PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Jury Trials - 7 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I beg to move,

That this House believes that it is wrong to abolish jury trials for crimes with anticipated sentences of three years or less because jury trials are a fundamental part of the UK constitution and democracy; acknowledges the scale of the courts backlog and the necessity of reducing it to ensure justice for victims but believes that restricting the fundamental right to trial by jury will have a limited effect on reducing that backlog; calls on the Government to increase the number of court sitting days to help urgently reduce the backlog; and further calls on the Government to publish immediately all modelling it has undertaken and received on the potential impact of the abolition of jury trials on that backlog.

The Government propose to abolish the right to trial by jury for a vast range of offences and for any case where they expect a sentence of three years or less. This is nothing less than wielding a constitutional axe against a centuries-old cornerstone of our liberty. Juries are not some bureaucratic add-on to our justice system; they are the means by which the public consent to and participate in the exercise of the gravest power of the state: the power to convict and imprison our fellow citizens.

Yes, we face a serious Crown court backlog—that is not in any dispute today. That is not even a subject of debate today, because everyone on both sides of the House knows it and acknowledges it. We all accept that its roots did not begin under this Labour Government; it goes back to the pandemic and further than that. We all accept that there has been a lack of investment in our criminal justice system under Governments of all political persuasions, that the criminal Bar is in a weak place, and that young people do not feel they can go into the law or at least not into this most challenging and poorly paid part of it. We all accept that some of our courtrooms are in a terrible state, that the IT system is failing, that the contracts for getting prisoners to court on time are poorly managed and that the private contractors are underperforming. We all accept that the system is in a mess and needs to be reformed, but that is not the question at hand today. The question before us is, what is the best way to resolve this, and is the route to fix our criminal justice system and to deliver swift justice for victims to scrap something that we have known as a country since 1215, if not before?

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way; he is always generous with his time. He talks about the length of time it takes for victims to get justice. I speak to police officers in my constituency all the time who say that one of the issues with the backlog, this waiting list, is that people who have been police officers for three years are asked to go to court for cases about things that happened before they were even police officers. Does he recognise that this is a huge challenge that we need to overcome?

I do. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is shameful to our country that victims of serious crimes like rape will have to wait until 2028 or 2029. In fact, I believe the longest listing hence today is 2030. No one in this Chamber could possibly defend that for one moment, but will this policy make a material difference to fixing that problem? I do not believe that it will. I have not heard anyone who really believes in their heart that it will fix the problem, and if it is going to make a difference, publish the modelling and the evidence so we can see it, because Lord Leveson has not published any modelling. Lord Leveson gave a view that it might lead to a 20% reduction in the length of a trial. That is heavily disputed by other practitioners, including—and I do not mean to demean Lord Leveson—people who are closer to the coalface of our criminal justice system: judges and criminal barristers. The Department has not published any modelling. Does it exist? If it does, publish it and then we can have an honest and evidence-led debate.

As my right hon. Friend squares up to lead civil society in a battle against this monstrous measure, may I ask him to have some sympathy for Labour Members, who are about to be led to the top of the hill once again, as they were with the farm tax and the winter fuel allowance, on a measure that simply will not deliver the solution it is designed to? They will all end up having the rug ripped from under them once again after enduring all the political pain.

My right hon. Friend is right. Having served as a Minister in the last Conservative Government under multiple Prime Ministers, I have been led up a few hills before myself, and I know what it feels like to be a Minister in this situation. This is not a hill to die upon. Let us fix this problem. Let us build a cross-party consensus on how we get the backlog down—I will speak about a few of the solutions as I see them, as we see them, in a moment. This policy is not going to happen. I honestly believe that this is not going to happen.

There is opposition not just from the official Opposition, but from every other party—Reform, Plaid, independents and the Liberal Democrats. There is opposition from Labour Members—good, experienced colleagues on the Government side. There is opposition in the House of Lords from Labour peers of the highest repute like Helena Kennedy—people who have spent careers in the law. This was not in the manifesto; the House of Lords does not have to support it. The last time Jack Straw and Tony Blair tried to do this, the House of Lords stepped in and it failed.

This is a distraction. This is a waste of everyone’s time. If the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary and his Ministers care about swift justice, they should scrap this pointless distraction and focus every hour of the day on the hard yards of government, on doing the difficult things, and on the administrative failures of the Ministry of Justice that have existed for years, so we can actually ensure that the backlog is brought down.

I will come to the hon. Lady in a moment, but I give way to my right hon. Friend.

My right hon. Friend is being characteristically overgenerous to the Government when he talks about the requirement for modelling. This is not a “Mastermind” question; it is simple arithmetic. Three per cent of trials are by jury. If we do away with half of them, which is more draconian than even the Government are talking about, and there is a difference of 20%, the maximum difference it could make to the throughput of the court system is 0.3%. It will make no difference whatsoever to one of our most fundamental issues, yet it will throw away the most fundamental tenet of our justice system.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why if the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence—

Order. It is easier if you look at me because I cannot pick up what you are saying when you are turned the other way.

Of course, Mr Speaker—apologies.

If the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence and the modelling. This is not a minor policy; it will change something that we have enjoyed as a country for hundreds of years. Something as significant as this should be done on the basis of evidence, so I say to the Minister that whether the Government accept our motion or not today is by the bye, but they should accept the spirit of it and publish the evidence now so that everyone can see it; so that the lawyers, judges and practitioners who care and are worried about this can engage in a proper debate; and above all, so that we in the House of Commons, who are the guardians of our constitution and our ancient liberties, can have a debate on the basis of facts.

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Member has made some valid points about the situation we face—the fact that 78,000 cases are caught up in the backlog, that many of our constituents are waiting for their day of justice and that justice is being denied, and we know that many people cannot continue to wait—but does he not accept that there was not enough focus on all the issues he has outlined during the last Administration and that they could have done a lot more to resolve them, so that we were not in this difficult situation that we have to find a way to address?

Both parties must share the blame for the present situation. The former permanent secretary of the Ministry of Justice came before the Justice Committee last year and was asked broadly the same question that the hon. Lady just asked me: what is the root cause of the current backlog? She responded that although the system had been poorly funded for some time, which had created a number of challenges, the primary cause was the pandemic. Covid created immense strain on our justice system. As a result of that, a backlog that had, broadly speaking, been falling in the years prior to the pandemic—it had begun to rise slightly in the period immediately before—shot up. [Interruption.]

Order. I will not have all sides cross-examining each other. I am listening to just one person at the moment.

I am just restating, I think fairly, what the former permanent secretary said. The Ministry of Justice did not do enough to get the backlog under control. There has been a serious failure to fix the productivity problems in our court system, as I think the Institute for Fiscal Studies set out independently in a report last year. Could the last Government have done more? Well, perhaps they could have. They did try to do things: they increased the number of sitting days and brought in special courts, such as Nightingale courts, in parts of the country, which began to make some difference. None the less, the backlog kept rising.

The backlog has risen very substantially under this Labour Government as well. In fact, to the extent that we have accurate figures, it is rising by about 500 cases every month, so the problem has continued to get worse and worse. I therefore do not see today’s debate as a partisan debate between the two main parties. The key thing is how we solve the problem. How do we look to the future? Is slashing jury trials the answer? No. Are there better ways to do this? Yes.

It pains me to say that I agree with the vast majority of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying at the Dispatch Box. He referred to Sir Brian Leveson. Of course, none of us would suggest that Sir Brian does not know what he is doing—he is very eminent and skilful, and has taken a great deal of time to come up with his suggestions—but does the right hon. Gentleman know of any situation before when the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association, circuit leaders and every other stakeholder in the criminal justice system have been as one in their opposition to an utterly ludicrous, unworkable policy?

I rest my case, my Lord. I sincerely thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he has conducted himself, and the campaign that he has fought and is fighting on this issue. Having campaigned at times against my own Government and having voted against the last Conservative Government, I know that it is not easy to do, and I credit him for the work he is doing.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Let me answer the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), because he is making an important point. Lawyers rarely agree—in fact, their profession is often to disagree. This issue has united everyone in opposition to it. The Law Society, the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and lawyer after lawyer has said that this policy is wrong and a better way is possible. This is not party political. It cuts across all parties, and opponents include vehement critics of mine. I woke up the other day to hear Anna Soubry on the “Today” programme saying that everything I was arguing was right. This is about getting the right answer for our criminal justice system.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are alternative models for getting to the place where we all want to be—that is to say, for reducing this awful backlog, which is denying people justice? Will he take particular note—he probably already has—of the model introduced in the south-west by my constituent James Ward OBE? He introduced covid resolution courts, which were able to bring the backlog down from 52% to 2% through proper case management in the Crown Prosecution Service. That intervention alone saved 10 sitting years.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me come to some potential solutions. It is important to note that the backlog varies very widely across the country. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is a poorly managed organisation with limited accountability to Ministers, and it has not been performing its function as well as it should. There are parts of our country where the backlog is far smaller than in others. In Liverpool and parts of Lancashire—despite the closure of your local court, Mr Speaker—the court backlog is substantially lower, as it is in Wales. There are significant regional differences because better managers, active judges and good case management of the kind that my right hon. Friend mentioned have made a significant difference.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will just advance my case a little, and then I will come to my hon. Friend. The most important thing that we could do is get the courts sitting round the clock. There are sitting days on the table that are not being used. The Lady Chief Justice, the most senior person in our judiciary, has said repeatedly that she is able to offer the Government more sitting days. She has said it in the press, she said it before the Justice Committee the other day, and I am sure that she has said it privately to Ministers as well. The Government have been pushed, slowly, to take her up on those sitting days, and I commend them for that.

However, there are still, by the Lady Chief Justice’s measure, at least 2,000 extra sitting days available that the Government are not taking her up on. We need to go back to her, welcome those sitting days with open arms, and say, “What would it take for you to produce more? Can we turn 2,000 into 5,000, or 10,000?” Get the courts actually sitting. That is not happening right now. The principal reason for that is financial: the Ministry of Justice has not been able to secure from the Treasury a comparatively small sum of money. We can argue about the priorities of this Government, and we will differ across the House, but the sum of money that we need for the proper operation of our criminal justice system is relatively small. It must be better to spend that money on this cause than to scrap an ancient freedom that we have enjoyed, generation after generation.

My right hon. Friend is making excellent points about alternative solutions to scrapping the right to a jury trial. Any MP who has spent any time in their local courts will have seen that the issue is not the juries, but poor administration, which is resulting in about a quarter of trials having to be rescheduled. Does he agree that rather than setting a precedent of scrapping the right to trial by jury, the Government should start by looking at ways to remove the pressure on an overwhelmed CPS? Does he think that giving the police greater charging powers would be a way to move forward on this?

My hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. There are better ways to handle this situation. I do not pretend that they are simple; they are difficult. They involve getting to the heart of bureaucratic organisations that have been poorly managed and are unaccountable. Let us look at some of the solutions. One, which Brian Leveson mentions in his report, is incentivising early pleas to prevent cases dragging on unnecessarily, for example by ensuring that those accused of offences meet their counsel earlier, so that they get good advice about their likelihood of success or otherwise sooner, and changing the fee structure accordingly to achieve that.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing this issue forward. Just to give an example for when he is looking at options, in Northern Ireland we had cause to use Diplock courts on many occasions. In 2023, they were used on 0.8% of occasions. Terrorist trials and serious criminal trials do not have a jury because of intimidation. However, does he agree that our natural sense of justice demands a jury of our peers, that non-jury trials must remain exceptional, and that justice can be served more efficiently by juries, by increasing court dates, and by cutting the number of ineffective trials that waste time—the very thing he has referred to?

The hon. Gentleman makes a series of important points. There is something very special about being judged by a group of one’s peers, and about the wisdom of ordinary members of the public coming together. Juries are basically the only opportunity for members of the public to participate in our criminal justice system. That is important and should be preserved. He is right to say that we need to get the courts sitting around the clock. This week alone, 241 sitting days have been missed because of closed courtrooms—241 in three days! Imagine what the figure is over the course of a year.

