, and I want to add to the description that was given by Lord MacDonald about the chaos in magistrates courts just now because of the shortage of magistrates. And I really hope that we have had conversations with the magistrates to find out whether they do welcome this surge of new cases that's going to come their way. So I, I really think this has not been thought through well enough. And I want to remind everybody that the huge backlog of cases didn't come from nowhere.

It was the result of cavalier and reckless cuts, closing courts, decreasing court sitting days, the ruthless savaging of legal aid so that you now young professionals who've spent years in their training and can't afford to practice at the criminal bar, they're having to find other, more lucrative ways of finding a living. So days are lost because of the shortage of barristers to conduct cases. And then you've heard all about the disarray of courts, the dereliction of the buildings, and the failure to get people to court in time because of the other areas of crisis in our system, the prison system underfunded.

So transport isn't available, and it isn't, as Lord Leveson was describing, just because somehow of the remand system, it's about the whole chaos of underfunding, the prison service and the probation service so that you can't think of alternatives to prison. And so that recidivism rises. And so, I mean, I, I, I do think that there are serious issues here, but I want to endorse the recommendations that were set out when Baroness Mallalieu spoke, recommendations that I would urge on the government to reclassify assaults on emergency workers as summary, so that not I mean, apparently there's a huge amount of the cases now bunging up.

The courts are about low level assaults and unpleasant and behaviour towards emergency workers, but you can remove cases from the backlog. A good sifting could involve involve removing some of the cases that wouldn't need to proceed at all. And I have made the suggestion and I make it again that why not introduce an idea? The idea of suspended prosecutions where you don't prosecute at all in some cases. But a warning is given to people that if you offend in the next two years that this prosecution will go ahead along with any other, and that you could do that with use of the Baroness Mallalieu who's retired from practice, but who knows how to meet thresholds and would be of great value.

And there must be many people like her. I think we should be offering a 40% reduction in sentencing for guilty pleas. That would induce many people to plead guilty at an early stage, divert things into cases, into community responses. If you can have a better probation service and and really recruit and train people well, I welcome and I say this as someone who has spent my life arguing for better justice for women, I welcome the fact that there should be specialist courts. And I think if you had specialist courts and you took out many of these sexual offences, is wrong for victims to have to wait for years for a case to come on.

But you can deal with that by creating specialist courts for sexual offences, as we seek to do in relation to domestic violence. And so I really do think there are many other things that can be done. The Bar Council has come up with suggestions. So has justice. The. And I'm the president of the Council of Justice. And I do think there are many things that can be done. And I think that getting rid of juries interfering with the jury system is not the way to go.
19:36
Baroness Sater Portrait Baroness Sater (Conservative)
-
-
Correct. >> And, my Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute today as a former youth magistrate, and I'd like to declare my interest as a like to declare my interest as a life member of the Magistrates Association. There's obviously many issues. The previous magistrate I could talk about talk on today, but I'm going to focus on clause five, which extends the magistrates sentencing powers and clause 18, which concerns magistrates allowances. My Lords, I turn first to clause five five. I recognise the argument for enabling magistrates courts to deal with a wider range of cases, as supported by the Magistrates Association, thereby freeing up the capacity in the Crown Court.

However, I fear that some of the changes in this Bill, as we have already heard, was replacing the magistrate under unsustainable pressure. But greater powers been greater responsibilities. This is not simply a question of giving magistrates greater authority. It means making more demanding sentences, decisions with potentially more significant consequences for defendants. Whether the system is ready to support them in exercising those powers effectively is a different question. Magistrates courts already deal with over 90% of criminal cases in England and Wales, and it is worth noting that in 2025, they disposed of approximately 1.46 million cases, which illustrates the substantial caseload already handled by the magistrates courts.

Clause five will add even more cases, and the government must demonstrate that this additional work can be observed without simply moving the backlog from one court to another. The government has set a target of 21,000 magistrates by 2020 829, compared with just over 15,000 imposed across England and Wales in April 2026. In the year to March 2026, 1663 magistrates were appointed. While it is worth mentioning that 988 left up 20% on the previous year, the latest figure shows that 890 magistrates were appointed between July and September 2026, more than double the number appointed in the same quarter a year earlier.

That is encouraging progress, but there remains a long way to go. Recruitment must be matched by the capacity to train, mentor and support new magistrates. My Lords, I fear this could increase the workload of existing magistrates and make retention more challenging. My Lords, as we already as as noble Lords have already mentioned, at the end of June 2026, there were just over 380,000 open cases in the magistrates courts, along with just under 81 in the Crown courts. These are not simply numbers on a spreadsheet. Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones, has highlighted the unfairness faced by defendants who are waiting an excessive time, sometimes on remand, to establish their guilt or innocence.

We already know that the Independent Review of Criminal Courts estimated that these reforms will require 8500 additional sitting days in the magistrates courts. The justice Committee has already questioned the government's plans to expand Magistrates Court capacity while deliverable, so I am grateful to learn from the Minister how the government will be able to provide the additional sitting days. Legal advisers, court staff, IT systems and suitable facilities needed to deliver these reforms. My Lord, we already know that we have an issue around the retention of legal advisers. Legal advisers are critical if we do not have enough of them.

When when these reforms are implemented, cases will not be able to be heard. Even if magistrates are available to sit. There is also an issue around pay pay parity for legal advisers for comparable CPS. Roles must be fully implemented if we are to retain and attract sufficient numbers, and I recognise that work is underway, is underway on this, but it must be a central part of delivering these reforms. My Lords, when magistrates sensing powers were previously extended, additional training was provided by the Judicial College giving evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee. In June this year, the Lady Chief Justice highlighted the pressure on the college, referring to the Sentencing Sentencing Act, she described a huge amount of additional training need.

She also confirmed that there would be an increased demand for training as new magistrates came on board. This bill will extend magistrates sentencing powers further and I therefore hope that the government will provide the Judicial College with further funding necessary to ensure that both new and serving magistrates receive the training they need to exercise these powers effectively before they come into force. My Lords, we must not put the cart before the horse. Operational readiness must determine the timetable, not an arbitrary deadline. The Magistrates Association has highlighted the need for efficiency measures to address to to address avoidable delays and administrative pressures.

I agree that this must be part of the solution, but efficiency measures alone cannot compensate for insufficient staffing or lack of available court time. This will ensure that victims, defendants and witnesses receive the justice they deserve. I now briefly turn to clause 18. Magistrates undertake serious judicial responsibilities as volunteers and they should not be left out of pocket. The Magistrates Association surveyed 1362 magistrates in 2022. Its findings showed that many respondents have to make up the difference between expenses they could claim and the costs they actually incurred. The association has long argued for greater flexibility in expenses system, so that that reimbursement can reflect the modern working patterns and the changing circumstances of magistrates, and I welcome the intention behind this provision.

