Oral Answers to Questions

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to increase the number of magistrates.

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

Magistrates play a vital role in delivering local justice, and we value their contribution as volunteers. Up to 2029, we are increasing the number of magistrates to 21,000, which is a 50% rise. We have quadrupled investment in magistrate recruitment with a new national campaign, which I hope hon. Members have seen—it launched in the autumn—and we will have more frequent regional campaigns going forward.

[Warinder Juss]

Although I support the Government’s reform of the justice system to tackle the courts backlog, it is clear that more cases will be going to the magistrates court. Estimates suggest that will require the recruitment of an additional 6,000 to 7,000 magistrates by 2029, but previous attempts to increase their numbers have been unsuccessful. Will the Secretary of State please tell me what the Government are doing differently this time around? What practical steps is his Department taking to recruit and retain magistrates? Finally, what contingency plans are in place if the recruitment target is not met?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that our target is ambitious, but it is achievable. We are recruiting the same number of magistrates into the system as was the case back in 2014, so we have done it before and we can get there. What has changed this time is that there is a national taskforce to fast-track the process and halve recruitment times, and we are working with the judiciary to ensure that magistrates feel more appreciated. It is also important to say that I will provide an update on the numbers, which will be published on 9 July, and while I do not want to pre-empt that publication, it is good news that we are already seeing progress.

Home Office and Ministry of Justice

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), and indeed, to follow all the Members who have contributed to what has been a very thoughtful debate. There seems to be a huge amount of cross-party consensus, indicated by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and my colleague on the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work that he does in championing sound public finances. I also agreed with a great deal of what he said about this being an issue across Government, and about the Public Accounts Committee therefore being well placed to contribute to the discussion and, indeed, the solutions. Failures to address these issues have significant effects, both on the public finances and on the most vulnerable people in society, and, indeed, they are issues that are often reflected in our constituency mailboxes.

I was contacted recently by a young woman who had reported child sexual abuse to the police last year. Owing to repeated delays and cancellations, she has still not had her “achieving best evidence” interview with the police. That is extremely distressing for her, as all can imagine, but I am afraid it is symptomatic of the delays that persist within the criminal justice system, and we know that young victims are significantly more likely to withdraw from the justice process when a case is dragging on. In 2023, more than one in four rape investigations ended because the victims could no longer continue. These long waiting times are a significant factor when it comes to achieving justice, not to mention the cost to the public purse. With that in mind, I am pleased that the Government have already lifted the cap on the number of days on which courts can sit, because it will promote efficiency within the system. We must use our court estate to its full capacity, and we know that that is not happening at present.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Not long ago, I had a meeting with a group of barristers at Wolverhampton Crown court. They were grateful to the Government for uncapping the number of hearing days and trial dates, which they said had made a significant difference to the court backlogs, but they also raised the problem of prisoners not arriving in court on time. They felt that dealing with it would make a significant impact on ensuring that cases did proceed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could perhaps take another look at that?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I entirely agree, and my hon. Friend has anticipated a point that I was going to make. The increased court days are clearly vital to maintaining productivity and the efficiency of the use of court time, although that only works if the court system itself is working. We have seen very good examples of the way in which the additional days are already being used to clear backlogs and reduce the number of outstanding cases. In the English courts, we have seen evidence of the prioritisation of domestic abuse cases involving vulnerable witnesses. This can reduce waiting times, particularly for people involved in those sensitive cases—and yes, that makes a big difference to them individually, but it also makes an impact on our system as a whole.

As my hon. Friend has said, we need a court estate that is fit for purpose in order to maximise the use of these additional days. I too have visited my local court, in this instance Newcastle Crown court. What was obvious, even on the day I was there, was the consequence of some of the malfunctions in the system that make it difficult for court cases to proceed, such as faulty infrastructure, the flooding of parts of the court building, dock alarms or door locks failing to operate. As a result of such problems, staff do not feel safe enough to do their work and maintain the security of the courtroom, and therefore cannot go ahead. Often it is vulnerable victims who bear the brunt of delays and cancelled court hearings.

On the day I was at Newcastle Crown court, I heard about a complainant in a rape case. Her husband was the victim of an assault by the defendant, who had raped his wife. They were forced to wait four hours for the trial to begin. They were eventually told that the defendant would arrive and that the delay to his delivery was causing the delay, but it had a knock-on effect on additional days in court. Such delays ensue right across the system.