We must ensure that prisoners arrive at court on time. The present contract is not working properly, which leads to many trials collapsing or suffering unacceptable delays. We need to drastically improve court IT, ending the technical failures that waste hours of court time every week. As I said, we need to provide proper support for the criminal Bar. I welcome the Justice Secretary’s modest intervention the other day to ensure that there are enough advocates to prosecute and defend cases. Those are the bottlenecks that actually drive delays. Bottlenecks are a problem of resources and management, not an inevitable side effect of having citizens weigh evidence. Jury trials are not the problem. We must ensure that we get to the root of the challenge, not get rid of something that we have enjoyed for such a long time.

Let me mention the degree of opposition to the proposal, which my hon. Friends have rightly mentioned. It is important to note the broad opposition of the legal world, where alarm bells are ringing about the policy. The Law Society, which represents thousands of solicitors, calls it an “extreme measure” that goes too far and fundamentally changes how our justice system operates. Its president, Mark Evans, warns that the plan goes further than the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s review of efficiency, and is not backed by evidence that it will solve the backlog. The Bar Council, which represents barristers, has been equally clear that it sees

“no basis for altering the structure of the court system”

in this way, and warns that limiting the right to a jury trial strikes at a core citizen’s right.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

I will, but then I must conclude my remarks, because many colleagues wish to speak.

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman might clarify one point on the Opposition’s position. In Scotland, there has never been a right for the accused to elect to have a jury trial. The prosecution decides whether a case will go to jury trial. Is the Opposition’s position that such a reform in England should be opposed?

That is the subject of this debate, isn’t it? England and Wales have their own legal tradition, and Scotland has its own. Those of us who represent constituencies in England and Wales are here to defend our constitutional rights and settlement, and we will. It is up to those in Scotland to choose their path forward.

The hon. Gentleman’s point raises another important question: is this debate a technical, bureaucratic one about how to get the backlog down in the most expeditious way, or does he speak to an ideological view that jury trials are wrong or superfluous, and that ordinary people do not know what they are talking about and their views should be casually set aside? I do not know the answer to that question in respect of the hon. Gentleman, but some in our politics do take the latter view. They think that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted. As Baroness Helena Kennedy suggested, some in the Labour tradition take the view that led Tony Blair and Jack Straw to take the original decision. Clearly, that is not everyone in the Labour tradition, as we see today—it may be a very small minority—but that view is not one that we support.

We want ordinary people to continue to be at the heart of our criminal justice system. That is why we have brought forward the motion. This is an Opposition day debate, but opposition to this proposal is not restricted to those on the Conservative Benches, or to those in the other Opposition parties; it is found on both sides of this House and in the other place. It comes from the solicitors, barristers and judges who can speak out, and from those who cannot, when they speak privately at their kitchen table. It comes from ordinary citizens of our country, who want jury trials preserved—poll after poll shows that clearly.

We are talking about 800 years of legal tradition. Let us not toss it aside; let us defend it, because it matters, and then let us unite and find a way to fix the bureaucratic failures of the Ministry of Justice to ensure that we have swift justice. Justice delayed is justice denied; we all agree on that. We can do this without ruining a gift that this country has given the world, and a fundamental part of our constitution and our democracy. Vote for our motion to defend jury trials, and tomorrow let us work together to fix the court backlog.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert:

“believes that the Government inherited a justice system on the brink of collapse with a record and rising caseload created under 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, austerity and cuts to the justice system that has forced victims of crime to wait years for justice; notes that the justice system has historically evolved to match the needs of the society it serves; supports the Government in making the investment required, including continuing to break records on the number of sitting days funded; looks forward to Sir Brian Leveson’s upcoming recommendations on reforms to improve efficiencies across the courts system; further supports taking forward reforms to the justice system based on Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts in which victims and the public can have confidence; and further notes that the Government will introduce legislation and publish its impact assessment in due course.”

“Let’s fix it tomorrow”, says the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow. What a luxury! Our justice system is in a state of crisis, as he has said, but although in every crisis there is risk, there is also opportunity. The opportunity here is one that we in government grasp, to modernise our justice system and bring it into the 21st century.

Let us start with the crisis. I did not hear an apology in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but he did lay bare the facts about what the previous Government did to our justice system. Being in government is about choices. We know what choices His Majesty’s Opposition would make about the justice system because they had 14 years to show the world. Now the right hon. Gentleman says, “Let’s come together, talk about investment in our system and talk about solutions,” but what did the Conservatives do for 14 years? They closed half of all courts in England and Wales. Who did they entrust with the guardianship of our justice system? Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Chris Grayling. They decimated our legal aid system and all but broke our prison system.

What is the result? Well, the right hon. Gentleman is right: there is consensus that we are in crisis and that the status quo cannot be tolerated. Nearly 80,000 criminal cases are currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court—more than double the waiting list pre covid. Victims are waiting years for justice—over 20,000 open cases in the Crown court backlog have been waiting for a year or more. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Conservative party must bear much of the blame, but we will never hear the word “sorry.”

I am not interested in a party political rant, but plainly the Minister is. What I am interested in, however, is expediting justice for my constituents. She will have heard in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary that there is a model to solve that. Will she please explain why the model that my constituent James Ward brought forward, which had spectacular results in reducing delays in our criminal justice system, is not being applied but the abolition of trial by jury is?

The Conservatives had 14 years to implement the solutions that they now say are blindingly obvious. The fact is that swift courts, flow courts, blitz courts—whatever we wish to call them—are being operated, but they cannot keep up with demand. Our justice system has simply not kept pace with the times and the demands of modern society. There is now record demand for criminal cases. There are more police officers, arrests are up by 10%, and cases arriving at the Crown court are up by 20%. Trials are more complex, with cases taking, on average, 71% longer. Technology, such as the smartphones we carry in our pockets, is creating more digital evidence than ever before. Jury trials take twice as long as they did in 2000.

Those delays mean that in many cases justice is simply not being served. With those delays, witnesses pull out, memories fade and, as others have pointed out, more trials crack. As a result, justice is not being served. We have a system in which, as we know, there are criminals who are planning to spend next Christmas, and the Christmas after that, at home with their families. They are gaming the system, while victims wait longer and longer for justice, dealing with isolation and mental torment, unable to heal and to move on.

No one is defending the status quo, yet no Government to date have been bold enough to take the necessary action towards finding a solution. I am a firm believer that politics is an agent of change—that is why I left my career in law to enter politics. When we are presented with a crisis, we see the opportunity, we find the plan, and we fix it—we make it better.

The Government’s amendment, which the Minister has signed, refers to the Government’s impact assessment. Have the Government done an impact assessment but are refusing to publish it, or did they announce plans to end jury trials for certain cases without that evidence?

My answer to the hon. Gentleman is simple: there will be an impact assessment and this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise it. It is important that the impact assessment assesses the Bill that is brought forward, which must of course interact with the concordat process and the agreed number of sitting days with the judiciary.

We as a Government do not practise the learned helplessness that His Majesty’s Opposition did in the past 14 years; we look for solutions. That is why we commissioned the independent review of the criminal courts, to conduct and carry out a careful piece of work, and to provide the blueprint for the change that is so desperately needed. All I hear from the Opposition is, “The Government should simply ignore that work”, but that is the evidence base, and that is the blueprint we are going to follow.

On the point about delay and the solutions we must bring forward, just yesterday I was with communities, near here in Victoria, who are facing the scourge of street drug dealing, and the aggressive harassment of residents by drug dealers, who also prey on vulnerable people who find themselves rough sleeping. The police, people in the sector and those working on the front line tell me that they are really struggling with the state of our courts and justice systems. Does the Minister agree that victims of crime are affected by that, as well as communities who are facing and struggling with the scourge of crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets? She will have listened to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, so was she as profoundly disappointed as I was by his attempt at building a consensus on this topic, and by the complete paucity of suggestions that he has brought forward, when many suggestions are already being considered?

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.

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?

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?

The letter on criminal court reform written by the Justice Secretary to the Justice Committee states on rape and prioritisation:

“We are not introducing a specific target for rape cases, but our overall objective is to drive down these wait times as quickly as possible. Listing is a judicial function and the judiciary already prioritises cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, which includes victims of sexual offences, including rape.”

The Minister’s example about a bottle of whisky is therefore not appropriate; it is fundamentally wrong, according to the letter written by the Justice Secretary himself.

The hon. Gentleman is right that listing is a judicial function, but the fact remains—this is CPS data—that some 4,000 cases last year could have been heard four times faster. We know that cases are heard four times faster in the magistrates court than in the Crown court, and although magistrates had the sentencing powers to deal with such matters, the defendants elected for a jury trial, which they have the right to do under the current system. Why did they elect for a jury trial? They did so because it would drag the process out longer. If a case can be dealt with four times faster in the magistrates court, then removing the right to elect, which is what we propose to do, is a far more efficient way to free up Crown court capacity so that very serious cases—not just rape, but robbery, homicide and serious drug offences—can be dealt with more swiftly.

What has been missing from this debate is the word “victims.” We inherited a system in which there are criminals who will have chosen to spend Christmas at home with their children. They will still be at home with their children next year, and the year after that, because we have a system that allows them to kick justice down the road. Meanwhile, women will have been raped this Christmas, and they will have to wait half a decade for justice. How can Members defend that system?

Order. Interventions should be short and colleagues should have been here at the beginning if they wish to intervene—[Interruption.] I was not here at the beginning, but I do not need any help. Members must have been here at the beginning of the speech of the Member on whom they wish to intervene. Please keep interventions short.

As so often, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) is a powerful advocate for women and for victims. As I have said, the reforms that the Government are bringing forward are laser focused on swift justice for victims. I wish to address the point about investment—

Will the Minister give way?

I will complete this point and then I will take an intervention.

Investment is what is needed, and investment can get us out of the crisis we are in. Let me be absolutely clear: this Government are making an investment, turning round an oil tanker that had been run into the ground for years when we inherited it. This year alone, we allocated more than 11,000 sitting days to the Crown court. That is the highest ever number of sitting days, and 5,000 more than His Majesty’s Opposition allocated when they were in government. The concordat is taking its course, and there will be more to come.

We have also invested in the professions, with an uplift for criminal legal aid solicitors of £92 million. That is part of this package. We have £34 million for criminal defence barristers, and, crucially, match funding for pupillages to increase the talent pipeline, so that we can have the sustainability in legal practitioners to both prosecute and defend cases in the system.

We are making that investment, and we will ensure that that record-breaking investment continues so that people are not waiting longer and longer, but let me be absolutely clear that funding alone will not solve the problem. The Government cannot simply sit their way out and write a blank cheque. Do not take my word for it; that is the central conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts. We need more investment, but investment alone will not resolve the crisis and decline in our criminal justice system.

We need three things. We need investment, which is starting to be made and to percolate into the system. We need reform, which is what the independent review of the criminal courts tells us; the Opposition say, “Ignore it,” but I am not prepared to do so. We also need modernisation. How can we harness the technology at our disposal, whether it is AI transcription or case summarisation, to ensure that we get swift justice? It is those three pillars that will transform and bring our criminal justice system into the 21st century.

There are those who tell us that simply spending our way out or tweaking a lever here and there will solve the problem, but it will not. I agree with those who say that we should bring prisoners to court more efficiently to avoid delays. Do we need to do that? Yes, we do. I eagerly await part 2 of Sir Brian’s report, but we are working on those things straight away. Do we need more efficient listing? I agree that we do, so let us get those efficiencies—there is consensus on that. Do the Government and I think that that alone will salvage the system where there is such an acute degree of crisis? No. We need the reform and the modernisation together with the investment.

We have already recognised that there is a regional aspect to this issue. Wales’s Crown courts generally outperform those in England. They are not perfect—we have a backlog of maintenance issues and other problems—but I can only reiterate the opposition of past and present Labour Welsh Government Counsels General, who say that scrapping jury trials is both extreme and unnecessary. Why not take this as an opportunity to keep jury trials in Wales so that we can get a real-time impact assessment that we could compare with what is happening in England if we have to have changes?