 But the detail matters. The revised framework must ensure that legitimate expenses are reimbursed fairly and made promptly. If the government wants to grow the magistrates magistracy and make it more representative of people in employment with caring responsibilities or unable to observe additional costs, must be able to serve without financial disadvantage. The diverse magistrate is essential if the bench is to reflect the communities it serves. These two clauses are connected whether we are talking about sentencing powers or allowances, the principle is the same the magistrates cannot be expected to do more without the necessary support. The contribution of magistrates should never be taken for granted.

If we ask them to shoulder greater responsibility, we must ensure that they are properly supported.
19:43
Baroness Neate Portrait Baroness Neate (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, it is a privilege to be part of this debate where so be part of this debate where so much legal expertise and experience is evident. I too warmly welcome is evident. I too warmly welcome Lord Staithe with his important expertise and experience. I will speak in support of clause 16 of this bill and also mention some ways I believe the bill could be further strengthened. In the Children Act 1989, the conservative government took what was then a huge step for children by establishing the principle that children have rights, whereas parents have responsibilities at that time.

However, domestic abuse and the dynamics of power and control which sustain it often well after separation were not as well understood as they are now. In 2015, when the noble Lady Baroness May was Home Secretary, the country took a major step forward in creating the criminal offence of coercive control, further consolidated in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. I mention this because we are learning as a country what the present government is doing, therefore, is bringing together our present knowledge of domestic abuse with the founding principle of the Children Act, that the best interests of the child must always be paramount.

This change took a decade of ardent campaigning to bring about the noble Lord. The Minister and others have mentioned the incredibly courageous Claire Throssell. She and I launched the campaign when I was chief executive of Women's Aid. Claire, two sons, Jack and Paul, as you've heard, had been killed by their father during court ordered unsupervised contact contact, which, importantly, Claire and her children warned the court might be lethal. These children were by no means the only ones to meet this preventable fate. Claire's children and others might be alive today if abuse survivors and their children were heard and believed, and they still frequently are not.

And if the court always treated the child's best interests as paramount, the presumption of contact where there has been domestic abuse can facilitate post-separation abuse, which in turn impacts the non abusing parents ability to parent and can lead to the child entering care. Even now, the myth that the family courts are biased against fathers has huge traction over both people who appear in the courts and those who work in them. The highly organised activists who perpetuate that myth now are from the same mould as those who egged my house multiple times and slashed my tires when we launched the campaign.

And that's nothing to what their airs on social media threaten to women who expose the way our institutions inadvertently facilitate coercive control and abuse. I urge noble Lords in this House to retain a laser focus on children whose best interests should indeed prevail. In all cases. However, this change alone will not be sufficient to enable the family courts to deal fairly with cases where there is domestic abuse. I urge the noble Lord, the Minister, to consider amending the Bill in some crucial ways. First, the need for effective regulation of experts providing evidence in the family courts has been acknowledged across specialist organisations and by judges, in particular, the highly contested concept of parental alienation is used in ways that wrongly discredit both survivors and their children.

 When I was at Women's Aid, I met many survivors who had been ignored and belittled in court in the name of parental alienation, and little has changed just in the last few weeks. Survivors have told the committee of this House scrutinising the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, that they suffered more in the family courts than during the abuse itself. Furthermore, in the re c parental alienation instruction of expert judgement, the president of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, stated that it was, I quote, unhelpful and potentially confusing that the generic label psychologist is not protected and may be used by any individual, whether registered or not.

I urge the noble Lord, the Minister, to consider prohibiting the appointment of unregulated psychologists and psychotherapists to conduct a psychological assessment of any party or family member involved in child contact proceedings, and to ensure that all psychologists appointed as experts in the Family Court are appropriately qualified. Second, despite domestic abuse appearing in 83% of private law children case files in the Domestic Abuse Commissioner's 2025 report, research and survivor testimony shows there is a significant lack of understanding of domestic abuse by family court professionals. Judgements are less likely to serve the interests of children without sufficient understanding of how coercion and control the heart of all domestic abuse show themselves in the Family Court setting.

The government's strategy for addressing violence against women and girls. Guaranteed training for all staff in criminal courts but not family courts. I urge the noble Lord, the Minister, to mandate high quality, trauma informed training on domestic abuse for all family court professionals, including the judiciary. I urge noble Lords to use this opportunity when it comes to reinforce the paramountcy of the best interests of children, and to reject misogyny and coercive control in the family courts by supporting clause 16 and the other changes I have mentioned.
19:50
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I should start by declaring an interest in the time a declaring an interest in the time a practising barrister, and I practice sometimes in judicial review cases arising out of the review cases arising out of the criminal justice system. And as a very junior practitioner, I practised in the criminal courts, the magistrates courts, the youth court and the Crown Court. I oppose many of the measures in this bill, but I wish in my allotted eight minutes to focus on one particularly egregious and counterproductive measure. The changes to the appeal mechanisms from the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court will not help to reduce the backlog, but will undermine faith in our criminal justice system.

I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, that the changes to the appeal system are justifiable. Procedural modernisation. My reasons are these the current system is one that works well. If a person is convicted or sentenced in the magistrates or youth courts, they may appeal as of right to the Crown Court. It is. If it is an appeal against conviction, there is a full rehearing of the charge heard before a Crown Court judge, sitting, usually with two lay magistrates. Vexatious appeals are avoided by the fact that if you choose to spin the wheel and have an appeal to the Crown Court, then the sentence may be increased.

But this is a measure, a sensible measure that is oddly abolished in the Bill presently before the House. Let me start with some vital statistics for the House to hold close and dear. These are statistics drawn from the Criminal Court statistics published on a quarterly basis by the Ministry of Justice. The latest set is to the end of quarter two, 2026. That's June. So I am therefore about to give you the government's own figures. There are three. The first is appeals against conviction represent just 0.4% of the Crown Court caseload. The annual total to June 2026 was 2418.

Appeals. This next statistic is one which I hope you will all make sure to remember for a long time. Of those 2418 appeals, 976 were successful. That is an overall success rate of 40%. However, that figure of 2418 includes abandoned appeals. It is more relevant to look at the 1746 contested appeals. Of those contested appeals, 56%. My Lords were successful. That's the statistic that the noble Lady Baroness Mallalieu alluded to, and it is one which should jolt us all into a recognition that this particular provision in the Bill is not one which can possibly maintain the assertion that there is any problem with the way that appeals presently work.

So to clause six, schedule two of the bill, which will remove the automatic right of appeal from the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court, it will change the mode of appeal from a rehearing on the merits to a review of the safety of the conviction. The key decisions will now be taken by a Crown Court judge sitting alone, who will determine permission on the papers. The lay justice's role in the Crown Court is axed. A very regrettable development. Seven points arise, my Lords. The first is that the current system is swift and cheap. Compare the multi-stage process in the Bill with the current one stop system.