Court staff report that, from a structural perspective, many of the issues affecting the court system in Newcastle have been caused by the departure of a full-time maintenance engineer, who was dismissed due to the need to make savings. In the light of the many delays of trials and hearings, that appears to be a false economy, which is why I am pleased that the Government have recognised the challenges to the court estate itself and are making investments. I am also really pleased that the Minister is acting on the huge problem of private contractors delivering defendants to an incorrect court, several hours late or just not at all.

Midway through a trial in Newcastle in April, a defendant left court in custody on a Friday, only to fail to reappear the following Monday, with a jury ready and waiting. It is completely unacceptable, a total waste of taxpayers’ money and hugely offensive to those taking part in trials. I know the Minister is aware of these issues and is keen to establish an oversight body to review the prisoner transfer process from end to end. I will keep a very close eye on that, and I am sure that other Members contributing to this debate will do the same.

Finally, I know that the Government recognise the importance of providing free legal advice, as set out very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. The Public Accounts Committee has recognised the importance of investing up to £34 million more a year in criminal aid, which is welcome.

I conclude by asking the Minister to join me in recognising both the human and the financial benefit of timely justice, the absolute importance of maintaining our court estate, and the improvements. Where we see good practice happening across our system, it must be shared. I often hear good ideas and wonder why they are not being done elsewhere, and we need to have a system in which good practice is shared and best practice is rolled out for the benefit of justice right across the system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Magistrates play a hugely important role. I was sad that they were cut back under the previous Government. There used to be about 29,000. The hon. Gentleman will see the recruitment campaign right across the country. We need a new generation of magistrates, and I want them to come from all backgrounds.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Half of all prisoners lack the basic literacy skills needed to navigate everyday life, only one in three secure employment within six months of release, and a third reoffend within a year. Rehabilitation, reducing reoffending, and improving public safety must be at the heart of our criminal justice system. Will the Secretary of State please commit to increasing funding for prison education, so that offenders can access the basic skills and support they need to rebuild their lives, reintegrate, and contribute positively to society when they leave prison?

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend has been consistent in raising that important issue, and we are committed to ensuring sufficient education provision for prisoners. I would gently stress, however, that we can only provide that education if we are able to get prisoners into the classroom. We need to stabilise and get order back into the prison system after the chaos that we inherited, but this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that prisoners have education and work opportunities on leaving prison.

Youth Justice

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his expertise in this area. He is right to mention the role that the education system plays, and not just for those in custody. There is more to do in respect of education for young people in custody. Too many of them spent time in their cells during the pandemic, and not outside their cells getting skills. We are looking at reforming referral orders and, whereas we previously had just volunteer panels keeping up to date with these young people in communities, we are looking a bit closer at the role of the judge and professionals in those referrals to ensure that education is taking place and that we have a more multidisciplinary approach in respect of the outcomes for those young people. I thank him for mentioning special advocacy and I assure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, is looking closely at this and chairing a group to look at the issues.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the White Paper. My right hon. Friend has acknowledged that 80% of prolific offenders first offend as children and that two thirds of children reoffend within a year after being released from custody, so does he agree that early and fast intervention is crucial to cut crime? Can he please also outline what specific youth provision, including mental health help, is available to young people in my constituency of Wolverhampton West to deal with this issue?

[Mr Lammy]

I will look specifically at my hon. Friend’s constituency. It should be the case that turnaround and diversion work can make a difference, and I hope it is making a difference in his patch. I met the previous Health Secretary to discuss these issues, and I look forward to taking them up with the new Health Secretary in the coming days.

Asbestos-related Lung Cancer: Compensation Act 2006

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I have called this Adjournment debate on the subject of the Compensation Act 2006 and asbestos-related lung cancer because I wish to bring to the attention of this House an injustice in the way the law treats victims of asbestos-related disease, and to urge the Government to review the operation of section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 to ensure that it supports sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer. A simple change in the law will ensure that all victims of lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work are treated equally to those suffering from mesothelioma.

Although asbestos has been banned in the United Kingdom for more than 25 years, its deadly legacy continues. Each year, around 5,000 people in Great Britain die from cancers caused by asbestos exposure at work. It remains the single biggest workplace killer in the country. In my constituency of West Dunbartonshire, this issue is particularly prevalent. My constituency is among Europe’s worst hotspots for deaths linked to a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work, with more than 340 deaths since 1980. I have lived in Clydebank all my life and have seen at first hand the devastating effects of asbestos. This issue is deeply personal to the community I represent. For a number of years I have worked closely with the Clydebank Asbestos Group, an organisation that does so much to fight for truth and justice for sufferers of asbestos-related illness.