The right hon. Lady is right that there are regional difficulties—the situation for those in the south-east, London and parts of the north-east and the north-west is utterly dire—but let me be absolutely clear and clarify something. She says that we are scrapping jury trials, but we are not. Let us get the facts straight about the way in which the system works now and the way in which things will work once these proposals are implemented.

People talk about a right to a jury trial, and the public could be forgiven for thinking that everybody who graces a criminal court gets a jury trial, but that is not how things work. Some 90% of cases in this country are heard without a jury trial; they are heard robustly and rigorously in our magistrates court, which retains that lay element. I pay tribute to the work of our magistrates, who are drawn from our communities, provide local justice and represent the communities that they serve. The remainder of cases are currently heard by jury trial, and all the most serious crimes, such as homicide, kidnapping, robbery, serious drug offences and possession of a weapon, will continue to be heard by juries under our proposals.

What we are making is in line with expert recommendations, as occurs in other jurisdictions such as Canada and New South Wales, which are comparable with ours. This is a fairly modest reform removing the right to elect so that those cases that can be heard by the magistrates court are retained in the magistrates court and a modest number of cases are heard through a swifter court—the Crown court bench division. In addition, complex fraud and economic crime currently heard with a jury will appropriately be heard by an expert judge. That is a sensible, pragmatic package of reforms informed by an independent review.

I am afraid that asking us simply to ignore the work of the review is not sensible. If we were to leave that review on the shelf gathering dust, people would say, “The Government are failing to pull every lever.” I am not prepared to do that. We have asked people to have a long, hard look at it—not just Sir Brian Leveson, but David Ormerod, a distinguished criminal law academic, and other members of the panel. We will take that and implement it as our blueprint.

Let me speak to the point about the magistrates. In 2012, I took part in a six-month in-depth application process to become a magistrate, and I was accepted. I was then told that because of a pause by the previous Government, there would be no recruitment. In the following eight years, we lost 10,000 magistrates, to the point that in 2019 the then Justice Committee wrote that the crisis was

“as frustrating as it was foreseeable”

and that

“it has taken a near crisis to prompt the Government into belated action.”

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition cannot have their cake and eat it? They must understand that the system is in a crisis of their making.

I could not agree more. As I am someone with responsibility for the recruitment of our magistrates, I know my hon. Friend will have seen in the early headlines this year that we are looking for more magistrates. We want them to be more diverse, younger and from different parts of the country and different backgrounds. As I said, our magistracy has halved in the last 10 years. I want to see us turn that around as we place our confidence in our magistrates to continue handling the vast majority of criminal cases, which they do at the moment.

My first job after graduating was in a magistrates court, which was just making the transition from writing court records in a huge ledger by hand to computerisation; I appreciate that it has modernised an awful lot since then. Let me pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) about the impact of persistent drug dealing on local communities. One of the things being piloted in Bristol is an intensive supervision court. We know that a huge number of crimes are committed by people with persistent drug addictions, so if we can divert them from the criminal justice system it will help to free up our courts. Can the Minister say a little about what we are doing to roll out that programme?

My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and we will lay out our plans on just that point. How do we prevent that revolving door of reoffending? It is there in the work that we are doing on sentencing and early intervention, because prevention is so much better than cure.

One of the most depressing features that has arisen as a result of the rising waiting lists in our Crown court is that the number of early guilty pleas—those pleading guilty at the earliest possible opportunity—has gone down precipitously. That means that very often, offenders are pleading guilty at the door of the court, and that wastes huge amounts of resource. I want to ensure that jury trials are there for the most serious cases and that we are using jurors’ time effectively and efficiently, because we owe it to them to deliver swifter justice, just as we owe it to victims.

As I have said, I have heard the concerns of the Opposition and those who head up the professions. There are those in the professions who support what we are doing, but we have our detractors. I am not putting my fingers in my ears; I have engaged with them throughout this process, just as the independent review of the criminal courts has done.

People have questioned whether swift courts will work. The independent review of the criminal courts has recommended the swift court model, which was championed by Lord Justice Auld and The Times Crime and Justice Commission. As I said, it exists in other countries, such as Canada, and it works there. Sir Brian estimates that trials without a jury could reduce hearing time by at least 20%, which he says is a conservative estimate. It stands to reason that jury trials are important, but hearing cases without a jury negates the need for jury selection, for judges to explain legal concepts to jurors and for jury deliberation. Those all add to the time that it takes to hear a case in the Crown court.

The Minister talks about Sir Brian’s presumption—which is what it is—that there will be a 20% reduction in time with a single judge, as opposed to a jury. I think that presumption is probably right, and I think he is probably right to say that it is conservative, but what about the writing up? When does the judge write the judgment and give the reasons? Are they doing that while putting the kids to bed in the evening, or are they doing it the following day, the day after and the day after that? Reasons will be necessary when a single judge is deciding the innocence or guilt of a defendant. What is the answer?

My hon. Friend is right that if a case is determined by a judge, reasons will need to be given. Indeed, reasons are a good thing—those convicted of a crime will have transparency, knowing why the result has been reached. I am sure Sir Brian Leveson will have been well aware of the need for a judge to give reasons, and will have factored that into his conclusion, in the same way that we have the data from Canada and from New South Wales. I met judges at the Supreme Court in Toronto, where equivalent cases are tried by judges alone and tried by a jury. It is not about the relative merits of those two things; simply as a practical matter of timing, those judges told me that it takes about half the time. Given the evidence that we have, it is undeniable that trying cases by judges alone is going to take less time. When I have to focus on creating an efficient system that deploys resources in a proportionate way and delivers swifter justice for victims, it would be madness to ignore the conclusions of the independent review.

On the point of saving time through fewer jury trials, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is not just about the amount of time a jury is in the courtroom? It is about all the other factors within the criminal justice system that contribute to the time taken—the time it takes for back office staff to organise jury selection and summonsing, the time it takes for the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare reams and reams of paper for jury bundles, the time it takes to deal with the expenses, and so on. This is about the criminal justice system as a whole, not just the time spent in the courtroom.

Before the Minister responds, and to save another Member from any embarrassment, coming in halfway through a speech and trying to intervene is not acceptable.

My hon. Friend speaks with ample experience from two decades spent working for the Crown Prosecution Service. She knows exactly how the system works, warts and all. The realism and pragmatism she brings to this debate speaks to the really important point that operating a jury system is expensive and takes a lot of time, which is why we have to deploy it in a timely and proportionate way for the most important cases. At the moment, it is available for 3% of cases, but so many of those cases are running in such a delayed fashion that they are collapsing at the 11th hour and justice is not being served. We are actually undermining the jury system by allowing it to run out of control. It is because we want to preserve that feature of our legal system that it is so important that we heed the recommendations of the independent review, make the necessary investment and modernise.

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

I will give way for the final time, and then I will wrap up.

The hon. and learned Lady is being very generous with her time. The nub of her argument is that reducing the number of jury trials will make a material difference in cutting the backlog. She has quoted some conversations she has had with judges in Canada and so on, and I do not doubt her sincerity and the work she has done. Why will she not commit today to publishing the modelling and evidence basis for the assertions she is making, not in the months to come, but this week or next week—as soon as practicable? I will happily return to this Dispatch Box if she proves me wrong on the basis of the evidence she presents. Will she make that commitment to all of us today?

I will make a commitment to publish an impact assessment, an equalities impact assessment, and the evidence of the independent review in the usual way when we bring forward our formal Government response and the necessary legislation. Parliament will have a chance to scrutinise that legislation, to interrogate it, and to express its opposition if that is the conclusion that is reached.

Let me be absolutely clear, though. When I was in practice, when I used to appear in court and I made a proposition, the judge would say, “Where’s the evidence for your proposition?”, as I am being asked now. There is authority behind the proposition I am making—that, if vital institutions are not working for the British public, we should be open to changing them in three ways. Those are by making investment, which we are beginning to do; through structural reform, which is what is on the table; and through modernisation. The evidence base for that structural reform is as follows: the international comparisons; Sir Brian Leveson’s independent expert review; and—this is critical—the fact that we know from Ministry of Justice data that triable either way cases, which could be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court, are heard four times faster in the magistrates court. If we take cases that are not suitable for the Crown court and hear them in the magistrates court, we free up capacity for the Crown court to hear the most serious cases, so it stands to reason that they will be heard faster. However, we will of course publish the detail at the appropriate time for all to scrutinise.

To conclude, everyone in the Chamber today has agreed that we are in a state of crisis. The difference between His Majesty’s Opposition and the Government is that I reject the learned helplessness that festered under the previous Government. This Government have a choice to make, and we are making it. We are making the decision to use a crisis and turn it into an opportunity—to bring down the waiting lists and modernise the system in the process. People ask me, “Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?” I say yes, because we need a better system, one in which courts, not criminals, triage cases. We need a system that makes better use of jurors’ time and ensures that someone accused of shoplifting is not in the same queue as a victim of another crime. No one has had the guts to take on a programme of reform of this scale, but this Government have the guts. The Conservatives had 14 years to fix the system, but they ran it into the ground. We make a different choice; we are bringing forward change.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I am glad that the Minister has heard the opposition from right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. I have great news for her—she is going to hear it again.

An opinion that many of us across the House and the political divide share is that our criminal justice system is in complete disarray, with nothing epitomising this more than the backlog in our criminal courts. In our Crown courts, the backlog stands at almost 80,000 cases, with trial dates now stretching late into this decade. The delayed justice, harm to victims, and impacts on rehabilitation are a shameful legacy of over a decade of complacent Conservative Governments. The Conservatives’ inability to recognise the crisis and steer a new course to fix the system is completely unforgivable; instead, their Prime Minister ran away from full prisons and a court system in disarray and called a general election in 2024. As such, although we will be supporting the Conservatives’ motion today, I look forward to hearing many contributions from their Back Benchers apologising not only for causing this crisis, but for their abject failure to fix it when they had the power to do so.

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Does she agree that jury trials are not responsible for the backlog in Crown court cases piling up to nearly 80,000, and that the real causes are staff shortages, a broken estate, and 10 years of Conservative complacency that hollowed out the justice system and left victims waiting years for their day in court?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We in the Liberal Democrats have sympathy for the scale of the task that this Labour Government have inherited, and we are glad that they recognise the real losers here—the victims. It is an utter failure of the justice system that victims and defendants are being given court dates for the end of the decade, facing years of delay and re-traumatisation, when so many just want justice and then to move on with their lives.

Here’s the rub, though: we fundamentally disagree with the Government’s approach to tackling this crisis. They are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, ignoring the actual issues and targeting a key and celebrated success. Trial by jury is deeply enshrined in our conscience and constitution, and is respected all over the world. The possibility of being tried by one’s peers—not an elite, unrepresentative group of individuals—is fundamental to a fair trial in this country. That point was recognised by the Deputy Prime Minister himself in the Lammy review. It concluded that unlike other stages of the criminal justice system, jury trials do not show statistical bias against ethnic minorities. The Deputy Prime Minister set out in extreme detail that, compared with magistrates courts, Crown courts provide an effective check on prejudice and avoid discriminatory verdicts. Twelve heads are better than one—a point proven by the increased public trust in jury trials.

I would like to say, in support of what the hon. Lady has been saying, that surely a distinction of which we need to be aware is that, whereas the judge is a specialist in deciding what the law says and how it should be applied, he or she is not a specialist in deciding whether someone is telling the truth or not; and in that sense, we are far more likely to get the right answer from a group of people considering it together, as a collectivity, than from an individual, no matter how eminent in the intricacies of the law.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid and worthwhile point, and I thank him for raising it. It is highly irresponsible and dangerous for this Government to pursue efforts to remove the right to trial by jury in most Crown court cases as a means of fixing the backlog—although we have just heard from the Minister that that is not actually the intention at all; the intention is that she would do it anyway—especially given that the evidence behind the provisions’ effectiveness is flimsy.

