Courts and Tribunals Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Stace on a very thoughtful and personal maiden speech. He is a friend who I have known for over a quarter of a century. Both of our families lived and grew up in south London and in south London Labour politics.

As we have heard, my noble friend Lord Stace brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to your Lordships’ House. He did not do justice to the work that he did when he was CEO of the Prince’s Trust, now the King’s Trust. In its 40-year history, the then Prince’s Trust helped and supported over 1 million people. As the new CEO, my noble friend Lord Stace—or Nick, as he was then—set an ambitious target of helping 1 million more over the next decade. He also did not touch on his time as the CEO of Saga travel—known to some of us in your Lordships’ House. When Nick became CEO, he was under the age of 50 and had to get special dispensation to attend and travel on some of the Saga cruises, which I am sure he thoroughly enjoyed. Finally, what an apt Bill for him to make a maiden speech on. As chair of the Prison Reform Trust, my noble friend brings an understanding and compassion that will be greatly appreciated and respected across your Lordships’ House. I welcome Nick, my noble friend Lord Stace.

I turn to 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. I want to approach the Bill through the lens of social justice. The question is not simply how many cases can move through the system; it is whether someone without money, influence or knowledge of the law can obtain justice, and whether victims can secure a hearing before delay exhausts 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 80,000 open Crown Court cases and over 380,000 open cases in magistrates’ courts. For a victim, delay can mean repeated preparation for a hearing that does not happen. For an innocent 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 why I welcome the Government’s willingness to listen, and their decision not to proceed with the proposed Crown Court Bench division changes.

I welcome the provisions 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.

The remaining structural reforms require careful examination. Removing the adult defendant’s right to elect a 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. 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 Justice Committee’s chair put it plainly:

“A clear plan to ensure there is capacity to meet increased demand is vital”.


Will my noble friend the Minister published 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 add that 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 a 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 the 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 and socioeconomic status. That is not special treatment; it is a test of whether equal treatment exists in practice. However, 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 do not start—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.

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 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 the Bill.