Towns like Clydebank, Dumbarton and the surrounding villages were built on heavy industry and, above all, the proud tradition of shipbuilding along the River Clyde. Generations of local men and women worked in the great yards, such as John Brown & Company, and in the engineering works, factories and power stations that supported them. Those industries built ships that sailed the world and powered Britain’s economy, but they also exposed thousands of workers to asbestos without adequate protection. They trusted their employers to keep them safe and, in too many cases, that trust was betrayed.

To give a bit of background, the origins of section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 lie in a series of court decisions that exposed a serious problem in the law for victims of mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. In the case of Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services, the House of Lords recognised the unique position that these victims face. Asbestos diseases can develop decades after exposure, and because it is impossible to identify which particular fibre caused the illness, the court accepted that it should be enough for a claimant to show that an employer had materially increased the risk of the disease. However, a later ruling in Barker v. Corus UK created a new difficulty by deciding that employers should be liable only for their share of the risk. In practice, that meant victims could lose a large part of their compensation if some employers or their insurers could no longer be traced.

Parliament recognised that this outcome was deeply unfair and rightly acted quickly to unanimously pass the Compensation Act 2006, ensuring that people suffering from mesothelioma could recover full compensation from any one negligent employer. Section 3 of the Act therefore created a crucial protection. It allows victims of mesothelioma to recover full compensation from any one negligent employer, even if other former employers or their insurers cannot be traced. That reform was passed with unanimous support because Members recognised that people diagnosed with a terminal asbestos-related cancer should not be forced to pursue complex claims against multiple employers while facing an extremely limited life expectancy.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does he agree that the whole reasoning of section 3 of the Compensation Act was because of the difficulty in identifying employers who exposed claimants to the particular fibres that caused mesothelioma, and that it is a huge anomaly that the section should apply to mesothelioma cases caused by asbestos but not to cases where people have developed lung cancer due to asbestos? This injustice should be remedied as soon as possible.

[Douglas McAllister]

My hon. Friend is correct, and I recognise his obvious expertise in this matter. I believe that he practised law, and in particular personal injury law, prior to being elected to this House. I thank him for his intervention and for all he does for his constituents in Wolverhampton West.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Warinder Juss Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

Of course I accept that the legal system has evolved and changed, and that the right to trial by jury has changed, but my concern is that in serious cases, where someone could be imprisoned for up to two years and their reputation destroyed, people would want to be tried by jury. Our legal system currently protects that right, but that would be swept away by this Bill.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

We already have judges who make decisions on cases where children are taken away from parents, so does the hon. Gentleman not consider those to be serious cases? Some 90% of cases are dealt with by magistrates, so does he say that justice is not achieved in those cases?

[Gideon Amos]

Of course magistrates do a vital job, but when I visited magistrates in my constituency, they explained that they seriously doubt that it will be possible to recruit sufficient people to meet Ministry of Justice estimates about cost saving and time saving.

To conclude, for me cases that will result in imprisonment of up to three years—or up to two years if they come before a magistrate—are serious enough to warrant the right of defendants to request a trial by jury. Those are the protections currently in place in law. We should hold on to those protections and defend them as a guarantee of our liberty in this House and in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

What I am saying is that there is a reason that we protect this liberty—this cornerstone of our system of justice and democracy. When we see this much of a change in state power, I will tell my hon. Friend who is at the receiving end first: it is black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, working-class communities, elderly communities and women who are disproportionately impacted.

[Warinder Juss]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the restriction of jury trials in some cases is just one among a whole range of measures, and that in order to protect really vulnerable victims—for example, rape victims, who will have a jury trial—we need to make the process quicker? That necessarily means that, for some other cases, the decision to take away juries is a measure to protect the most vulnerable.

[Imran Hussain]

These are not competing interests. I thank all hon. Members who have made brave and passionate speeches today—I salute their courage. Of course we want to see justice delivered to victims as soon as possible, but there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that curtailing jury trials will do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) addressed that point with great passion.

Let us be clear about what the proposals mean in practice. The Government are suggesting that people could face lengthy prison sentences following judge-only processes in a new category of so-called swift courts. Frankly, that should send a chill through every democrat in this country. Ministers claim that this is about efficiency, but no argument has been put forward in this debate to support that. Restricting jury trials would deliver only limited time savings in the Crown court system—hon. Members have made that case time and again today.