I have been contacted by so many KCs and criminal barristers in Winchester, one of whom is Rosemary Burns. The collective confusion is about why we are removing such a fundamental, entrenched constitutional principle, rather than focusing on crumbling courtrooms and courtrooms sitting empty due to the cap on the number of days the court can sit and the failure of prisoner transport to bring defendants to court in time. Why are these logistical and infrastructure issues not being given a laser focus before this measure is even considered?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I will come later in my contribution to the inefficiencies within the system.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will make some progress, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.

The Government claim that this decision has stemmed from the review undertaken by Sir Brian Leveson, the first part of which was published last year. The objective behind the review commissioned by this Government was rightly to find solutions to the overwhelming backlog, and Leveson’s original suggestion was the creation of a Crown court bench division, including a judge and two magistrates, which was modelled to reduce trial length by 20%. The Government, however, have gone further than Leveson recommended, meaning that those accused of crimes with likely sentences of less than three years will, for the most part, not be heard by a jury. New so-called swift courts will be created where just one judge hears cases. The efficiency savings quoted by the Government are the same figures suggested by Leveson under his Crown court bench division model, but the modelling has, like this entire proposal, been widely criticised for lacking transparent data behind the calculations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a slight confusion? The Minister consistently referenced the importance of this review and how independent and important it was, but then has thrown out the central tenet of it, which was to introduce a court that has a judge and two magistrates. That would provide three heads rather than one, some local influence and some laypeople. Does my hon. Friend have any views as to why the Minister is so insistent on throwing out that central tenet, given how important she says the review is?

I thank my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Justice Committee, for her important point that Leveson did not make this proposal at all. He was talking about a separate division, which the Deputy Prime Minister has announced as a swift court. He has ignored the impact of having two laypeople as magistrates as part of that. It does not make any sense to me, and it does not make sense to many people in this Chamber.

Does the hon. Lady share my dismay that not only did the Minister admit in her closing remarks that her plans are ideological, not practical or expedient, but also that she spent 30 minutes without talking about the central issue, which is that the majority of cases listed in our courts crack on day one, meaning that the courts are there, but nobody is working within them? That is what needs to be sorted out, rather than this maladroit plan to reduce liberties that we have enjoyed for 800 years.

The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I will go on to say in my speech. We are yet to see an impact assessment. That was spoken about by the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). It is also mentioned in the amendment tabled by the Government. We need to see the modelling and the impact assessment, and understand where these savings are coming from. Even if the figures are accurate, they avoid the glaringly obvious fact that they are measured against a completely inefficient system. The system is fundamentally not undermined by jury trials, but instead plagued by years of under-investment, creating an ever-growing list of unaddressed issues across the system. The Government seem willing to ignore that fact, despite it being present in every piece of discourse surrounding their proposals. They have bought a car that will not run, and they have decided to spend all their time and money on a new paint job before opening the bonnet.

This proposal is utterly shameful, fundamentally because there are alternatives, despite the narrative that the Government are advancing. They do not have to attack jury trials, especially when their own Ministers and their own Prime Minister have been fierce advocates of jury trials in the past. Instead, they should be looking at the real issues within the system that have led us to this point. Chief among them is the productivity decline that our criminal courts have experienced since 2016. Wasted time in and around courts is caused by a wide range of issues, all of which are being ignored by the Ministry of Justice. It means that the Government’s increased investment is being used inefficiently. It also means that many of these issues will persist, even if their attack on jury trials leads to reductions in trial length.

The solutions are out there, and the majority of legal professionals opposing the Government’s reforms are overflowing with practical suggestions, but the Government are not listening, so today I will lay some of them out. First, there must be investment in the courts estate, not only to reopen the hundreds of courts closed under the Conservatives—including my court in Chichester—but to properly maintain those that remain open. Evidence of leaking roofs, foul smells and flooded rooms across the estate is hardly indicative of a properly functioning justice system, and that must be addressed. Trials being abandoned because the heating is not working or there is no running water is unacceptable for those victims.

Even at the roughest of estimates, the restriction of jury trials will at best save 9,000 sitting days in court a year. That is based on not being able to see an impact assessment. The Government could increase the number of sitting days up to the possible 130,000, which would far exceed the apparent savings they would gain from the removal of trials. The concept of a restriction on sitting days is artificial. If there is a case, a courtroom, a defendant on remand and court staff ready to go, the case should be heard.

I gently point out to the hon. Lady that it is not just about a courtroom being available, but the resources that have to go into that. It is about not just whether we have the space, but whether we have the barristers and the solicitors, and whether we have enough CPS lawyers, court clerks and ushers. There is a bigger picture, and that is why the whole package that the Government are putting forward is incredibly important. Just tinkering around the edges has been done for years, and we are in this crisis now.

I do not disagree with the hon. Lady when she points out that it has to be a full package of support, but that is not what we are debating today. I am laying out all the things that she rightly points out, such as the total inefficiencies within our court system, but until we see those situations addressed and those things fixed, how do we know that that would not save the court sitting days that we would apparently see by eroding the right to jury trial?

Isleworth Crown court, which is one of the closest courts to my constituency, closed down five of its 14 courtrooms last year because of maintenance issues and because of the cap on sitting days put in place by the previous Conservative Government and only partially lifted by this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as addressing all the maintenance issues and the system inefficiency, we could, if we increased the number of court sitting days and addressed the workforce issues, preserve this fundamental right to a jury trial for all?

That is an excellent point.

The Government have rightly returned the number of days to 2016 levels, but with a rising backlog they need to go further and increase capacity. As pointed out by the Secret Barrister, we also have huge delays in the NHS, but we do not hear the Government proposing a cap on A&E sitting days to save the cost of having the lights on. In addition, the hours lost to unenforceable contracts have left many trials without a defendant while everyone waits for them to be delivered from prison. Given that one of the Government’s key arguments for reducing jury trials is the increasing length of trials, explicitly linked to complexity, I urge them to address the impact of those failing contracts. There are also key efficiencies to be gained from investment in the IT systems, given the widespread complaints about the functioning of wi-fi and about disrupted systems. The common platform system advertised to solve these issues is over budget and delayed.

There are serious solutions to issues such as this, but rather than being addressed they are seemingly being ignored. Of course there are associated costs, but there are clearly major costs associated with not addressing the problems in the system. For example, it costs £55,000 a year to keep someone in prison, and the number of prisoners on remand has doubled in the last seven years. The savings are there as well; they just need to be realised. It is also clear from courts such as Liverpool Crown court—which I think was mentioned earlier—that efficiencies can be achieved, without spending, through a proactive and realistic approach. Jaime Hamilton KC has set out steps such as prioritising cases in which late guilty pleas are likely, which would lead to improved outcomes in case clearance. It is unfathomable to me that the Government have tasked Brian Leveson with producing two reports, the second of which is to focus on efficiency improvements and better use of technology in the court system, when surely it would be logical to produce that report first, in order to introduce those efficiencies and bring the backlog down.

The Government have identified the problem that they inherited, but have arrived at entirely the wrong solutions. They are searching for an easy way out, a quick fix, but reducing access to jury trials is not that fix. It is unscrutinised, it is unfair, and it continues the trend of declining public trust in our justice system. The Government are right to say that victims are among those being let down, waiting years for justice and unable to move on with their lives, but we need solutions that work—solutions that address the causes of the crisis, reverse the systematic underfunding that has plagued the system, and genuinely improve efficiency.

Order. To ensure that everyone is able to contribute to the debate, there will be a speaking time limit of eight minutes to begin with, but it will come down further.

The background to this debate is well known. Against that background of a historically high and growing backlog of cases in the Crown court provoked by the previous Government, the former Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an independent review of the criminal courts with the aim of bringing the backlog down. Part 1 of the review was published in July 2025, and suggests structural and policy changes. Sir Brian made 45 recommendations, a few of which concerned changes in mode of trial; those have become the main issue of contention, because they restrict the right to jury trial. The policy changes proposed came first because some require primary legislation, but in a matter of weeks we will also have part 2, which will look at greater efficiency in the Crown court and may be less contentious.

Sir Brian makes clear that all the recommendations and both parts of his report are a package, not a pick-and-mix selection. That is because he believes that the crisis in the Crown court, with trials for serious offences waiting three or four years to be heard, is so severe that every lever must be pulled to control and then reduce it, and in that he is surely right. Moreover, this is not a short-term problem. Changes in the complexity and detail of criminal cases mean that longer and more legally and factually difficult trials are here to stay. For that reason, Sir Brian does not recommend that changes should be temporary or curtailed, for example by a sunset clause, in any legislation.

So what happens now? First, we must have Sir Brian’s full report to consider, and, as I have said, part 2 is due imminently. Secondly, we must have the Government’s response to the report, saying which recommendations they accept entirely or in part and which they reject. Then will come the Bill putting necessary recommendations into law and accompanied, we are told, by an impact assessment giving greater statistical colour to the effect of the proposals on the backlog.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way once, but I am aware of time.

The hon. Gentleman is an expert in this area, but if every lever needs to be pulled, should not the cap on sitting days be removed? That would make a far bigger difference to the process of clearing the backlog than removing jury trials.

I am coming on to that. The number of sitting days has already increased substantially in comparison with what the last Government did, and I think that it should increase further, but I also think that when Sir Brian says “every lever”, that is exactly what he means.

The likely date for all the documents that I have mentioned to surface will be some time in the spring, ahead of the end of the current parliamentary Session, with the Bill carried over into the next Session and becoming law later this year.

On 14 October 2025, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) led a debate in Westminster Hall on

“the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1”.

I commend to Members the report of that debate, which was well informed and measured on all sides. I do not think that today’s debate will take the matter further in the absence of the documents that I have described, but here we are. In the meantime, there have been some loud protests about certain of Sir Brian’s proposals from parts of the legal profession and from some Members of this House. They include replacing the right to a rehearing of a case decided in the magistrates court with a limited right of appeal, and extending trial by judge and magistrates to more serious offences than is currently the practice of district judges in the magistrates and youth courts by creating a Crown court bench division.

The Government have said that they wish to go beyond Sir Brian’s proposal for a judge to sit with two magistrates in some cases currently tried by judge and jury, and allow a single judge to decide guilt or innocence in cases likely to attract a sentence of up to three years’ custody. They also go further than Sir Brian in proposing to extend magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 or possibly 24 months, and removing entirely the defendant’s right to elect. Where the Government seek to go further than the independent review, they should set out clearly their reasons for so doing.

The most controversial proposal is to curtail the right to trial by jury in between a quarter and a half of cases where it is currently available, while retaining it for more serious offences. My own view is that trial by jury is not an absolute or immutable right. The availability of jury trial has varied and generally become more constricted over the ages, in criminal and civil cases—those involving defamation and inquests—through the reclassifying of offences from either way to summary only.

I am pro-jury. I think that a lay element in the criminal justice process is reassuring, introducing a more democratic element into a profession regarded by some as elitist and homogeneous. I think that the involvement of citizens in the criminal justice system, whether jurors or magistrates, is good not only for the individuals and the legal system but for society generally. However, where we draw the line between jury trial and other modes of trial is a matter of degree and judgment, not of legal or moral principle. I think that there is nothing wrong with reviewing the appropriate forum for trial, as has been done many times, whether in its own right or because it is a piece of the jigsaw that will create a better system overall. I would like to see more evidence to support the contention in Sir Brian’s review that significant time will be saved and a significant increase in the number of cases heard will result. I would like to hear that there is more money for sitting days, for trial counsel and for functioning courts; that courts are run more efficiently; that listing is as good at every Crown court as it is at the best; and that Serco and Amey deliver prisoners to court in good time to start the day’s proceedings, not halfway through the afternoon.

We are not going to get the answers to all these questions today, although I hope that we will before long. I prefer the Government amendment, which anticipates the provision of this information, to the Opposition motion, which prejudges what it will contain, and I acknowledge that the Government have already increased the budget and have already introduced greater-efficiency measures.

The Justice Committee is seized of this issue. We heard evidence from Sir Brian Leveson in November and interrogated the Lord Chancellor in December, and next week we will hear from opponents and supporters of the proposed reforms and from the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, who opened this debate. We may have some criticism of the Bill or of the Government’s response to the review and seek to amend, but, like the Government and, I think, Members in all parts of the House, we hear every week of fresh indignities heaped on victims of crime, and on defendants too, who are made to wait for years beyond what is humane, often in a physical or mental prison, for a resolution of their cases. Not to consider them is not to be serious either about the damage that delay is doing to individuals or about the damage that it is doing to confidence in our courts.