At present, the appellant fills in a form. Reasons for appeal can be given, but they are not necessary as it is a rehearing. The system works further. The new system will mean that the Crown Court judges are spending more time reviewing written applications for permission and responding in writing, and presumably those decisions will be capable of further review. Will this really save any time? The second point the current system is fair and effective. The majority of contested appeals are allowed, and I've told the House the statistics and the Justice Select Committee in the other place reviewing this bill, concluded that it plays an important role in correcting wrongful outcomes.

The statistics show the right of appeal is not being systematically abused by meritless appellants. My third point these measures are premature. The Law Commission is about to report on the issue of criminal appeals. It has been working on this since 2022, and it published a consultation paper in 2025. The consultation has closed and we are waiting. The Law Commission's final recommendations, which takes into my fourth point the bill's proposals are directly contrary to the Law Commission's provisional recommendations, which are the retention of the current system of automatic Rights of Appeal, paragraph 5.86 of the provisional recommendations in case anyone wishes to look at it.

My fifth point. This proposal is directly contrary to the Justice Select Committee's recommendations. The Justice Select Committee in the Other place recommended the proposal is postponed pending the Law Commission's report, they said in chapter three of their report. Appeals from the Magistrates Court represent a small and declining proportion of overall Crown Court receipts, with only 0.4% of magistrates Court decisions appealed. In 2025. The Ministry of Justice's own data does not support the premise that appeals make a material contribution to the Crown Court backlog, and we are not persuaded that this proves a sufficient justification for the scale of reform proposed.

My sixth point. The Bill will place a greater burden on magistrates. The premise of the new system is that Crown Court judges will review the grounds of appeal, alongside the transcripts of proceedings before the Magistrates Court, including reasons given by the magistrates for their guilty verdict. This means that magistrates will now have to give appeal proof decisions for their reasons. That places a greater burden on magistrates to craft comprehensive reasons, and to show they have correctly applied the law and the facts. And I very much share the doubts about the readiness of the magistrates court system to cope with this, expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McDonald and others.

My seventh point is that the new system of appeals impacts on access to justice, an issue raised in the discussion of the Bill is generally that legal aid is less easily available in the magistrates Court than the Crown Court. The income cut off is about £22,000. Roughly half of the defendants before the magistrates court defend themselves, whereas it's unheard of more or less in the Crown Court. So introducing a highly legalistic system of appeals will impact on access to justice for many middle income defendants. Can they really be expected to analyse the reasons themselves and identify grounds of appeal?

In conclusion, my Lords, the current system is consistent with the centuries old tradition of trial by lay justices. It is the other side of the coin of summary justice. There is no need for these changes. My Lords. It is all too rare that there is an issue which unites me with the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb the noble Lady. Baroness Fox of Buckley the noble Lady Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws this is surely a red flag to the government. These measures are unsound, unjust, and unnecessary, and should be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd like to. Yes. My Lords, I'd like to thank all of those who've been in touch with of those who've been in touch with me, those who've come to see me and who've briefed me from amnesty to who've briefed me from amnesty to to the Bar Council, to, to all the other organisations and liberty who have come and see me here. And I've had from them. And I'd also like to congratulate Lord Slater on his on congratulate Lord Slater on his on his maiden speech tonight, and also for the work that you've done for coming to this House.

And I've known a lot from the King's Fund. Thank you, my Lords. I welcome the aim of today's bill to produce swifter justice for victims, witnesses and defendants. The pressure is astronomical. With the caseload in the Crown Court of reaching a record of 80,829 in June of this year. Almost a third of these have been open for over a year, and over half of those were sexual offences or violence against persons. My Lords, the resource burden, as well as the distress felt by the parties involved, cannot be overstated or one can never understand what it must be like to live in this situation.

I would like to talk about the importance of jury trials. A jury brings 12 people, different citizens, each with internally different lives and experiences, and there is a form of public participation in justice. My Lords, this helps helps to build confidence in outcomes and the fair part of the right to be judged by one's peers. But at the same time, it is absolutely vital that legal
20:00
Baroness Goudie Portrait Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
aid is available in all criminal trials and other trials and trials and other trials and domestic trials and and violence. We have to ensure that legal aid is available. There must be no going available. There must be no going back on legal aid. As I say, as I was saying, it helps to build was saying, it helps to build confidence in outcomes, to refer to a fair right to be judged by one's a fair right to be judged by one's peers. Clause one would go further than Lord Levinson's recommendations, which applied to offences carrying a maximum sentence of two years or less.

My Lords, I hope the government will recognise that the importance of jury trials and will work and will work to protect the fundamental right. And I also hope that the government will consider the impact on women, as well as on the race and socioeconomic status, especially my Lords, considering institutional bias and the and the implications on access to justice and public confidence. I would just like to turn to a moment to the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is not working for victims of crime, and it is not working for witnesses of crime, and it is not working for criminal defendants.

Indeed, it can scarcely be described as a system, as a system. All are prejudiced and are stressed by the increasing delays, which is amongst the most significant features of the way in which the criminal courts operate in practice. Lord Levinson has has warned that a radical extended package of measures is needed to prevent total collapse. This is absolutely true. The figures show this to us. Something has to be done, my Lords, and urgently and effectively. The status quo is not an option, my Lords. But there are important limitations on what can be done. Equally, a jury trial must be preserved, as I said earlier, and legal aid must be available.

My Lords, the problem in the Crown Courts and in many of the. Of some scope for Crown Courts and some cases to be heard by a judge alone rather than by a judge and jury. I think, my Lords, this is only possible in lengthy and technical complex fraud cases and. And financial crime. However, it must be considered an enhanced jurisdiction for magistrates courts, which increase sentencing powers and controls over appeals. But that is difficult to do for magistrates to be able to sit for more days than possible because of having time off work, and also for having to have extra training.

This makes this quite difficult at the present time. My Lords, the National Audit Office has attributed at least one part of the backlog to fewer criminal barristers and solicitors, and that the legal profession points to fewer sitting days. Funding are needed. Funding is needed for extra sitting days. Magistrates courts, as I've already said, have hold a record of 380,230 open cases, and the chair of the Justice Committee noted that the magistrates courts workload has been risen by 85% in the last three years. My Lords, we do not want to risk adding more pressure there and I hope priority will be given to more advocates, more sitting days and more courtrooms and courtrooms have to be made suitable.

At the present time, half the courtrooms are not really suitable for cases to be held in a terrible state. I would hope priority will be given to more advocates, more sitting days, as I've said, and the courtrooms to be in a much better state. The backlog is is a narrowing judge. Finally, I would like to touch on defendants. We have we have a we have an obligation, a human rights obligation to, to, to, to prisoners who are awaiting trial. And for those who are on remand, it is important that the prison system, whose care they are placed in under, ensures that they appear at the right time for their case in the right court, and that the.