The core point is that undermining fundamental rights will not fix a backlog caused by years of under-investment, court closures, reduced capacity and a criminal justice system stretched to breaking point. Ministers have published impact assessments, but they have still not shown that curtailing jury trials will meaningfully solve a backlog caused by years of under-resourcing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I was recently contacted by a constituent who was raped more than three years ago. Her initial court date was set for February last year, more than two years after the offence. She prepared for that day practically, mentally and emotionally, only for the hearing to be pushed back by 24 hours at the last minute. That happened three times in a row—three nights without sleep, three mornings of preparation, three days of reliving her trauma with no progress being made. The case was then postponed again, this time for an entire year. She went through another 12 months of stress and uncertainty, hoping to close this painful chapter of her life in January of this year, but the date was once again pushed back, this time until November. All my constituent wants is to receive the justice that she deserves and move on with her life. Our justice system is failing victims by delaying justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Rachel Taylor]

I really feel for my hon. Friend’s constituent. Warwickshire police used to have one of the worst records in the country for charging in rape cases, but they have turned that around and now have one of the best. Does he agree that, for the police to continue doing their work investigating the accused, our court system must support fair and timely trials? Only then will we restore public trust in our justice system.

[Warinder Juss]

Yes, the measures are all about getting timely justice, which is why I will support the Bill.

This Labour Government inherited a system on the brink of collapse, and in which cases like my constituent’s are all too common. We must all recognise that action is sorely needed, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to reform. I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his detailed and thoughtful review—part 1 was completed last July, so the Bill is not being rushed. His review has played a significant role in shaping the reforms in the Bill. I know that there are mixed opinions about the proposed changes to jury trials, but the independent review of the criminal courts was carried out because of the truly appalling backlog in our criminal justice system. I have heard of trials in the most seriously affected courts being listed into 2030. I heard this morning that victims are saying that waiting three years for their case to come to court was worse than the rape itself. Jury trials do take longer, and I would have preferred the Government to follow Sir Brian’s recommendation that a new bench division be created, in which a judge and two magistrates try cases without a jury.

However, I trust this Government to take the necessary steps to repair our justice system while preserving the sanctity, fairness and integrity that underpin justice in this country. Any proportionate and appropriate amendments to the Bill can be made in Committee. I also welcome the investment that this Government have made in modernising our court system, to try to reduce the backlog while ensuring that victims do not face unnecessary delays and inefficient processes when seeking justice.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I recently visited Leeds Crown court, where I saw the benefits of some of that investment in a victim support suite, which ensured that victims, particularly of violence against women and girls, were safe and secure. Does my hon. Friend agree that both the investment and the reforms that we are considering are necessary to deliver swift and fair justice for victims?

[Warinder Juss]

Absolutely. I have had discussions with Sir Brian Leveson on a number of occasions, and he confirms that no one measure will achieve the reforms we need; we need to take a number of measures, of which the restriction in jury trials is just one, to achieve what we are trying to achieve.

I also welcome the additional safeguards for victims in rape and serious sexual offences cases, drawing on recommendations from the Law Commission. These new procedures will ensure that vulnerable victims of these horrific crimes are protected throughout the justice process, prevent further trauma, and ensure a move away from lines of questioning that perpetuate harmful rape myths and stereotypes.

The backlog in our courts and the delays denying justice to victims require bold and drastic action, and we need to take that action now. I therefore welcome this Government taking concrete steps to address the crisis that we have inherited, and I will support this Bill. Although I have concentrated on jury trials, there are other measures in the Bill that I welcome, such as the move away from the presumption of parental involvement in family courts, which will allow the Government to put the best interests of children first. We need drastic action, and we need to take it now, so I welcome everything the Government are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Lady is totally right to raise that point. We talk a lot about multi-agency working, but it is difficult to put into practice. As she will be aware, just before Christmas we published the “Freedom from Violence and Abuse” strategy on how we can tackle violence against women and girls, with multi-agency working on a national level and practices and applications at the heart of that strategy. I will meet our victims’ sector advisory board later this afternoon, and I will make sure to raise this point with them as well, so that we bring them in. They are the people on the ground delivering this work, so we should learn from them directly.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the action that the Government are taking to reduce the court backlogs, especially for cases involving violence against women and girls. What consultation has taken place with victims organisations and charities regarding the plans to restrict jury trials? We must ensure that these victims are kept at the heart of any reforms to the courts system, so that they can be satisfied that timely justice will be delivered.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is right that victims are put back at the heart of our criminal justice system. For far too long, their views and their voices were ignored, but not by this Government. The Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) and I have met many victims of horrific crimes to hear about how court delays have impacted on them. The Victims’ Commissioner is supportive of our reforms as outlined in Sir Brian Leveson’s report, and we look forward to part 2 being published imminently so that we can discuss how better we can support victims of these crimes going forward, ensuring that they get their day in court and see justice being done.