This is not a one-way valve; there are gains and losses, whatever course we take. For the present, I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt that they are looking for every possible measure to repair our battered justice system. I certainly prefer their honest endeavour to the gamesmanship of the Conservative party, which broke the system and now seeks to use its dilapidated condition as a political tool.

May I start by commending my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)? I do not always agree with him—I am not quite Anna Soubry—but on this issue, he struck exactly the right tone. I speak as somebody who has criticised the Ministry of Justice, under all parties, rather vigorously for 30 years, and he struck exactly the right tone in saying that the system has to be put right, given the failures over 30 years and more. We have to address this matter but not take the fundamentals out of the system in the process of doing so.

May I do something unusual and commend the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller)? She made a very well thought-through speech.

You’re going soft!

New year, new David!

I am losing the House, piece by piece, but that is okay. The Minister should pay some attention to the detail of the speech by the hon. Member for Chichester, because she made some extremely important points.

As for the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), he and I have fought together on some spectacular cases of miscarriage of justice—successfully, I think, in the biggest ones—but I do not agree with him that the Government’s policy does not address matters that are morally fundamental to the justice system, because the jury system is absolutely fundamental, for a few reasons that I will touch on in a minute.

The Minister has a difficult job. Bluntly, her Department—not just the Ministers, but the Department itself—has not done a very good job of managing the system over decades. The system failures have been serially spectacular, and I recommend that she look back at some of the National Audit Office reports. I commissioned one when I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee; it is the longest NAO report that I can remember and the most complex, because these matters are systemically complex and do not lend themselves to off-the-cuff answers. She talks about modernisation, which is often important, but it should not be at the price of taking out the most important building block in our justice system—one that the rest of the world, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, has been copying for centuries.

Of course, the majority of the judiciary does not agree with restricting jury trials. When I raised this matter with the Justice Secretary—I think I did so in oral questions on one occasion—I asked him whether he had read the report by Mr Rivlin KC, which does a formidable job of forensically taking apart the Leveson recommendations. One of the points he makes is that Leveson is making judgments—quite properly, as a very distinguished judge of very long standing—but he is not making them on the basis of empirical data. There was very little empirical data behind what Lord Justice Leveson argued, and it is really important that we look at that. I recommend to the Minister that she read Mr Rivlin’s note. He was the head of Southwark Crown court, which has one of the highest throughputs in the country, and he put this point to all his judges. Not one of those working, active judges agreed with Leveson.

Implicit in Leveson’s comments, and certainly in what the Minister said, is an underlying idea that juries are not quite up to it in certain cases. It is suggested that they cannot quite cope, particularly in technical and financial cases. Well, I have handled about a dozen miscarriage of justice cases over the course of the last decade or two, and in not one of them was the jury the source of the error. More often than not, it was a misdirection by a judge or an error of the system, or the court case was allowed to get out of control in some way or another—I will come back to an example or two in a minute. It was pretty much always down to the judge, and sometimes to the lawyers in court, but not to the jury.

The risks involved in restricting jury trials are significant. When the Minister is modelling the numbers—she talks about the speed of the magistrate system—she should look at the appeal rates for magistrates’ decisions and the number of appeals in which the magistrates’ decisions are overturned.

I gently say to the right hon. Member that the current system for appeals from the magistrates court requires a full retrial. When somebody comes to give evidence, we ask a lot of them, particularly the victims. To do that all over again, after a wait of a considerable number of months or even years, is very onerous. Quite simply, the victim does not want to go through it all over again. That is the problem, which this policy fixes.

Frankly, the hon. Lady highlights yet another problem with the magistrates court. The point is that if we are going to implement a big, systemic change, we should not change the fundamentals. That should be done as a separate testable exercise later, after we have tried everything else.

Let me come back to the expertise of juries. It is illegal in Britain to talk to jurors about what happened in the jury room—it is not allowed—but there is a spectacular lacuna in that. One of the most complicated financial cases was the Jubilee line fraud trial, which collapsed. As a result, it was possible to interview the jurors. This case was in an area where it is said that jurors cannot cope: complex financial law. They were asked, “Couldn’t you cope? Was there a problem?” When they were asked if they could not understand the case, they answered unequivocally, “Oh yes, we could understand the case. It was the lawyers who couldn’t understand the case.” That is precisely what the outcome of that analysis was.

The Minister resisted publishing the model, which is understandable. I can see why she is doing that. She wants it to be presented properly and transparently, I hope, but she has made the decision already, so at the very least, she should tell us the size of the saving and the size of the change. In my judgment, it is less than half of 1%—a point that I made in an intervention earlier. She may disagree. Well, let us see what she thinks the size of the saving really is, because we are expected to take this on trust, and we should never change something that is so fundamental to our constitution and justice system on trust. I do not think the Government’s policy will move the dial at all.

There is one other systemic issue that I want to raise. Again, my hon. Friends might not like it—

That is not unusual.

It is not unusual, I know.

My hon. Friends might not like my mentioning this primary case, because it undermined a part of the Thatcher Government’s activities. It was the case of Clive Ponting. He was the civil servant who gave out the information that the Belgrano was sunk while it was leaving the Falklands, not arriving. The judge in that case instructed the jury to find him guilty, but they found him not guilty. Why? Because they made a moral judgment about the powers and rights of the state over the citizen. We cannot replace that with any judicial mechanism.

My comment to the Minister is that I sympathise with the size of the problem, and she is right to try to take it on. I am glad she is doing so, and I will support her in what she does, but she should not tackle the problem by wrecking the system. Justice delayed is justice denied, but summary justice is not justice at all.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the Opposition on using one of their Opposition day debates for this very important subject.

There is no doubt but that this Government inherited a terrible crisis in the criminal justice system, with the backlog of criminal cases in both the Crown court and the magistrates court growing every single day. However, I can tell Members that I have been in this place for 16 years—I was elected in May 2010—and in those 16 years I have not once been tempted to vote against the Whip. Not once have I voted against the Labour party, whether in opposition or in government, but I now tell the Minister, the Chief Whip, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister that I will vote against this ludicrous proposal every step of the way, including by voting with the Opposition today.

This proposal goes well and truly beyond what Brian Leveson recommended. I have had the privilege of getting to know Brian Leveson a little. On one occasion, he helped me put together a private Member’s Bill on the issue of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. That proposal was adopted by Ken Clarke when he was Justice Secretary, and it was put into the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Ken Clarke always tells the joke that he accepted my private Member’s Bill as an amendment to his Bill, but I then voted against his Bill. That is, of course, the type of thing I would do.

These proposals will not reduce the backlog one iota. Sir Brian speaks of 20% efficiency savings, and I do not dispute the fact that it is quicker for a single judge hearing a trial to deal with the trial, but what happens to the writing up of the judgment giving the reasons why the judge has come to their view? That will not take minutes. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, the judge is not going to put that to bed while he is putting the kids to bed in the evening. It could take days, so any saving will be lost by judges having to write up their reasons.

There is a multitude of reasons for the backlog in the criminal courts. It is true—I have to be honest here—that parties of all political persuasions have failed to invest in the criminal justice system for decades. That is the reality of where we are. The previous Government played their part, but since we have been in government we have not, in my view, addressed the issues as we should, because the backlog can be addressed. If we look at Liverpool Crown court as an example, there has been proper case management of cases, and what is the backlog there? We should perhaps go there, and have a look at what the judge is doing.

I am concerned about the extra powers for magistrates to give sentences of up to 24 months. That concerns me, because the reality is that 41% of appeals from the magistrates court to the Crown court are successful. In any event, if there are going to be more cases for magistrates because they have more powers to sentence, where will all these guilty people be put? Where will all these guilty criminals, who apparently are going to be convicted in swifter forms of justice, be imprisoned?

I have said that this is a ludicrous proposal, and it really is, because it will not work. There was no mention in the Labour party manifesto of doing away with some jury trials. I suspect the Opposition were as shocked as anybody when they had to give up one of their Opposition day debates on this subject, because in opposition the Secretary of State for Justice would have gone off his head at the prospect of this being proposed by the previous Conservative Government.

This proposal raises more questions than it answers, so I have some questions for the Minister. First, did the Ministry of Justice do any modelling before the announcement, and if not, why not? If it did any modelling, please can we see it? Did the Secretary of State consider piloting single judge-only trials? Why are Ministers determined to pretend that trials for shop theft, for example, are holding up cases of serious sexual assault? There are listing priorities for such cases, and if a listings officer in a Crown court is prioritising a shop theft over a rape or serious sexual assault, I accept that that is a major problem. If the Minister can point to an example, fine—give us the example, and let us go off and investigate it—but, frankly, I do not think that is happening.

Today, 75 Crown court courtrooms are sat idle: 75 out of 516 courtrooms are not sitting. Why? Why do we not address the issue of courts not sitting? If we do not have enough judges and barristers to conduct some trials, where does the Justice Secretary think the judges and barristers are going to come from to do these judge-only trials? How long does the Minister think it is going to take for the prosecution, the defence and the judge to determine whether a case is worth less than three years on conviction, and thus is viable for a bench trial? When will circuit judges find the time to draft their reasons? That is a point I have already made.

What counts as successful delivery of a prisoner to court—mid-afternoon, or ready for court at 9 am, so the barrister and the solicitor can have a conference before they are called into court at 10 am? What delivery times are these private companies expected to meet? I know of an example recently when a Crown court judge—I will not identify the court or, indeed, the judge—asked an officer to come into court to explain why they had arrived at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and the answer given was that they had had to stop for a cheese sandwich. That is what is happening in the real world, and those are the issues the Minister needs to address.

What happens if a case is determined as suitable for a bench trial, with a sentence of less than three years, but the judge, after conviction, gives one of more than three years? This is a terrible error.

My final question is this: if charged with, say, a fraud or false accounting case, would the Minister want to be tried by a jury of 12 or a single judge sitting alone?

Order. The time limit has now dropped to four minutes.

From prepping for this debate, I know that the policy is one that tries to solve an administrative problem by simply changing a principle. The three areas I will try to cover—we will see how I get on—are the principle, the policy process and the practical side.

To deal with the principle first, we have heard a number of times that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay does harm trust and it can prolong suffering, but justice done wrongly corrupts the system itself. The Justice Secretary knows that, as in his own Lammy report he said that juries act as “a filter for prejudice” during trials.

Moving on to the policy process, on the one hand the Government are saying that the policy is much needed to help with the admin side, but on the other hand they are saying that these are very small changes. We only have to look at the letter written by the Secretary of State to the Justice Committee to pull some of that apart. It states:

“Of the c.3% of criminal trial cases that proceed to a jury trial in the Crown Court, over half would still proceed to the Crown Court and get a jury trial post-reform.”

However, later it says:

“An alternative way of expressing impacts is to account for cases that will be retained in the magistrates’ courts after the reforms. Based on projected case volumes and case mix, of those cases that still proceed to the Crown Court post-reforms, around three-quarters of them are still expected to be allocated a jury trial.”

So we already have a discrepancy, in the same paragraph of the letter, in what the numbers are.

The question, “Has any modelling been done?”, has been asked multiple times. We again know from the letter addressed to the Committee that modelling has been done, because it says:

“The assumptions underpinning the modelling of the reforms I announced last week are subject to the Concordat process that agrees sitting days with the judiciary and it would be improper to pre-empt the conclusion of this process.”

In short, modelling has been done, so if Ministers want to strengthen their argument, why would they not produce that modelling? When we have asked the Minister who is at the Dispatch Box—she was asked again by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for the seventh time—whether an impact assessment has been done and not released, or is being done and will be brought forward, we have not got an answer. One would have thought that if you had done the work—

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am also grateful for the motion and for the opportunity to object, cross-party, to the restrictions on our important rights to a trial by jury. I was, however, hoping that the Conservatives would, in this debate, admit some real responsibility for the awful state of our criminal justice system. Will he correct that gap in any further way in his contribution?