And the right prisoners are not being are being produced on time. When the defendant is not brought to court on time, on a hearing, day is lost and a person waits longer for decision is is is on their liberty. My Lords, we have to look again and I know that this is likely to happen. We have to look again at the contracts that there are between the Prison Service and those who bring prisoners to court. It is really disgraceful what has been happening over the last few years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been. A powerful debate, memorably marked by the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stace, which certainly didn't support a diagnosis of imposter syndrome. It was a pleasure to hear syndrome. It was a pleasure to hear his measured endorsement of open discussion of difficult issues with discussion of difficult issues with people of differing views. Exactly what we hope to achieve in this House. My Lords, it was also a
20:05
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
House. My Lords, it was also a pleasure to hear the powerful speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, whose report has so influenced the government, and this Bill and his unanswerable assertion that we need a combination of increased funding, structural reform and increased efficiency. And Lord, my noble friend Baroness Garden Baroness Brinton spoke of the issues facing victims in the criminal justice system. I will speak on the bill's more controversial proposals on that system and on one issue which I say should be, but is not covered by the bill. The noble Lord, Lord McDonald and others are clearly right that we are trying to respond now to years of underfunding that has led to the appalling backlog of 80,000 cases awaiting Crown Court trials.

However, it is not proven that restricting jury trials with markedly reduced the backlog take into account, for example, the judges would be spending time in writing judgements and that appeals would proliferate. Effective measures to reduce delays should include increased sitting days, reliable prisoner transport, maintaining the courts and smarter use of new technology for listing and case management. The noble Lord Lord Lemos said the government has successfully set out on this process, trying two cases in longer court hours over two sessions a day mentioned by the noble Lady. Baroness Brinton would significantly cut delay. My Lords, the Crown Court backlog has now stabilised, as the noble Lady Baroness Mallalieu pointed out, from January to June it rose by just 367 cases, 0.46%.

Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson has some arguments with the interpretation of the present figures, there are still ways of cutting the backlog that do not involve the entire suite of proposals in this bill. Yes, we must reduce it further. But why has the government not revised its projections, given the recent improvement of which Lord Lemos spoke and the statistics speak, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Kunji and Lord Garnier pointed out that we need more reliable and fuller information before we pass this bill. The serious problem is now in the magistrates courts, with the backlog in June, even excluding single justice procedure cases of 169,000 cases odd, up 16% in a year.

 Yet the proposals in this bill, removing the right to elect jury trial and increasing magistrates sentencing powers, would transfer to them many more cases, and they would be the bigger and more time consuming cases. And, my Lords, the threat to jury trial has not disappeared. First, as the removal of the right to elect along with Baroness Levitt, I accept that there is some evidence of hardened criminals gaming the system and electing for for jury trial for bad reasons, to delay trial, to weaken prosecution evidence, to build up credit for time on remand or under bail conditions, then yes, some pretty trivial cases do come to the Crown Court.

But this gaming the system could be addressed partly, at least, by increasing the discount for an early guilty plea, as the noble Lady Baroness Bennett suggested, the right to elect trial by jury is, we believe, a cornerstone of our liberties. Juries democratise criminal justice just as the noble and learned Lords noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier, the noble Lady Baroness Bennett and others have said, the public trust juries. They think the system fair. They believe 12 heads are better than one. They know different judges will reach different conclusions on the same evidence. They see judges as liable to be influenced by their own prejudices, social backgrounds and beliefs.

As the noble Lord, Lord Russell said, the Bill proposes an allocation by magistrates alone with no right of appeal. But, my Lords, the best people to decide on allocation. A Crown Court judges who hear jury trials all the time, not magistrates who lack that experience. Denying appeals on allocation is unfair. Lymph nodes along with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, I believe there should be a clear distinction between persons of hitherto good character who suffer irreparable harm to reputation, careers and relationships from any conviction and seasoned offenders for whom the consequences of conviction are limited to the sentence imposed.

There are further practical pitfalls by removing the right of election, going from the pressure, going beyond the pressure on magistrates courts from increased case numbers well explored by the noble Lords, Lord MacDonald and Carlile, and the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb legal aid is far more restricted in magistrates courts than Crown courts. If magistrates are to handle more and heavier cases, we must improve the availability of legal aid. Just as the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, argued lack of representation in the magistrates courts is a recipe for inefficient and over lengthy hearings for unfairness and unsafe convictions, an unsafe or unjust convictions will lead to more appeals.

Overburdening the Crown Court. I turn to trial by judge alone in so-called complex or lengthy cases. Now the expectation was that these would just be for long and complex cases of financial crime. As per the initial list in the bill. Certainly some fraud trials are extremely complex, but not all of them good clear presentation by a competent prosecution team using new presentational technology and limiting the indictment to reflect the defendant's criminality can usually reduce both complexity and trial length. More importantly, the issues in even these cases are so often typical jury issues. What did she know?

Did he sign that document or was his signature a forgery? Was her behaviour dishonest or not? These are typical human jury issues. As for trial length, we cope with lengthy trials now, and the modest increase in jury expenses after a certain time had elapsed would ease the burden. So while I would accept that there are complex financial cases which could be tried by judge alone, they are not many. But the bill has a nasty sting in the tail regarding judge alone trials. My Lords, the initial list of offences in schedule one is a list of financial crimes, homicide offences and sexual offences would be expressly excluded, but that should be obvious.

However, the express exclusion of those cases suggests a threat that the government could go far further than fraud and complex financial cases. That, my Lords, is the point of the insidious and dangerous power. In part one of the schedule to add any non-excluded offence to the list of judge alone offences, the Joseph Stalin clause, as Lord Howard described it. So the hard won victory of campaigners against the restriction of jury trials originally proposed is to be at the mercy of an order from the Secretary of State. That is unacceptable. Next, there is the proposed increase in the sentencing powers of magistrates that again would lead to a massive transfer of cases to the magistrates courts, increasing the pressure on the magistrates, increasing the risk that defendants will be unrepresented and wrongly convicted or excessively harshly sentence.

I turn now to an issue that should have been addressed in this bill, but is not the noble and learned Lord. Lord Leveson made a number of important recommendations in his report that have not found their way into this bill. He devoted his ten first recommendations to diversions. He recognised that criminal courts may not be the best forum for handling low level offences, and so recommended the use of greater use of out of court resolutions. He spoke of cautions, conditional cautions and other mechanisms for disposal of rehabilitation programs for drug and alcohol abuse and other health interventions.

We should be keeping far more low level offenders, children and adults out of the criminal justice system when it is plain that their problems should be handled with sympathy and constructively, rather than through blunt and often profoundly unhelpful recourse to the criminal courts. The noble Lord, the Minister, as well as the former Minister, Lord Timpson, have been very supportive of alternative disposals or out of court resolutions, both unattractive names for a far more constructive approach than we have at present. My Lords, I believe that this thinking should reflect our approach not only at the charging stage.

