Courts and Tribunals Bill

Lee Barron Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I start by expressing my relief that the Government are removing clause 3 from the Bill. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on performing that U-turn so swiftly upon taking office.

In earlier debates, the Courts Minister said that curtailing the right to a jury trial was a good thing in any event and that she would go ahead with the change even if there were not a court backlog. What caused her to change her mind? Perhaps it was the change of Prime Minister. The Minister is a skilled orator. I am quite sure that she will manage to persuade the Lord Chancellor that she meant something completely different and always supported his position, and her rise through the ranks of Government will continue. We on the Conservative Benches wish her well.

The Crown court backlog is a serious challenge, and both victims and defendants deserve timely justice. Throughout the debate, Ministers have struggled to demonstrate that curtailing jury trials would meaningfully solve the problem. I still have concerns about clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which serve to add restrictions to jury trials and transfer more power to magistrates courts. That is why I support new clause 25, tabled by the shadow Justice Secretary, which seeks to put a sunset clause in the Bill. That would see the remaining restrictions on jury trials proposed by the Government end when the backlog is reduced to its pre-covid level.

I urge the Government to be cautious about the expansion of the powers of magistrates. The evidence is not clear that that will result in a reduction of the backlog. Where is the assurance that increased jurisdiction will not simply create new delays in different courts? Thousands of additional magistrates will be required in the coming years, yet previous recruitment efforts have failed. What will be different this time? The Justice Committee described the targets as “unrealistic”. Perhaps the Minister should consult her new Solicitor General and ask what his views are on the subject.

The Government still intend to remove the right to a jury trial for those charged with an either-way offence. I oppose that and support amendment 1, tabled by the shadow Justice Secretary. This matter poses a particularly grave threat to those who would face professional ruin if they were convicted of an offence of dishonesty. Solicitors, barristers and Members of Parliament, for example, would all have their careers destroyed were they convicted of theft, which is an either-way offence. That is why I support the sentiments in amendment 47 tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and amendment 69 tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I appreciate that we will not vote on those amendments tonight, but I hope that Members of the House of Lords will look at the issue again when they consider the Bill.

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

I want to raise three issues. Having been a magistrate for 20 years, I think that one of the things that has led to the problems has been the closure of so many courts across the estate. The potential to reopen some of those sites should be in the mix to get the magistrates courts up and running.

On the right to elect a court, I was opposed to clause 3, as the Minister will know, but the right to elect a court was not a red line for me, because it does not happen in Scotland, and I do not see its constitutional skies falling in upon its system.

I would like to see some changes in the victim contact scheme. At the moment, the scheme does not allow victims to be advised of whether an offender has changed their name or their appearance. That information is not routinely shared with victims because it is considered to be sensitive personal data, and there is a presumption that it will not be disclosed unless there is lawful reason to do so. Let us take the example of the Haselip family. In 2003, Mick Haselip was violently murdered in his home in Corby. Rikki Stewart was convicted of the murder and received a mandatory life sentence. When he was released in July 2024, he changed his name to Rory Wilson. Nobody informed the family of that, and they were absolutely unaware that he had changed his name. They say:

“This omission has undermined our ability to understand his movements, monitor our own safety and engage meaningfully with the Victim Contact Scheme.”

In 1986, Adam Stein murdered six-year-old Collette Gallacher. He has changed his appearance and name multiple times, and Collette’s younger sisters, Lauren and Claire, fear for their own safety if he is ever granted parole again. They do not know what he looks like. They do not know what his name is. The family are not aware. These people are living in plain sight, and this is a loophole that we need to close. We need to change the presumption that this information will not be disclosed to a presumption that it will be, so that families know what is happening.

To put the shoe on the other foot, Izzy was murdered by her husband as their two young daughters slept in the room next door. Izzy’s mum, Helena Sharrott, was granted a special guardianship order and there is a request to change the children’s names, but they have been told no because the father, who murdered their mother, has a say in it. That is wrong; it is unjust, and we need to change it.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Clause 17 would repeal the presumption of parental involvement contained in section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. That presumption currently provides that unless the contrary is shown, the involvement of each parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare. Amendment 67, tabled in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), would keep the presumption that parental involvement is beneficial for the welfare of the child. It is my belief that our legal system should reflect the fact that in most cases, a child benefits from having both parents involved in their life. Clause 17 would do the opposite. It sends a serious social signal that the active involvement of both parents is no longer our expected starting point when considering a child’s welfare.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Lee Barron Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Barron Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to recruit magistrates.

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

5. What steps his Department is taking to recruit magistrates.

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

We are accelerating magistrate recruitment to meet future demand. Trailblazing reforms in three regions are streamlining the process, reducing the time from application to appointment, and improving candidate experience. These reforms will shape a 2026 national roll-out. They are supported by work done with the judiciary to speed up onboarding and ensure that new magistrates sit sooner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is right; there was historical underfunding, which sadly left our courts with a £1.3 billion maintenance backlog. We increased the capital maintenance budget this year to deal with the problems that we inherited in our courts. She is right: magistrates are key. They are the cornerstone of our lay system, with 90% of criminal cases passing through the magistrates courts. We will be recruiting more, but streamlining the system and supporting magistrates with training is also key to retention, and we will invest in that as well.

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

Back in 2004, I became a magistrate—a position that I held for 20 years. When I first walked into the magistrates’ retiring room, I thought everybody in there had retired, because I brought the average age down by about 30 years. That shows that the position is a commitment—people serve for years—and how hard it can be to get younger people involved. First, what is the Department doing to properly recognise and reward long-serving magistrates who keep the system going? Secondly, what is being done to bring in more young justices of the peace, so that magistrates better reflect the communities that they serve?

[Mr Lammy]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his service as a magistrate. He is right: we want people from all walks of life, all backgrounds and all ages to feel able to serve in their local community and be a magistrate. He will be pleased to hear that 41% of newly appointed magistrates last year were under 50, as opposed to getting towards the pension age. There is more we can do. Some of that is around simplifying the procedures, and people understanding how to become magistrates, because the complexity of the system was unbelievable, and actually put people off applying.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Lee Barron Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. At the start of this Parliament, I was glad to hear that the Government promised a Hillsborough law, which would place a duty on public workers to act in the public interest. We know from Hillsborough, Grenfell, infected blood and Horizon that too often public bodies treat inquiries as reputational risks.

In Corby and East Northamptonshire, many constituents feel let down. Zena and Nicola Stanton spent years campaigning for Jorgie, Nicola’s daughter and Zena’s granddaughter, who died in Kettering general hospital in 2016. A coroner later found that hospital staff failed on five separate occasions in Jorgie’s care. That led to dehydration, sepsis, multiple organ failure and ultimately her death.

Zena and Nicola never gave up. They exposed the unhealthy culture in the ward, later confirmed in a report. Senior staff have now admitted mistakes. I believe that without that family’s fight, the truth may never have come out. I am glad that we finally secured meetings and apologies for them, but victims should not have to fight for years and rely on their MP simply to be heard. Families like Jorgie’s are fighting for every other family who will come to rely on that same ward.

We need reporting systems that reveal failures quickly. Hospitals and other public services should have transparency. I also believe that this is about culture. We need to end defensiveness in public services. It is wrong that public bodies spend unlimited taxpayer money fighting victims. Staff must also feel free to speak up and speak out. For Jorgie’s, Zena’s and Nicola’s sake, let us deliver a Hillsborough law worthy of its name, which makes candour a duty, gives families fair representation and ensures that yesterday’s injustices never become tomorrow’s.