I refer the hon. Lady directly to the opening speech. If she sits and reads Hansard, it was very much different regarding that point.

I will move on to the other practical points we need to talk about—some even in the letter—about process. For example, the letter states:

“judges will assess the likely sentence in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. They will consider the facts of the case to make a determination of likely culpability, harm”—

and so on. It then goes on to say:

“eligibility is based on likely sentence length, any triable either-way offence could be in scope of the CCBD, if it were likely to receive a sentence of 3 years or less”.

What happens if the judge decides that they would not go to a jury trial? Later on, the same letter states:

“judges will retain the full sentencing powers available in the Crown Court, meaning there is no restriction on the sentence that can be handed down in the case.”

That points out the fact that a judge could make a decision at pre-hearing that the case need not go to trial because the sentence will be less than three years, and after that find out that the sentence will actually be five, six or seven years. There is a real discrepancy.

The letter also states:

“As you know, we do not have minimum sentences in law.”

That is demonstrably not true—think about drug trafficking, firearms or repeat knife offences. We only have to look at section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which talks about how using a knife for a second time will result in a minimum of six months. That was codified and updated in section 315 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The letter is filled with holes.

I thank Joanna Hardy-Susskind, who has pointed out a lot of these issues. She has done a lot of working explaining that the MOJ does not even understand the letters it is putting out in defence of this policy. If the Ministry was to release the modelling and the impact assessment, it could demonstrate to us all why we should make the change.

I am running short of time to talk about the practicality, so I will close where I started.

I am not just standing to give my hon. Friend a minute. Does he agree with me that even if we accept what it says, being sent down for a couple of years can destroy a life?

Absolutely. That is fundamental. There must be trust in the system and in the decision taken, and I worry that that is being eroded by this proposal.

I am going to change my speech. I started on the presumption that the Government are trying to solve an admin problem with a principled change, but I think, after listening to the Government Front Bench, that I am wrong. The Minister was asked, “Sarah, would you still go with this regardless of the backlog?” and the answer was yes. There we have it. It is clearer than ever before. Efficiency is the excuse and ideology is the aim. Regardless of the vote today, the answer is here for all to see that the Government do not believe in maintaining jury trial. For that reason, Members must stay and vote with the Opposition.

We are facing a real and serious crisis in our criminal courts. It did not happen overnight and it certainly did not happen by accident. It is the result of 14 years of neglect, and it is now denying justice to people up and down the country. Right now, around 80,000 cases are waiting to be heard in the Crown court. If we do nothing, that number will only grow. As we have heard today, in some areas cases are being listed in 2030.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really frustrating to hear people say that the backlog is the result of covid, when it is clear that backlogs were increasing before covid as a result of underlying factors including substantial real-terms cuts to the justice system, court closures and reductions in judges and court staff? They began rising in 2019, the same year that the previous Government cut sitting days.

Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend. I am immensely frustrated at the rhetoric on that point.

Were backlogs higher or lower in 2010 than they were in 2019, before the pandemic?

Unfortunately, I did not hear the apology that should have preluded the question, for the absolute carnage the Conservatives left in our courts on their watch. They have shown no recognition or contrition for what they left behind. In every single one of those cases there is at least one victim unable to access justice. [Interruption.] I am glad that Opposition Members find it so amusing. They would find it much less amusing if they were at the other end of the justice system. Every victim is waiting to move on. Every witness is stuck in limbo. Every defendant is entitled to have their case heard, within a reasonable time, to repay their debt or to begin to be rehabilitated.

I speak about this issue not just as a Member of Parliament, but as a former member of the judiciary, having sat as a magistrate. I have made the decisions in courtrooms that I knew would have a lasting impact on people’s lives.

A very valid point was raised earlier about triaging whether a case should have a jury trial. If a judge decides that the sentence would be less than three years, but after a trial in the absence of a jury it is decided that the defendant should get five or six years, do they have a right to appeal the decision and have a jury trial?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to go into the details of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I would like to make some progress.

As I said, I have made decisions that will impact people’s lives. I have seen at first hand long delays that damage victims’ wellbeing, undermine their confidence and cause too many to withdraw from the process altogether. That is not a failure of victims, but a failure of the system. Let us be clear: the backlog is not just frustrating; the system can be frustrated. Some defendants game the system to delay their trial and avoid accountability for as long as possible, in the hope that by the time their case is heard, either it will fall over entirely, or witnesses and victims will be unable to give evidence, as it is not as fresh as it was. That is indefensible.

That is exactly the type of behaviour that the reforms are designed to stop. We are already investing heavily; there are more Crown court sitting days this year than ever before. We are putting money into repairing and modernising court buildings, legal aid and victim support services, which are getting long-term funding so that they can plan ahead. However, anyone who has worked in the courts knows that we cannot spend our way out of this problem. There simply are not the judges, the criminal barristers or the court staff to keep up with demand. Even courts that are running flat out are struggling. Without any reform, the backlog will continue to grow.

As we have heard today, everyone will have the right to a fair trial—that is fundamental—but the truth is that most criminal cases have never involved juries. Over 90% are already dealt with by magistrates, and they are dealt with fairly. Let us also be honest about history. It was a Conservative Government who, through the Criminal Justice Act 1988, restricted eligibility for jury trial by reclassifying a range of offences as summary only. We see selective amnesia all too often in this place.

As a former magistrate, I am proud of the work that magistrates do. I was pleased to see the campaign launched recently to recruit more of them to the bench. They are volunteers, drawn from their communities, who give up their time to serve the public. They are more representative of the society that they serve than the judiciary as a whole, and they take their responsibilities extremely seriously. I thoroughly enjoyed my role and truly encourage anyone from my community, and communities across the country, to put themselves forward for this important role.

Sir Brian Leveson has been clear: jury trials now take far longer than they used to, largely because cases are more complex and involve vast amounts of digital evidence. That is not anyone’s fault, but it does mean that the system needs to adapt. We must restore confidence by keeping communities safe and making sure that victims are supported, not forgotten, by the system that is meant to protect them. The Conservatives left behind a justice system in serious trouble. Labour is choosing to fix it.

The right to trial by jury is not some procedural convenience capable of being abridged when the administrative weather turns foul; it is one of the great constitutional expressions of liberty under the law. It is overwhelmingly legitimate, because it places the citizen, and not the state, at the heart of criminal judgment. When the state proposes to narrow the circumstances in which it must persuade 12 of a defendant’s peers, it is not merely managing a backlog; it is fundamentally recalibrating the balance between the individual and the Crown.

There is no doubt that the criminal justice system is under acute strain. Victims and defendants wait too long. Justice is stretched thin. However, the issue before us is not whether reform is necessary, but whether this reform is justified, proportionate and supported by evidence.

I hear everything my hon. Friend says. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) laid out a number of matters that could be acted on immediately to improve efficiency and ensure that we maintain the pillar of society that is our jury trials. Do you agree that we should be focusing immediately on that, rather than demolishing—

Order. No “yous”—it is not me responding.

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will touch on some of those points in a moment.

There has quite rightly been much reliance on Sir Brian Leveson’s report; he is a jurist of great distinction, and his work deserves careful reading, rather than convenient citation. Notwithstanding his analysis, this is a fundamental change to our legal system, and what is conspicuously absent from the Government’s argument is compelling evidence that jury trials are the principal driver of delay. If we are serious about confronting the backlog, we must look unflinchingly at the real causes: the prosaic but decisive failures of capacity, of which the jury trial is merely the most visible casualty.

The first issue is judicial sitting days. Courts cannot hear cases without judges. For too long, we have rationed judicial time as though it were a luxury, rather than the lifeblood of the system. Courtrooms stand idle not because juries cannot be summoned, but because there are no judges available to sit.

The second issue is the court estate. In too many parts of the country, criminal courts are dilapidated, unreliable and, frankly, unfit for purpose. Trials are delayed because of leaking roofs, broken technology and inadequate facilities.

Is there a part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech where he says that the reason that so many of our courts are dilapidated and falling down is because we did not see investment in 14 years of Conservative Government?

The hon. Lady is right to a degree: there has been failure by successive Governments to invest in the criminal justice system. If we were serious about this issue in this place, we would look at cutting welfare, which spends the entirety of the Ministry of Justice’s annual budget in just two weeks. We need to prioritise spending, and the criminal justice system has been left high and dry for far too long by Governments of all colours.

It is now routine for trials to be adjourned because defendants either arrive late or do not arrive at all, with juries discharged, witnesses turned away and days of court time lost as a consequence. These delays have nothing whatsoever to do with the presence of a jury, and everything to do with operational failure in the system.

The next point I wish to make, and possibly the most grave, is about the erosion of the criminal Bar. We face a serious shortage of suitably qualified advocates both to prosecute and to defend. Cases are delayed because no one of appropriate experience is available or willing to take them on. That is not inefficiency, but attrition. Curtailing jury trial risks mistaking the symptom for the disease. Worse, it risks creating a system that is perhaps faster, but thinner, and ostensibly more efficient, but unquestionably less legitimate.

I think of the words of Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor and one of the greatest legal minds of the previous century, who warned this very House of the dangers of an “elective dictatorship”, and the slow accretion of power to the state at the expense of the citizen. The jury trial is one of the great counterweights to that tendency, ensuring that the coercive power of criminal law is exercised only with the consent of the community. Juries do much more than merely find facts; they embody public confidence, guard against institutional complacency and remind us that justice is not something merely administered to the people, but done with them. If the Government believe that it is right to curtail that right, they must show clear evidence that jury trials cause the delay, that alternative modes of trial would be demonstrably faster, and that fairness, legitimacy and public confidence would not be diminished.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: there is no mandate for this decision. It represents such a significant constitutional change to our legal system, and it is being made without reference to the will of the people.

Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but justice expedited at the cost of constitutional principle may prove a far greater denial still.

Trial by jury is a cornerstone of our justice system. Being held to account in court by our fellow citizens is one of the embodiments of the principle of justice by the people, for the people. Like all aspects of our justice system, jury trial has a history, and has changed over time in response to changing social needs. I think a better understanding of how and why it has changed would help us to understand—if not agree with—the present-day proposals to amend it for our times, so I will focus my remarks in support of amendment (a) on that history.

When juries were first introduced, one of their roles was to determine the facts of the case before them. In other words, they had an investigative function—a function that was later removed from them and given to other bodies. Juries went on to be used in both civil and criminal cases for centuries—until they were not; a major reform in the 19th century removed juries from the adjudication of civil cases. A key driver of that reform was the pressing need to process a vastly increased flow of civil disputes created by a more complex commercial economy. Today, our civil justice system is renowned around the world for its robustness and fairness.

The composition and role of the jury in criminal cases has also undergone major changes over time. Who was called to serve on juries in the mid-19th century? Men of property, who gave verdicts in trials on a wide range of alleged offences. If we jump forward to the early 20th century, we see some major changes to that arrangement: by then, the range of people who could be called for jury service had widened to include women and working people, but the range of offences deemed to require a jury trial had greatly narrowed—a result of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, which was passed in this place to respond to the need for enhanced public access to justice by greatly expanding the remit of summary courts and magistrates. The magistracy is, of course, another embodiment of justice by the people, for the people.

I could say more, but this very potted history shows that juries have played a vital but shifting part in our justice system and have never operated in isolation from the other moving parts of the justice ecosystem. Their remit has narrowed at different points over time as the remits of other judicial bodies have expanded and flexed.

For me, the Government’s proposals for court reform are rooted in an undisputed drive to modernise our justice system. Those proposals retain jury trials—the right to jury trial is not being removed—but they also encompass a much wider range of suggested and very necessary changes to our justice system in order to uphold public access to justice.

Jury trials were introduced to bring order and justice to a legal system beset by opportunism, superstition, bias and archaic practices. For eight centuries, they have been the bedrock of English and British liberty, recognised globally as a bulwark against tyranny and oppression. Yet without any modelling, impact assessment or equalities assessment, and not in line with the review done by Sir Brian Leveson, the Government plan to scrap this ancient protection.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I have yet to make an argument, but I will shortly.