Courts should be bound to consider early in the criminal process, out of court resolutions in place of fully fledged criminal proceedings, but to civil courts consider mediation, the potential is there to hard baked criminality into the lives of low level offenders, as we do at present, or to have a more humane and sensible and sensitive system. This thinking can be extended to many areas. To take one example, that of unauthorised absence, by which parents who fail to ensure their children's attendance at school are prosecuted. Under the Education Act 1996 and are liable to be fined and in an extreme case can be sentenced to imprisonment.

Yet so many of these cases are cases of children who simply will not go to school for medical or psychological reasons, and however hard their parents try to get them there. And they need a therapeutic approach and not a penal one. A film on this topic of unauthorised absence is to be given a parliamentary screening in December. My Lords, we have to change our approach not just to this, but to other low level offences which put people at risk of inappropriate prosecution. It is not just too many offences which clog up our courts, it is the mindset of a system which has long been too unadventurous to limit criminal proceedings to the cases where they are both necessary and appropriate.
20:16
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> By welcoming the noble Lord Stace to his place in this house and also congratulate him upon his maiden speech, and I look forward to bringing his extensive experience and knowledge not only to the consideration of this Bill at Committee stage, but to the wider proceedings of this House. I hope I don't misrepresent his views. If I imply from his speech that he doesn't believe that the crisis in criminal prosecution begins at the door of the court, but could more properly be addressed by considering the economic and social issues that allow a younger generation to drift into criminality in the first place.

In other words, that we should be considering root causes rather than just effects. The Lords, the noble Lord Thomas of Killingworth, in an early speech in this House, posited a number of or a series of alternative court mechanisms for addressing the backlog, what might be termed Leveson three, albeit not a welcome prospect to the noble and learned Lord in his seat. But that is perhaps beyond the ambit of the present Bill, and what I seek to address is the recognition, first of all, noted by my noble friend Lord Ashcroft, that there are significant backlogs in our criminal court system, and we agree that, of course, they must be addressed not only from the perspective of the victims of crime, but also from the perspective of those accused of crime.

They should not have to wait year after year to determine their future, whether they are on remand or otherwise. They too are entitled to a reasonably swift resolution of accusations of crime made against them. But timely justice cannot come at the cost of the right to trial by jury, which in turn, if interfered with, is liable to undermine public trust and confidence in the justice system. And we are concerned that the power now taken by this bill, or proposed by this bill would seriously undermine public confidence in the justice system. These proposals will weaken that confidence.

Now, the government began to recognise that serious problem in the other place, when they proceeded to remove clause three of the original bill in the House of Commons. But they have not gone far enough, and I express my concern and my agreement with the noble and learned Lord Garnier that, given the changes made to this bill, there were simply insufficient consideration or scrutiny of the bill in the other place, and that seems to me to be a serious concern so far as we're concerned, albeit we are capable of operating effectively as a House that can review legislation from the other place.

We do have serious concerns that the criminal justice system should be the subject of detailed consideration by both Houses of Parliament. My Lords particular concern has been expressed across the House with regard to the right to elect jury trial in other cases, and the impact of this and other measures on the Magistrates Court. And I wish to just touch upon the views expressed right across the House on that issue. The noble Lady Baroness Brinton began by referring to the situation in the magistrates courts as being, and I quote, significantly worse than it is in the Crown courts.

And we heard from the noble Lady, my noble friend Baroness Thatcher, about there being something of the order of 380,000 open cases. Lord Russell referred to the dangers of the magistrates courts being overwhelmed. Lord McNicol, of West Kilbride, questioned the capacity of the Magistrates Court to take on the additional court cases and indeed, he pointed out the need for a plan, a point made repeatedly by other of your noble Lordships in this House. During the course of the debate. My noble friend, the noble and learned Lord Garnier, commended the practical approach that Lord McNicol was taking to the issue.

Lord MacDonald of River Glen asked what modelling had been done in order to determine the impact of these changes upon the Magistrates Court. As far as we can see, little or none. The noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb talked about there being insufficient evidence to support these proposed changes. The noble Lady Baroness Fox asked is there any evidence there were not simply shifting the problem to the magistrates courts? The noble Baroness Mallalieu talked about the damage to public confidence of this shift was made without adequate resourcing within the magistrates court system. Not just buildings, not just magistrates, not just legal advisers, but also the provision of suitable legal assistance, which requires, in turn, that the whole issue of legal aid within the magistrates courts should be addressed.

None of this has happened. The my noble friend Lord Bellamy simply posed the question how are the magistrates courts going to cope with the increased caseload? And again, there has been no assessment of how that is going to be dealt with. I know there was a reference to we are recruiting 2000 more magistrates. When are they going to be trained? When are they going to be available? How are they going to cope in the meantime? And the noble Lady Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws asked, had there been conversations with magistrates in any detail about how the impact of this would be dealt with?

No answers. I invite the noble Lord, the Minister, to provide answers, and if you can't do it this evening, to do it in writing and in detail, because clearly this is an issue that has touched members of the House on each side. We then had the issue of whether there should be the removal of juries for complex and lengthy trials, and I was rather taken by the observation that Lord Thomas, a king, who said, generally speaking, in complex financial cases, in cases of fraud, the issue is honesty. What better than a jury to determine issues of honesty?

Indeed,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a point made by Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws In her address to your Lordships

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In her address to your Lordships chamber. That is the central issue in these cases. I agree, but it is one pre-eminently suitable for a jury of one's peers. And then there's the question of the possible expansion of the definition of complex and lengthy definition of complex and lengthy cases through secondary legislation, not even with an express express provision that it would be dealt with by the affirmative procedure. My noble friend Lord Howard referred to it as monstrous, and indeed, the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti expressed concern about the removal of the safety valve that would be taken away by this provision.

And indeed, what happens when we have a government of a potentially authoritarian bent which could then utilise such a power? The noble Lady Baroness Fox referred to it as outrageous, and indeed even the noble Lord Marks of Henley on Thames deemed it unacceptable. And therefore I would invite the government to think again on that issue. And if they do not do so, then again, I suspect we should be revisiting this at a later stage. Can I then turn to the question of the removal of the presumption of parental involvement? And there I adopt the expert views expressed by my noble friend Baroness Barran.

It does seem to me, and this was a point brought out by the noble Lord Lord Farmer, and indeed by the noble Baroness Baroness Fox, that the government is aiming at the wrong target. There is no intent to elevate parental rights above the welfare of a child, but the idea that the presumption is somehow causative of some of the terrible events that have been spoken of is not only unproven, but appears on the face of it, to be improbable. This is a very badly targeted remedy if it be a remedy at all. And therefore, again, I would urge the noble Lord, the Minister, to reconsider.

My Lord, the government's original plans were clearly unacceptable. And indeed, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, was explicit when, in the debate on the King's Speech earlier this year, he pointed out that the whole issue of blocking jury trial had never been mentioned in any manifesto and that accordingly, we would exercise the full freedoms of this House to defend that right. The Bill contains provisions on the right of election to trial by jury and the removal of jury trial in complex cases. And again, these were never the subject of any manifesto commitment. But of course, we are a scrutinising chamber and progress is best achieved through close engagement between Ministers and members of your Lordships House.

