Courts and Tribunals Bill

Debate between Nick Timothy and Natalie Fleet

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy]

Crown court waiting times were actually lower under the Conservatives until the pandemic. It is true that the backlog grew during the pandemic, but the pandemic came before the general election, so why, if it was so necessary, was this measure not in the Labour party manifesto?

I am willing to accept that my account may be unfair. Despite all the evidence provided by the Justice Secretary over the years, the policy might not be explained by his incompetence. Just as plausible is ideological vandalism, and we should take Ministers at their word. To be clear, I do not mean the occasion when the Justice Secretary insisted:

“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”

No, I mean the explanation given by the Minister for Courts. She said, “This is ideological.” Asked if the Government would be doing this for reasons other than efficiency, she said yes. If we join the dots, this does make sense, because Labour Governments have tried to do it before—in 1999, 2003 and 2007. [Interruption.] The Justice Secretary says Margaret Thatcher did it. Not only is that not true, but if he reads “The Downing Street Years” he will get a lesson in conviction politics and strong leadership, which this Government do not understand.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Timothy]

I will not give way.

Of course, when the Justice Secretary’s predecessor, the Home Secretary, commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review of the criminal courts, she knew what she was doing, because in an earlier review Sir Brian had already said that jury trials should be restricted, with magistrates deciding the mode of trial and appeals made to a circuit judge. Perhaps the Justice Secretary sees this, like the early release scheme, as another hospital pass from his predecessor, who like the hardened criminals she let out of prison early, got out of the MOJ before facing the consequences of her actions. If he does think that, he should not feel that he has to go ahead with it.

Yet here the Justice Secretary is today proposing not only what Sir Brian Leveson recommended, but an even more radical change. He is telling the House that he has no choice but to rush this very serious legislation through Parliament at breakneck speed. The Bill was published less than two weeks ago, after no consultation at all, and today he is already asking hon. Members to approve its Second Reading. He is allowing only five days for Members to scrutinise the Bill line by line in Committee. That is less than the Government allowed for the Railways Bill, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill. It is about the same time the House once spent scrutinising the Salmon Act 1986, which introduced the offence of handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. It is less time than the 44 debates, statements and urgent questions this House has heard on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon since the election.

We are not talking about legislating to recognise the sentience of crustacea or regulate travelling circuses; we are talking about a fundamental change to our constitution, the operation of our courts and the rights of our people. In the words of His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC, this Bill is

“one of the most radical and revolutionary events in English legal history. Yet it has not appeared in any manifesto; it has not been put out for consultation; it has not been recommended by Leveson”.

He says that it

“has been ‘published’ with virtually no notice to anyone”.

What arrogance, Madam Deputy Speaker—what a disgrace!

If this Bill had been the subject of consultation and this Justice Secretary had spent any time listening to judges, lawyers and the public, he would know that it will fail on its own terms. He says that it will deliver justice for more victims, but in Canada and Australia—jurisdictions he cites as an inspiration—judge-only trials have seen more acquittals than jury trials. Indeed, the impact assessment predicts that fewer people will go to prison as a result of these changes. That should be no surprise: asking judges sitting alone to take responsibility for depriving somebody of their liberty is far more onerous than asking 12 fellow citizens who can discuss the evidence, argue the case and share the burden between them.

A corresponding danger to justice is posed by the proposals to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years and to limit the right to appeal their rulings. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said earlier, no fewer than 40% of appeals against verdicts and 47% of appeals against sentences issued by magistrates are successful. Incredibly, the Justice Secretary seemed to suggest just now that these figures are not a cause for concern, but a cause for celebration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

I completely—

[Natalie Fleet]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Nick Timothy]

I give way.

[Natalie Fleet]

The right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) is absolutely right to talk about confidence in public institutions, because that is what we are addressing today. I stand before the House as a victim who would not report because I do not want to be retraumatised over years. I speak on behalf of the victims in the Gallery and the victims out there in the country. That is where I want us to restore confidence. That is what we need to do today.

[Nick Timothy]

I totally understand what the hon. Lady says, and we are all interested in the best interests of victims. [Interruption.] To suggest otherwise is absolutely appalling, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) should withdraw that comment.

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). I was concerned by the Justice Secretary saying that he is proud of the fact that his party does not just look to the past and to how things have been; I think one of the problems with Labour is that it is too careless with how things have always been. This is exactly what we are talking about. This is an ancient constitutional and legal right, and Labour is being careless about it.