Who in this place can honestly say that if they were facing incarceration, they would be happy with just one judge and no jury making that decision? Think of the victims who face unconscious bias daily, and who will not get justice if just one person decides that question.

Most sinister of all has been the debate in the Chamber this afternoon. Labour MPs have argued that juries—ordinary people—cannot be trusted and are not up to the job. They have said that it is too complex and too detailed. What next? Will Labour strip their right to vote as well? It is deeply concerning. The Minister has said that this change is not the result of some crisis that Labour MPs want to blame on the Conservatives, and that the Government would be making it anyway. It is ideological. Every time Labour has come into government it has tried to strip jury trials—under Blair when I was a child, and yet again now.

Both the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have previously recognised the importance of jury trials; in fact, they opposed their abolition publicly. How will they justify their change of mind? Perhaps when the Justice Secretary is returned to Parliament after the next election, as he almost certainly will be, he will bring in trial by combat. Almost 40 of the Government’s MPs have opposed this change, and they are absolutely right to do so, because there are other options, including using unused sitting days and Sir Brian Leveson’s proposal to have one judge sitting with two magistrates; there would then be an element of a layperson having a say.

Clearly, the Prime Minister can admit it when he gets something wrong and can change course, as we saw—albeit far too late—with the family farm tax, welfare and grooming gangs. Do not leave it too late this time. The Labour manifesto made no mention of curtailing our right to jury trial. This is not a minor shift in policy; it is a worrying trend fundamental to the relationship between the individual and the state. We see this trend in the proposal for digital ID and the stripping of fundamental freedoms. Jury trials recognise the gravity of removing someone’s right to liberty.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I am just wrapping up, but go on.

I wonder what the hon. Member thinks about the history of jury trials, which shows that the right to trial by jury has not been an inalienable ancient right, but has been flexed over time.

If the hon. Lady had listened carefully, she would have heard that I did not say that jury trial was an inalienable right. The law says that one has a right to a fair trial. However, we have established historically that jury trials mean that we do not see unconscious bias. There have been archaic and appalling cases that have shown that one individual making a decision about others is often not fair, transparent or right. As we heard from Sir David Davis, there is a greater number of retrials when an individual made the decision in a trial than when a jury made the decision.

Order. Just to make sure that the hon. Member does not make a further mistake, I remind her not to mention colleagues by their first name.

My sincerest apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. A year of maternity leave does leave one with a few cobwebs.

The British people are very clear that they do not want this fundamental change.

The hon. Member makes a persuasive point about modelling and impact assessments. Having practised at the criminal Bar for the last two decades, I can tell the House that there will still be opening speeches by defence counsel and prosecution counsel, and there will still be cross-examination of witnesses. Most importantly, there is the questioning of the defendant. Judges understand the procedure, but defendants must also understand the procedure and closing speeches. I cannot see where there will be savings. That is why the modelling is so important. Does the hon. Member agree?

I am afraid that we hear again the continual argument that the average layperson cannot understand justice. If a defence lawyer or prosecution lawyer cannot make the argument make sense to the average person, they have no job representing an individual at court. It is their duty to make law transparent and understandable to every individual.

We hear this argument that court cases have become more detailed, but we should be pleased that there are more detailed and complex arguments being made in our courts. It is a sign of a court system that is working, and that does not rely on basics or tropes to get justice, yet the Labour party sees it as the opposite.

This is, unfortunately, yet another disappointing and deeply sinister step toward the Government fundamentally changing our relationship with the Crown and the state. I urge the Government to listen to the legal industry, and to listen to and trust the British people.

I wanted to be a barrister from when I was a child. I did not know any lawyers, and I think I got most of my ideas about what lawyers did from TV shows, but jury trials is what I wanted to do. Some of my most memorable moments as a barrister were prosecuting and defending in front of juries, so I get the importance of jury trials, but I also saw courts falling down and delays getting longer and longer, and I have spent recent years hearing former colleagues talk about cases that are listed for three, four or five years’ time. We have heard that the Crown court backlog is sitting at 78,000 cases, and in every single case, justice is being put on hold—a family is left reeling from a burglary, a teenager is recovering from assault, or a survivor of sexual assault is waiting years for her day in court. It is not acceptable.

Of course I want increased funding, and with this Labour Government we are already beginning to see that; an additional £450 million per year has been earmarked for the court system over the spending review period to fund the increased number of court sitting days. However, Sir Brian Leveson made it abundantly clear that the current system cannot stop the backlog from growing. With more digital evidence being presented in court; more DNA, cell site, electronic and social media evidence; and the massive disclosure exercises, trials are more complex. Sir Brian Leveson found that jury trials are taking twice as long as they did in the year 2000.

I spent over a year of my time as a barrister working on a complicated insider trading fraud case. We spent huge amounts of time and resource working out how we would present that prosecution to a jury. This is not to say that juries are not capable, but in terms of suitability and proportionality, I need no persuasion that trial by jury is often not appropriate in fraud trials and similarly technical trials.

We must be absolutely clear that the proposal is not to scrap jury trials. The proposal is to amend the type of cases that are heard by juries. The types of cases being heard by jury have changed and evolved over time. It was the Conservatives who, through the Criminal Justice Act 1988 , made offences such as common assault and criminal damage summary only, and not subject to jury trial. We are rightly proud of our legal traditions, but it is untrue to suggest that the lack of jury trials is somehow unique to despotic regimes. Sweden, which is No. 1 in the World Justice Project’s global rankings, does not use jury trials at all. Norway, which is ranked No. 3, also does not—nor do Germany and the Netherlands. In France, Denmark and Canada, only the most serious cases are heard by juries.

I believe that jury trials are a fundamental part of system, and it is right that they remain so, but something has to change. Without really bold action, the backlog will continue to grow.

I just wonder why the hon. Lady would not look to implement the recommendations from the shadow Secretary of State before seeking to restrict jury trials.

There are a huge number of additional measures that will be rolled out, and I look forward to continuing to engage with Justice Ministers on other measures that I believe will help. We have more coming after the next stage of the Leveson review.

We need bold action to ensure justice for victims across the country—and not years in the future. They need a criminal justice system that works. We all—the British people—need to have faith in our criminal justice system again.

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I listened to her speech very closely, and it was largely invalidated by the admission of the Minister that she would have made this change anyway, irrespective of any backlog. The hon. Member cannot guarantee the House—neither can the Minister—that the backlog would come down after the abolition, or partial abolition, of trial by jury, because there has been no impact assessment or modelling shown to the House. I am sure that the hon. Member will concede that.

The Minister is making this change under the guise of modernisation, but we must be very clear about what is at stake: 800 years of legal precedent. This right is set out in Magna Carta—and how clever they were in 1215 to come up with a legal mechanism that made sure that individual citizens have the right to pass judgment on their peers. This mechanism goes right to the heart of our society and shapes the relationship between the individual, or group of individuals, and the state. That is so the state cannot abuse its power in making a decision about taking away someone’s liberty or livelihood, or their reputation; a panel of peers makes that judgment. That is what is at stake.

Will my hon. Friend consider how Conservative Governments were wrong to reduce the number of types of offences heard by juries? Does he agree that it is absolutely necessary to see some modernisation, acknowledging that criminal trials and the evidence presented in those trials has changed over the years?

I am delighted that the hon. Member called me her hon. Friend; I accept such an accolade. I agree with trial by jury, as stated in the motion—it has validity in where it is in place—and Opposition Members think that reducing it, as the Government propose, without any assessment or guarantee of numbers, is wrong.

The hon. Member and many other Labour Members set out a number of ways—albeit in a party political guise—in which we could reduce the backlog, but the reality is, the Government are not even talking about those seriously; they are talking about reducing jury trials. I was here when the Justice Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and said that they would reduce jury trials to reduce the backlog. Those two things do not go hand in hand. That is why there is cross-party opposition as well as opposition from judges and all sorts of organisations, including the Criminal Bar Association, which says that this will not achieve what the Government want it to.

A constituent of mine—a local barrister who sees this day in, day out—wrote to me about improvements in sitting days. He wants to see investment in sitting days, and the Conservatives have called for that. We have also called for prisoner transport services to be on time, as well as—I think the Minister referred to some of these points—the targeted removal of cases that can no longer be prosecuted and, of course, investment in basic court infrastructure. If all those issues had been assessed and invested in, there may even have been cross-party support, as offered by the shadow Justice Secretary. I was surprised by the Minister’s tone; she then made the glaring admission that this change would have happened anyway.

This is about big statist ideology, undermining trial by jury. We continue to hear, as we did from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), that this proposal will undermine fairness in the system. Fundamental to this, in my view, is arrogance. There is arrogance in saying, “Actually, lawyers will know better than juries.” The whole nature of trial by jury is not about expecting an individual juror to have expertise in everything; it is about collective decision making that takes away bias and discrimination. No Government Members can guarantee that an individual judge—as neutral as they must be and as professional as they are—will not demonstrate those biases. That is the point we are making: the Government’s plan undermines one of the most fundamental individual liberties that we rely on in society.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that if the argument that runs is, “It is about expert lawyers arguing their case to an expert judge”, the next way of trying to speed up the jury process or modernise our legal process will be a further erosion of our rights by reducing the rights of appeal, because of that use of expert judges alone, without the benefit of a lay jury?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I suspect that I am running out of time. [Interruption.] I have one minute. Of course, the fundamental point is that this is a slippery slope, which opens the door to further erosion of individual rights. Government Members may think their proposal is a good idea because it cuts waiting times, but there may well be a moment when an individual has to rely on trial by jury—by the way, that is their right; they can request that because it gives fairness—and it is that fundamental right of being judged by our peers on which we rely. I implore Government Members to follow the example of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is taking a brave stance.

Who would have thought that a Government led by a human rights lawyer would be leading the charge to remove one of our most basic human rights, trial by jury? The Government are removing the right to a jury trial for any offences that carry a likely sentence of less than three years, supposedly to reduce the backlog of cases waiting to go to trial—but let us look at the evidence.

There is a backlog of 78,000 cases. There are around 1.3 million prosecutions in England and Wales every year, and 10% of those cases go before a Crown court. Of those, three out of 10 go to trial. These reforms mean that more than two out of 10 will still go before a jury. Given those figures, there will be no realistic change to the waiting times from removing that fundamental right. Who was doing the maths for this—the “Mastermind” Lord Chancellor? No wonder the Prime Minister appointed him.

My constituents in Tatton, from school pupils to the leader of the northern circuit and barristers from the Middle Temple, urged me to speak today to say that this is an absolute disgrace, and they put forward some of their suggestions. A barrister at St John’s Buildings said, “Actually, I don’t believe at all that cutting trial by jury will get down these lists and sort out the problem. In fact, I’m deeply concerned that such proposals will further erode the trust of the public in our justice system. It will remove their participation in criminal justice. There is no evidence that it will have any impact on the delays. A better solution for the backlog would be to stop the cap on the number of sitting days and let courts sit around the clock, and also to sort out the failure of the prisoner transport system, which does not get defendants to court, or that gets them there late and wastes time.”

Another barrister—a King’s Counsel criminal barrister at Lincoln House Chambers in Manchester—said, “I’m very concerned that curtailing jury trials is based on no credible evidence at all. In particular, there has been no pilot scheme. It appears that the suggested savings of 20% have been pulled out of thin air. Very importantly, it will erode a deeply entrenched constitutional principle that a jury may acquit as a matter of conscience in these cases. It will remove a bulwark against misuse of the criminal court by the Government and those in authority, and the ability of a jury to take a view favourable to a defendant for reasons other than evidence of guilt.”

What about the Lord Chancellor? Until a few weeks ago, he believed in juries and trial by jury, too. This is one thing that Government Back Benchers should really be concerned about: constituents have said to me that for such an important change to our unwritten constitution, there should have been mention of it in the Labour party manifesto. One person said, “That would have factored into my voting decision, and it could well have been—if not would have been—a very different decision.”

The debate has been revealing. There are no data, no impact assessments and no pilot. The Minister herself, who even suggests—

Order. The speaking limit is now three minutes.