And certainly we on this side of the House, are committed to working as constructively as possible with the noble Lord, the Minister, to deliver a bill that can improve the issue of the backlog in the court system, one not just limited to the Crown Court, but extending to the magistrates court as well. And I'm reminded of a remark made very early on in this debate by the noble Lord MacDonald of River Glen, when he said the origins of this are a funding crisis, and perhaps we need to address that as well as these provisions. Thank you, my Lords.

My Lord, I thank all noble
20:28
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Lords for what has been. The noble Lord Lord Marks said a powerful, thoughtful and thought provoking thoughtful and thought provoking debate. And there is much for us to continue to discuss. Before I continue to discuss. Before I respond in detail to some of the points that have been made, can I also join with other noble Lords and congratulate my noble friend Lord? Lord stays on his excellent Lord? Lord stays on his excellent maiden speech and to comment on his rich and varied career. I don't think I ever imagined I'd meet someone who was both chair of the Prison Reform Trust and the former CEO of saga.

I wonder which of those jobs is the more entertaining. OK. But anyway, I congratulate him and I very much welcome him to our benches, and I'm sure he's going to make a powerful contribution. And I endorse the comment made by my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti that his speech was humble and humane, and in that sense, and in many others, entirely admirable. My Lords, at the heart of this Bill, as I've said, are principled reforms designed not simply to address the pressures facing our courts today, but to ensure our justice system is fit for the future.

A number of noble Lords have spoken to me about some of the provisions in the bill already, and I'm grateful to them for their measured and constructive approach. And I would say to them, to the noble and learned Lord Keen of Elie, I do promise to engage very fully, not just with the official opposition, but with with all members of your Lordships House, as I have already done on this bill and will continue to do and work constructively with all noble Lords who are interested in this. I don't at all underestimate what's at stake here, and the government certainly doesn't either.

Let me try and address some of some of the of the the the points that were raised. Most frequently, if I can, as it were, the biggest concern. And if I don't get the chance to address every issue that has been raised with me, I promise to write in detail. And as I say, I will continue to engage, and I. And I will try and mention people or members of your Lordships' House who have raised these points, but I. But I fear I won't be able to remember to mention everyone, so I apologise in advance for that.

Can I then turn straight away to the issue that a number of noble Lords have made. My noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti also Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Lord Howard and. And Lord Ashcombe Baroness Levitt from a rather different perspective, and also Lord Carlile from a different perspective. My Lords, the constitutional importance of jury trial and the right to elect for jury trial has been raised several times. The government agrees that the right to a fair trial is a fundamental constitutional principle. However, a defendant's ability to choose the mode of trial is not a constitutional safeguard.

Article six of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a fair hearing within a reasonable time, and allocating cases to the most appropriate venue, supporting that objective. The right to elect is not a universal feature of common law system. As the noble Lord Lord Carlile said, and indeed Scotland does not operate a general right of defendant election. And Lord MacDonald, the noble Lord, Lord MacDonald, also made that point when determining that said, when determining venue, magistrates will continue to apply the Sentencing Councils allocations guidelines. Considering the seriousness and the complexity of the case, alongside representations from both the prosecution and the defence.

The constitutional principle we are protecting, my Lords, is the right to a fair trial before an independent court, and that principle remains fully intact. Can I turn briefly to the comments made by the noble Lord Lord Marks about the the question of good character and the right to elect. And the government's view is that allocation should be determined by the seriousness of the alleged offending, and not by the personal characteristics of the defendant. Magistrates' courts already deliver fair and impartial justice in the overwhelming majority of criminal cases, and we. A Crown Court trial is not inherently fairer.

There is no statutory or straightforward definition of quote unquote good character for these purposes, and introducing such a test would add greater complexity, complexity and subjectivity subjectivity to allocations decisions. Can I now turn to the question of legal aid, which was raised by a number of your Lordships, including the noble noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the Bishop of Saint Edmund, Saint Edmund and Ipswich, and also Lord Edmund and Ipswich, and also Lord Thomas? We acknowledge that the. As noble Lords have noted that the Bill will result in more cases being heard in the Magistrates Court, where the legal aid means test is less generous than in the Crown Court.

However, we are confident that the majority of. And we have looked into this. We are confident that the majority of defendants currently charged with. Either way, offences will be eligible for legal aid in the Magistrates Court under the existing financial eligibility rules for individuals who do not qualify. However, support is available through the hardship review mechanism as well as the Free Duty Solicitor scheme, which may provide legal representation at the first hearing. We have been listening carefully and this is an important point to concerns about legal aid eligibility in the magistrates, in the context of the Bill's reform to the right to elect.

 In light of this, the government has accepted in principle Lord Levison's recommendation 155 to increase the legal aid income threshold at the Magistrates Court. Final decisions on income threshold levels will be taken once the reforms have been implemented, subject to future funding decisions and operational considerations. I hope they will take some reassurance from that, my Lords. A number of Lords mentioned, and there was a theme that ran through the entire debate this afternoon about the question of whether we were putting too much strain on the magistrates court system. That was mentioned by the noble my noble friend Lord McNicol, the noble Lady, Lady Brinton Baroness Mallalieu, noble Lord Lord Bellamy Lord Carlile, and.

And notably also by the noble Lord, Lord MacDonald. And the government's view is that the magistrates keep the system turning, and they already handle more than 90% of all criminal cases, completing around 1.5 million cases each year, more than 11 times the number in the Crown Court. And dealing with triable. Either way, cases four times faster than the Crown Court. We do recognise, of course, we recognise, that demand, additional demand will have an impact and that is why we are increasing funding funded sitting days from 114,000 last year to 125,800 next year, rising to a target of 131,000 sitting days by 2829.

We have launched a multi-million pound recruitment campaign and through this we are increasing the size of the magistracy by around 50%, as I said in my opening remarks. We are also increasing overall capacity through the recruitment of legal advisers and district judges, with recruitment programmes expected to provide sufficient judicial and legal adviser capability to support the increase in funded sitting days the increase in funded sitting days by 2829. Can I turn to the question that was asked by the noble Baroness Baroness Fox about magistrates, and have we asked them whether they support these measures or not?

The Magistrates Association is on the record as saying they support these measures, I. It's in our own library briefing that they are supportive of it. I note the comments of Baroness Sater and I very much look forward to working with her as we are on other issues too. She clearly has extensive experience and particularly the points that were made about training by the noble Lady Baroness Hayter, but by a number of people. And that's obviously a critical point to making recruitment. It's a statement of the obvious that recruitment is one thing, but getting people trained and functioning effectively is is something else.

