PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Courts and Tribunals Bill - 19 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

The Government’s reforms will focus on delivering faster and fairer justice for victims. That includes removing the presumption of parental involvement to prioritise what is in the best interests of children after tireless campaigning by Claire Throssell, whose two sons, Jack and Paul, were killed by their father after their parents’ separation. Reforms also include strengthening the use of special measures and preventing the misuse of evidence to unfairly undermine victims in court.

On 3 February, the Lord Chancellor undertook to model his proposals for jury trials and to publish the results. Has the modelling been done and when will the results be published?

The reforms that the right hon. Gentleman refers to come after Sir Brian Leveson set out a report with 135 recommendations, making it clear that investment in the justice system alone would not solve the backlog left by the previous Conservative Government and that reform is also needed. Estimates show that it will reduce cases by 20%, although, given the modelling from Canada, those are likely conservative estimates.

The contentious element of the Courts and Tribunals Bill relates to the proposed changes to jury trials. It has united the legal profession, the Opposition Benches and a significant number of Government MPs. To avoid the embarrassment of Government MPs coming out and defending the policy only to face a U-turn, can the Solicitor General give a categorical assurance to those on her own Benches that there will be no U-turn or watering down of this folly of a policy?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman listened to what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say at Justice questions two days ago. The reality is that the last Conservative Government left the justice system on its knees, with a backlog of 80,000 cases, which, without both investment and reform, will simply go up. That is why we are funding unlimited sitting days, increasing spending on criminal defence lawyers and investing in the crumbling courts that the last Government left behind. But Sir Brian was clear that investment alone would not tackle the backlog sufficiently, and that is why radical reform is also needed.

Notwithstanding what the Solicitor General just said, she must recognise that there is growing resentment and lack of confidence not just among the general public but within the legal profession. How does she expect to maintain confidence in the judicial process against such widespread opposition?

Let me say something about confidence. Victims are waiting three years, in some cases, for their rape case to get to court because of the backlogs we inherited from the last Conservative Government—that is not confidence in the justice system. That is why these reforms are necessary. We are clearing up the mess that the previous Government left us.

It is obviously outrageous that rape victims have to wait three years—we all accept that, and we have heard moving testimony on that. The problem is that the Institute for Government has found that abolishing jury trials may only get these rape trials on a week earlier. The Labour manifesto promised specialist rape courts. Why does the Solicitor General not take action by setting up specialist rape courts and paying lawyers properly to undertake the work, so we can deal with this backlog now?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that listing is a matter for the judiciary, but one proposal is a national listing framework to ensure that cases are listed as soon as possible. We are committed to supporting victims of rape and serious sexual violence. That is why we launched our landmark strategy in December to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. It is why we are investing over half a billion pounds in victim support services, including for victims of rape and serious sexual violence.

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

At her annual press conference this week, the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, said:

“I have grave security concerns if there are going to be judge-alone trials.”

Does the Solicitor General share those concerns, and what are the Government doing about it?

My hon. Friend, as always, makes an extremely important point. I would be happy to discuss the comments of the Lady Chief Justice, with whom I meet regularly, with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to get answers on that important issue.

Our plan for court reform implements time savings across the system, not just in the courtroom but in a number of other aspects of the justice system that contribute to delays with the administration of jury trials, such as the summoning of jurors, the compiling of jury bundles, juror expenses and behind-the-scenes preparation. Does the Solicitor General agree that those crucial changes will address the bigger picture of delays across the system and allow the Crown Prosecution Service to focus on delivering swift justice for victims?

My hon. Friend is completely right, and she has considerable experience as a former Crown prosecutor. She will know that that is why we are investing £2.78 billion in the coming year, which includes over £280 million for vital repairs, digital upgrades and unlimited sitting days in the Crown court—record funding for our courts. Only the combination of reform, investment and modernisation will ultimately deliver faster and fairer justice.

It should be a fundamental right to be safe at home. The Courts and Tribunals Bill delivers that for children in this country by removing the presumption of parental contact. Will the Solicitor General join me in paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of Claire Throssell, who has fought every day in Jack and Paul’s memory to put children’s safety in law, so no one else will have to suffer as they did?

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I am sure that the whole House will want to pay tribute to Claire Throssell for her tireless campaigning and to the memory of her two children, Jack and Paul. Every child deserves to be safe and every family deserves a justice system that they can trust. We need to make sure that what happened to Claire and her children never happens again. That is why this Government are introducing the measure to repeal the presumption of parental involvement. Courts will no longer start from an assumption that parental involvement is always in a child’s best interests, and instead adopt an open-minded inquiry into what is in a child’s best interests. This Government are putting children’s welfare and safety first.

I welcome the Government’s reforms to the criminal justice system, but I would like to ask what measures will be taken to increase cultural, class and age-group diversity in magistrate recruitment, so as to increase confidence in our reforms?

As always, my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I understand that measures are being taken to recruit more magistrates from more diverse backgrounds. Magistrates are the cornerstone of local justice and it is right that they represent the communities in which they are taking decisions.

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

On Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, told the House that “politics is about choices”, so let us be clear about the choices that this Government have made. They chose to bring forward a Bill with no consultation, no manifesto mandate, no Green Paper, no White Paper and no robust modelling. They chose to go further than Sir Brian Leveson had recommended. They chose to remove the right to trial by jury for offences carrying up to three years in prison—sentences that will cost defendants their jobs, their homes and their families. And they chose to do all this in five days of Committee scrutiny. What does the Minister think about the choices that her Government have made? What will she tell the victims of miscarriages of justice and the thousands of legal professionals who oppose the measures?

May I first pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s tireless campaigning on behalf of her constituents, Paula and Tony Hudgell? I am pleased that the Government have now announced a child cruelty register.

In relation to the points made by the hon. Lady, Sir Brian Leveson—an incredibly well regarded and experienced lawyer—took months on his two reports, which set out a huge number of recommendations. The hon. Lady talks about choices. Well, we inherited a court system on its knees, with rape victims waiting three years—more, in some cases—for their cases to get to court. It was a dereliction of duty by the previous Government not to tackle that court backlog, but we are getting on with the job. That is the choice that this Government have made.

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for what she said about the Hudgell case and the child cruelty register. It has been an amazing campaign, led by Paula Hudgell and her little boy, and I am pleased that we were able to get cross-party support to change the law and hopefully look after children and save lives. It is unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Lady just will not answer the very straightforward questions that I am asking.

Jo Hamilton OBE was a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal. She made it clear that, under Government proposals, none of the wrongly convicted 900 sub-postmasters would have had the right to a jury trial. Just this weekend, there was a further revelation, this time involving the Prime Minister. In a report, he had previously concluded that scrapping jury trials led to unreliable convictions in Northern Ireland in the 1990s. Will the Solicitor General explain how removing this vital safeguard makes the justice system more fair, not less?

The hon. Lady will be well aware that we are not removing jury trials; they will remain a cornerstone of this justice system. The reality is that the vast majority of cases heard in this country—90%—are not heard by a jury, so it is wrong to say that we are getting rid of jury trials. Some cases involving sentences that are expected to be three years or less will be triable either way, which will be heard by a judge. Judges act without fear or favour, and they swear a judicial oath, but jury trials will still continue in this country.