Jury Trials

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right: at the heart of the considerations that we must make as we bring our justice system, reformed and rebuilt, into the 21st century, are victims. This is all about delivering swift justice for victims, because what our constitution guarantees is not a constitutional right to a jury trial, but a constitutional right to a fair trial. The essential ingredient of fairness is timeliness, not waiting years while evidence deteriorates, memories fade, and victims and witnesses alike pull out; it is about getting swift justice. When I talk about reform of the system, of course I listen to important stakeholders who lead our professions, and of course their opinion counts, but my interest is in having a criminal justice system that serves the public, not one that serves lawyers.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

The Opposition are keen to rely on Magna Carta to defend jury trials, but Magna Carta also states that justice should not be delayed. Sir Brian Leveson reported that jury trials are taking twice as long as they did in 2000 because criminal cases are now much more complex and can involve thousands of pages of electronic evidence. We are putting more pressure—financial and otherwise—on jurors, and it is now much more difficult to support and guide them. There is clearly a case for reform. I understand that one recommendation made by Sir Brian Leveson was to have jury trials replaced by a judge and two magistrates, so could that be a possible compromise to reduce the delays?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the nature of crime and of the evidence presented is altering the way our criminal justice system works, but let me provide this reassurance to the House: as well as modernising and rebuilding our justice system, these measures are designed to protect jury trials for the most serious cases. As I have said, many of those trials are becoming compromised, with many victims of the most serious crimes waiting years for justice. It is right that when we ask jurors to do the most important civic duty, we use their time wisely. Does it make sense that the queue of the victim of rape or of a homicide is shared with someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky and who could be dealt with by a lay magistrate who, by the way, introduces the lay and democratic element into our courts?

HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Justice Committee member, Warinder Juss.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Any prisoner absconding is, of course, bad news and something that should not happen, but does the Minister agree that it is a symptom of the broken-down prison system that we inherited from the previous Government and something that we are now trying to sort out? Can she confirm that the rate of prisoners absconding is lower under this Government than it was under the previous Government?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is right: the levels are decreasing. That is due to the strong and robust frameworks on absconding prisoners that we are putting in place. We inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse and took immediate action days after coming into office to stabilise our prisons. We are bearing down on releases in error, which have caused huge upset and concern to victims and can put the public at risk. I state again at the Dispatch Box that that is wholly unacceptable. We have introduced mandatory stronger release checks to catch those errors before they happen, as that is the most effective way of protecting the public, and Dame Lynne Owens is examining the causes of releases in error.

Abscondment numbers are coming down. I am proud of the work that has been done. Any abscondment is one too many and we are working to bring that number down even further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

15. What steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

20. What steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis. Whether for a family experiencing family breakdown, small business owners trying to resolve contractual disputes or victims of crime, we inherited a system in crisis in every jurisdiction. We are beginning to turn that oil tanker around. We are sitting at maximum or close to maximum capacity in every single jurisdiction, while investing up to £450 million in our courts every year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss]

Justice delayed is justice denied is the harsh reality for the nearly 80,000 cases that are currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court. I am pleased that the Government are taking action to modernise our justice system and to be reassured that the sanctity of jury trials will be preserved. Considering that only 3% of criminal cases are currently tried by a jury, what assessment has the Minister made on the impact that removing jury trials from certain either-way offences will have on significantly reducing the present unacceptable court backlogs?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend raises a number of incredibly important points. Behind each and every one of those 80,000 cases in the backlog is a victim, as well as someone who is accused who may be trying to clear their name. As the backlog heads in the wrong direction, with agonising delays for all participants, we will not sit idly by. That is why we have adopted the recommendations of the independent review of criminal courts. It makes the important observation that 90% of cases in this country are currently dealt with robustly, properly and in a timely fashion without a jury in our magistrates courts. The whole package of reforms that we are bringing forward, which is not a pick-and-mix, is designed to deliver swifter justice for victims.