And the noble Lord, Lord, Lord MacDonald asked me about models and assessments. And I should. Another noble Lord Lord Ashcombe Lord, Lord Thomas the Noble and learned, Lord Thomas and the noble and learned Lord Keen of Elie also asked me about this. We are confident that the remaining package of reforms, combined with record financial investment and our work on efficiencies, frees up enough Crown Court time to turn the tide on the backlog and to start delivering swifter justice for victims by the end of this Parliament. My. My right hon. Friend, Minister Simon has made that commitment many times.

In fact, without the operational challenges of creating the Crown Court Bench Division that would introduce Juryless trials for less serious offences in the Crown Court, we shall be able to act quicker to implement other reforms and begin reducing the backlog sooner. We have published modelling that shows our remain and indeed I have circulated it to noble Lords that have attended various engagement meetings I've had. That shows that our remaining package of reforms, when combined with investment and I'll work on efficiency, sees the backlog peak in 2028 before starting to fall rapidly over 2029. And with the accelerated implementation of the measures, removing the right to elect and magistrates court sentencing powers, we can go faster and turn that tide sooner.

PQ we. Our model suggests that, in fact, the backlog will peak in 2027 before starting to fall. That means we should be able to get the backlog down sooner this Parliament. But I do want to be completely clear with your Lordships about this. We will. This data has been published. We will keep it under review, and I shall be very happy as we go forward through. Committee to discuss it with noble Lords, and to be clear about this. We want to be transparent about this. We obviously do want the magistrates to have the capacity to deal with the extra burden.

We have published our models, as I say, and I'll continue to discuss those with noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, asked me about the Institute of Government's observations. I understand that they have, in fact, endorsed our model and said that the analysis that we've set out about when the backlog will come down is one that they agree with. Can I thank Baroness Jones and Baroness Mallalieu for their contributions on the court estate? And we obviously know that this is an important question, and a number of references have been made to buckets and so on, and we need to address the inefficiencies in the system.

We must pull every lever, not just structural reform, but investment and efficiency. As the noble and learned Lord Leveson encouraged us to do in parallel, rather than choosing between them. We we have started to modernise our courts through greater use of technology and AI, and we're developing specialist case progression staff in every Crown Court centre, expanding appropriate remote hearings and investing over £70 million in virtual remand hearings and pilots to help remove delays. Sorry to reduce delays and improve court productivity are underway. But again, my Lords, efficiency in the court system is something we are going to have to think about as we go through these debates.

And indeed beyond that. And we will continue to think about ways in which we can make the physical as well as the technological infrastructure of the court system more robust. Can I turn now to the questions raised by Lord Russell of Liverpool, among others, about the about the diversity in the judiciary and the magistracy? We, for all the reasons noble Lords have given diversity in the judiciary and in the magistracy, magistracy is vital to maintaining public confidence. To widen the pool of talent and ensure the justice system benefits from the full range of skills and experience across society.

Progress has been made significant progress for new entrants. This last year, women accounted for 55% and 16% of new entrants to the judiciary were from ethnic minority backgrounds. This is a positive, but there is clearly much more work that we can do. And need to do. And that is why the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice are co-chairing the Judicial and Legal Diversity Board, which looks across at the whole system to improve diversity while maintaining appointments on merit. We do think it's very important. I also mentioned that we are engaged in a major magistrate recruitment campaign, targeting targeted outreach and streamlining recruitment process so that we can attract a broader and younger range of candidates to the magistracy and ensure the magistrate better reflects the communities it serves.

 Can I turn now to the question of appeals? Raised by a number of Lords Lord Murray, Lord McNicol and Lord Carlile. We, we, Lord Leveson, identify that an automatic right to a full rehearing impacts adversely on victims, victims and witnesses who may not be prepared to return to court a second time. And we know that some appeals succeed not due to an identified area in the original trial, but because victims and witnesses feel unable to relive the trauma of a second trial at appeal. I think we would all agree this is not how we want things to operate.

Magistrates already give their reasons for their decision and these will now. These will be recorded and available to the judge to decide on the merits and scope of possible appeals. I note the comments that again made been made about training and access to legal advisers. I also note the comments about the Law Commission. The Law Commission's report was commissioned in 2023. Lord Stevenson has has reported since. Can I now turn to a judge alone? Trials, which is obviously a very important aspect of this bill for complex and lengthy clauses raised by the noble Lord Lord Marks, the noble Lord, Lord Howard and Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws.

We have heard concerns that part two of schedule one to the Bill could be used over time to expand the scope of clause four beyond fraud and financial offending. Amendments to the schedule can only be made through the affirmative procedure. I'd like to confirm that to the noble and learned Lord Keen of Elie since he asked me about that. That means a successful vote in both houses. Offences cannot be added to the schedule without Parliament's consent. This provision has been included to allow the system to respond flexibly as criminal offending evolve over time, and any added offences would also have to comply with the statutory safeguards for the policy of preparatory hearing.

A public interest test, exclusions for homicide and indictable only sex offences and judicial decision making on the same subject. I was asked by a noble Lords about dishonesty. This change is not about you can understand dishonesty better. It is about reducing the burden on ordinary peoples lives from sitting on long trials, disclosure and case management. Fraud cases must improve, and the government has agreed in principle to many Fisher Report's recommendations and indeed those made by Lord Leveson. This measure follows a long line of similar recommendations made by distinguished judges and independent reviewers. Lord Justice Old in 2001, and Lord Roskill, as mentioned by noble Lords in the 1980s.

I'm running out of time, my Lord. But my Lord, there are two important issues I want to deal with and I will deal with the others in writing. I do want to address the question about victims raised by a number of noble Lords, and the case mentioned by noble Lady Baroness Brinton and Lord Razzall of Emma. I realise that's not her real name. Was heart rending and I'm very grateful to the noble Lady and the noble Lord for bringing it to our attention. My Lords, I think we all agree the delay facing victims today are not what what.

We do not want that to carry on. And we believe that the changes in this bill not just speed up these trials, but in relation to tackling harmful myths and the admissibility of evidence on those matters, and especially measures which are also addressed in this bill, do make enlightened and principled reforms which will be of great benefit to victims. On the question, that specific question that Lord Russell asked me, the the the judiciary's national listing framework will put an end to the practice of, quote, floating, unquote. That's my understanding. Along these reforms, we are investing record levels in victim support services and consulting on a new victims code.

As. As as we've discussed before in your Lordships House. Can I just say just a few sentences about rape and serious sexual offences courts. I note the comments made by a number of noble Lords about this. We think this is a very important initiative. I particularly note the comments of the noble Lady, Lady Brinton, and we can do this without legislation. And we are rolling this out, and I'll be very happy to discuss it with her further. Finally, my Lords, can I deal with repealing the presumption of parental involvement? We've heard powerful contributions from the noble Lady, the noble Baroness, Lady Baron, and from the noble Lord Farmer, and I absolutely undertake to discuss in detail those matters with with with them and and other.

This is a subject very close to my heart. I take it very seriously. And I'm very, very much look forward to working with them on it. I would say, though, we have received, as it were, slightly divergent advice on this subject from your Lordships. So we do need to work work our way through this. But I think everyone agrees that we want to do what's best for the child. I really have run out of time now, my Lords. In fact, I've gone well over. I just want to say one other thing which is to note the comments of the noble Lord Lord Marks about out-of-court disposals and the noble Court.

Leonard. Lord. Lord King's comment about getting to the root causes, endorsing my noble friend Lord Stacy's comments. I do think those are things we should discuss further. So with thanks to your Lordships for a very powerful debate and an apologies for exceeding my time. I do look forward to discussing these matters with your Lordships at Committee stage, and indeed in engagement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

between now and then. And with that I beg to move. The question is that this Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this Bill be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion will say content Earl Attlee not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion. I beg to move the commitment motion. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment Lord Rooker. Lords, I beg to move the motion standing one and the Order Paper. This won't take long. As I've said in the past, and my purpose with this motion is to strengthen the
20:51
None Portrait Amendment to the Commitment Motion Lord Rooker (Labour)
-

role of the elected members of the Commons. There is no way. Anything I say or have said before is I say or have said before is critical of the Commons members. My criticism is purely of the criticism is purely of the government. We're in a cycle that the Commons second readings are in the Commons second readings are in effect all guillotined. It's called the programme motion, but it covers all bills. The effect is the government always wants to boast about the numbers of bills, which is done at the expense of the scrutiny of bills, and we've got bills arriving in your Lordships House as a result of inadequate scrutiny.

We end up sending back more amendments than would otherwise be the case. Then in the Commons. The government in the Commons blames the extra work for elected members on the upper House abusing its position, therefore calling for reform of this House. Even when we return amendments, the elected members under the guillotine are limited in the time they can use due to the original programme motion, so the elected members clearly need more time for scrutiny. The government has to return some of the powers to Parliament. It has taken away with the programme motions designed to fit in more bills rather than better bills, and I think simply asking for a list from the government of what has not been allowed to be scrutinised in the Commons, puts the book back where it belongs.

I think it's to the supreme advantage of this House that it gets a bill, and it'd be quite useful to know where the revising goes, what has not been scrutinised in the first place, so far as this bill is concerned, on Tuesday the 13th of October, the Commons dealt with the Report stage. The government tabled two statements that day, which took an hour and 30 minutes. As with other bills, no injury time is ever allowed on the programme motion, which would be a normal, reasonable thing to do, but it doesn't happen. So the actual time allowed was from 3:29 p.m.

to 6 p.m. when the guillotine came down, 2.5 hours in that 2.5 hours, the Commons dealt dealt with 27 new clauses and 30 amendments from Government and opposition for debate. As is the new norm, elected members had one general debate. It's the Second Reading debate. It's not a debate about reports on what's come from committee. When you do it like that, it's equivalent to a Second Reading debate. When the guillotine actually came down, another 20 government amendments were added to the bill. On the nod. These were spread amongst four new clauses and two schedules.

Now, when it happens, the numbers of the clauses and amendments, when they're put into the bill by the Bill team and parliamentary counsel change, it is not possible to go back to the Commons, Hansard and work out exactly where these changes are in the Bill. Unless you're aware of the way they've been put in there. So that is difficult, and this is the fourth bill I've raised on this issue, this session, and I can tell the government there'll be more. My main concern continues to be the material the elected House has never considered, and put in a bill on the nod, but there is a pattern emerging.

My Lords, the pattern is that the report in the Commons, as I say, is effectively now just the Second Reading debate on a very large group of new material, at the end of which all the government material is added and the non-government is not considered before the guillotine, no scrutiny or attempt to raise specific issues takes place after the guillotine. All the material added to the bill is, of course, the government material only all the rest falls, so done on the nod. So it's clear elected members have lost some powers of scrutiny. Now, as it is, I've been contacted by a long retired parliamentary official who's also spotted the same pattern.

They. And they're not the only ones, of course, because I caught the speech of the Baroness Fox, which I was out of the chamber. They suggested, in the absence of the government being open to Parliament that the libraries of both houses could serve Parliament in this respect. But why should the librarian staff have to search in the bill and the Hansards for material which is then not unnumbered, because the numbers change when it goes in the bill? When the government, the government control the bill team and parliamentary counsel, which is government counsel, really, they're the ones who know exactly which bits of the bill have not been scrutinised in the Commons.

They could provide the list. They could italicise the content, for example, or they could provide us with a list. I just think it's the abiding purpose of this House in doing revision, that we have a better idea of what the House, the elected

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house has not had time to properly scrutinise. I beg to move. The original question was that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that the motion and then Lord Alli must be agreed to. Since then an amendment has been moved at the end to insert the words set out on the to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I now therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to. My Lords, I amendment be agreed to. My Lords, I just wish to place on record, as I have before, my strong support for have before, my strong support for Lord Brooke amendment. I'm not going to repeat what he said. He said virtually everything that can be said.

I agree with everything he said. It is within your Lordship's power to give effect to the proposals which are contained in this amendment, and I hope that one this amendment, and I hope that one day we will. My Lords.
20:57
20:57
20:58
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
It's a problem that my own government has assisted with and government has assisted with and indeed the Labour government, of which Lord Rooker was a member under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. The power of the executive over the The power of the executive over the legislature has grown and is growing yet further. The purpose, it seems to me, of Parliament, is to hold the government to account. And, of course, under our Constitution the executive sits in Parliament, but it should not sit on Parliament, and I think the noble Lord Rooker is entirely right to point this out.

But it's not just for the benefit of this House that we know what the House of Commons has not done and what has been done to them, but it's so that the electorate, so that the public out there are not fooled into thinking that the legislation that we consider in this House, and they sort of consider in the other place, has been considered in their name. It hasn't, or at least it largely has not, or at least it has inadequately been considered. And I do hope that the noble Lord, even if he doesn't push this amendment to a division this evening, will continue in his campaign and that he will attract support from right across the House, both in this House and in the other place.

For the. Are the concerns that he has. It seems to me that all legislation is important, but I particularly think that legislation of the sort that we are discussing this evening or have discussed this evening is of special importance. It goes to the heart of the relationship between the state and the citizen, and when the state, through the government, inhibits or prevents the elected House from scrutinising legislation and then sends it up here and then gets cross when we think about it and we amend it. And we tried the government for not doing its job properly or not allowing the House of Commons to do its job properly.

We should not cower under government criticism. We should be reinforced in our desire to make sure that the public is properly served by Parliament, and the government is here to serve the public. Parliament is here to scrutinise and to hold the government to account. And if we don't do it, and if they don't do it, the public is misled and ill served. So I urge those on the government front bench not to let this go on. Of course, I understand the need for pushing through legislation for a government to get its manifesto bills through, but do it properly and produce good legislation, not rushed and ill considered legislation.
21:02
21:02
21:04
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page