Plans to restrict access to jury trial take a sledgehammer to one of the most important protections for the people of this country. I would expect any Government suggesting a change of that magnitude to have a strong rationale for doing so. Instead, we hear the nonsensical argument that curtailing jury trials will address the courts backlog, yet the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services told the House that only 3% of court cases are jury cases. So before we even get into the debate, we need clarity on what this change will mean for the backlog. That means modelling and timescales, not justifications based on religious belief. I suggest that the Government are getting desperate when that is the best they can offer—perhaps next we will hear that the tooth fairy backs digital identification or that Father Christmas supports giving away the Chagos islands.

Back in the real world, in 2024 the Lady Chief Justice gave evidence to the Justice Committee that our courts faced around 100 unplanned closures every week, with 200 near closures per month. That is in line with credible data suggesting that just yesterday, 15% of our Crown courtrooms sat empty, and it is the same today. If the Minister wants to tackle the backlog, might that not be the best place to start?

Let me turn to the key benefit of jury trials: the involvement of our peers in delivering justice. These are people in our own communities with no obvious axe to grind or political motivations. Any justice system that concentrates powers in the hands of a small number of repeat decision makers inevitably risks groupthink and unconscious, or even conscious, bias. A jury is a built-in safeguard: 12 ordinary people drawn at random, bringing different instincts and experiences, and forced to test the prosecution’s case in a way that a single decision maker cannot. Simply put, it is safer to spread human fallibility across 12 people than to concentrate it in one. A system in which liberty hinges solely on inputs from various arms of the state—the police, the CPS and then a judge—cannot be as inherently fair as one in which justice is done with the people’s direct involvement.

The curtailing of jury trials is not the only concern. Ministers want to expand sentencing powers in the magistrates courts by allowing them to hand down sentences of up to two years, while at the same time restricting the ability to appeal decisions taken in those courts. It is extraordinary that this Government think that someone who can sit as a magistrate from the age of 18, with no legal qualifications or experience, should be able to decide whether someone loses their liberty. If you were in the dock, would you be happy with that? Juries may not be perfect, but I know what I would prefer.

If the Government are determined to push ahead with this, they are knowingly increasing the risk of wrongful convictions and excessive sentences. We know that more than 40% of appeals against decisions taken by magistrates courts are upheld. How many miscarriages of justice are this Government willing to accept?

Ministers would be foolish to trade away a centuries-old safeguard for a headline about swift justice, only to discover afterwards that our courts are no speedier, just less just. I believe that the British people must remain participants in their system of justice rather than mere observers. I urge Ministers to think again. Do not curtail jury trials. Do not concentrate yet more power in fewer hands. Fix the courts. Protect our legal heritage.

The right to a trial by jury is one that has stood at the very centre of our criminal justice system for centuries. It is a crucial check on the power of the state as it undertakes one of the most solemn duties: to try a citizen and to determine guilt or innocence. That principle is, in the words of the Lord Chancellor himself, “a fundamental part” of our democracy. Instead of taking practical and obvious measures, such as fully utilising courtrooms that sit empty to address the serious backlog in the criminal justice system, the Government have instead chosen the destructive option that, in reality, is unlikely to adequately address the pressure on the system at all.

The Government’s approach rests on the flawed assumption that only certain cases are serious enough to merit trial by jury, but who is to decide what counts as serious? Horrific crimes such as murder and rape are rightly treated with the utmost gravity, but offences deemed lesser can still ruin lives: a theft accusation can end a career; an assault can leave lasting physical and psychological harm; a reputation can be destroyed beyond repair. Our justice system is not merely about classification but about justice itself. It works by consent and is the stronger for it. Trial by jury embodies that public consent. Without it, we risk victims’ trust in its fairness and defendants’ confidence that they will be judged fairly by their peers.

This debate is also about judicial decision making. The reality is that not all judges are created equal. No one is infallible. Judges can get things wrong and they can do so on more than one occasion. The strength of the jury system lies in renewal. Each case is considered by a fresh group of citizens. If a judge becomes the sole arbiter of guilt, there is a risk that errors—conscious or unconscious—can be repeated. The jury system makes our criminal justice system more robust, more resilient and ultimately more trustworthy.

Jury trials also play a vital role in ensuring justice is done, because they are drawn from the communities they serve. That point was made to me by Daniel and Grace Robinson, who are constituents of mine and experts in addressing modern slavery and criminal exploitation. From the hundreds of cases they have seen, they note that juries often recognise indicators of modern slavery much more than would have happened without them. That is because they bring a broad range of experience.

The Government seek to justify their changes on the basis of backlog reduction and cost, but we must not weaken the system that is respected across the world—

Order. I call Lewis Cocking.

As we have heard, trial by jury is one of this country’s most fundamental rights. Only months ago, this Government were elected and a Minister was saying:

“Jury service is an essential part of criminal justice which underpins the impartiality and fairness that runs through our legal system.”

I would have thought that every Member from right across the House would agree with that statement. Not a single one of us stood on a manifesto at the last general election to abolish jury trials in this country. Why would Ministers be so keen to abandon such an important tradition of our great country?

That we ask that question will come as no surprise to our constituents. From abolishing local councils and cancelling elections to imposing an authoritarian digital identity scheme, it is all part of the same pattern. Again and again, this Labour Government show that they are more than happy to curtail the voice and freedom of the British people.

If the Ministry of Justice had exhausted every possible route to get that backlog down, its proposals on jury trial trials might have a bit more credibility. This Government could remove the cap on sitting days, ensuring that courts can work at full capacity. They could work day and night to eliminate inefficiencies in the system, which waste hours of court time—but they have not.

Having seen the justice system up close through my work with Hertfordshire’s police and crime commissioner, I know that huge amounts of time are lost before a case even reaches court. A recent study from the University of Leicester found that, on average, it takes 113 days to charge a suspect after a crime has been recorded. Issues between police forces and the CPS when cases are submitted can add at least 72 days to the length of a case. Communication between police forces and prosecutors could be vastly improved. Digital evidence, such as body-worn cameras and CCTV, is widely present and the study notes that cases with digital evidence were submitted more quickly to the CPS than those without. Investigators also warn, however, of how time-consuming handling that sort of evidence can be. The Government should therefore focus on ensuring that police forces, prosecutors, the courts and, of course, victims take full advantage of video evidence so as to accelerate justice rather than slow it down.

That is just one example of the actions that Ministers could take, instead of embarking on this jury trials policy, which abandons such an essential component of justice in the United Kingdom. I urge this Government to start listening, to use all the tools available to them and to drop this disastrous policy.

I start by saying how extraordinary it was to hear the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services say earlier that she would be pursuing this policy even if there were not a backlog to deal with. That suggests that it was planned all along, but it is nowhere in the Labour party manifesto. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) explain in summing up why that is the case?

There is no mandate to reduce trial by jury. It is a profound constitutional shift—one that strikes at the heart of the relationship between citizen and state. Trial by jury is a centuries-old safeguard designed to ensure that an individual can be judged guilty only by their peers and not by the machinery of the state. It is the ordinary person’s shield against arbitrary power and yet, astonishingly, the Government now ask us to believe that that ancient protection must be curtailed just because Ministers do not want to do the hard work to reduce the backlog.

The Bar Council, which represents the very professionals who keep our justice system functioning, is correct to raise alarm bells. There is absolutely no evidence—none whatsoever—that restricting jury trials will reduce the backlog. The Government have produced no modelling, no data and no analysis to justify that constitutional gamble. That work should have been done before the announcement was made, especially for something of such magnitude. Around 3% of criminal cases currently reach a jury. To claim that reducing jury trials further will magically clear the backlog of tens of thousands of cases is just implausible. It defies logic and makes no sense whatsoever. This is a complete distraction. No hon. Member supporting the Government position has been able to explain how the decision will actually shift the dial on reducing the backlog.

Concern goes deeper, however, as many of my hon. Friends have explained. Every time this Government face a crisis, their instinct is not to work out how sensibly to fix the system but to take things away from British citizens. We have heard examples including digital ID and Chagos, and now they are taking away people’s right to be judged by their peers because they cannot get a grip of the criminal justice system. Judge-only trials may be quicker, but they are not fairer. They concentrate power in the single hand of a single state official. Did it cross anyone’s mind to pilot juryless trials in Crown courts? If not, why not? They remove the diversity of experience, the collective wisdom and the democratic legitimacy that juries bring. How many judges are under 40? How many are non-white? How many were educated in state schools? How many have personal experience of the issues? Now ask the same question of juries.

For me, the key question in this matter is this: what will be the impact on public confidence in our legal system? I will answer that question based on my professional life as a criminal barrister practising in our criminal courts. I shall also answer it from the perspective of someone who practised in Northern Ireland, where we had both jury trials and judge-alone trials, called Diplock courts. I have seen and operated both, and I know the public confidence level resulting from those respective types of trials. I have absolutely no doubt that the public have far more confidence in 12 peers making the decision than in a single judge making the decision. It is not that our judges are not intellectually adequate. It is not that they do not have massive legal experience. It is the fact that they do not have the lived experience of 12 individuals who are making a decision about charges against an equal person. That is the genius of the jury system. Those 12 individuals come to the case without preconceptions and without the baggage of anything else, and when they hear the evidence—and the evidence only—they make their decision.

The hon. and learned Member is making a good point. I, too, am a recovering lawyer. On the impact of these proposals, does he agree that because of the lack of confidence, what we are likely to see is not a cut in the backlog but an increase in applications to the Appeal Court to overturn unsafe convictions? That is hardly a way to fix the justice system.

Indeed, and I would remind the House that, because of concerns about the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, there was an automatic right of appeal, to try to build some confidence. That automatic right of appeal would not exist, in the main, in the proposals before us.

We are told that this measure will save time. It will not save time. What time would we be saving—an hour to swear in a jury or maybe a day while a jury deliberates? As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) pointed out, a judge who has to make a decision might do so there and then, but he would then have to go away and write it up. He would spend a lot longer writing it up, knowing that it might have to go through the fine-toothed comb of the Court of Appeal, than a jury would spend reaching a decision. There will be no time-saving. In my experience, the loss of time and the delays in our courts come primarily from delays in providing disclosure and from witnesses not being available. None of that will change under this new system. What will change is the body blow to confidence in the judicial system and the legal process.

For me, the Government lost this debate today when the bottom fell out of their case and the Minister had to say, effectively, that this was not about delay but about an ideology. It is an ideology that ill fits this House and an ideology that the House should most convincingly reject.

Since 1220, trials by 12 good men—trials by jury—have been taking place. Juries are a key way that citizens consent to and participate in one of the most significant powers the state holds: to convict and imprison subjects. According to the Secretary of State’s figures, cited in this House on 16 December last year, only 3% of all criminal cases are heard by a judge and jury under the current regime. He also claimed:

“Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of the British justice system. Delayed justice is justice denied.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 742.]

Yet he is now choosing to bring to an end an almost 1,000-year-old system in the name of efficiency. This is a complete red herring.

Remedies are already available that would help to solve the backlog. In November, the Institute for Government stated:

“The major drivers of poor productivity are not having enough criminal lawyers, badly maintained court buildings, shortages of court staff and poor technology”.

While none of those are quick or easy to overcome, maximising productivity is a far more practical and measured step than the controversial and nuclear option of judge-only trials via the introduction of a new intermediate court, the Crown court bench division, which has been neither piloted nor thoroughly modelled—[Interruption.] I hear the Minister chuntering from a sedentary position about who started that. Well, this Government are doing nothing to address it. They could do as we on the Conservative Benches suggest and make a start by providing an adequate number of sitting days. Lady Chief Justice Carr has already said that 2,000 days are currently going unused. I would advise the Government to help sort the backlog by allocating those, rather than by abolishing a significant part of our system.

The Institute for Government has identified that scrapping jury trials will save between 7% and 8% of the time currently spent on Crown court jury cases. Abolishing a practice used in such a small percentage of cases shows that this Government are more focused on the same tinkering at the edges that the Justice Secretary has stated we cannot afford to do, as opposed to using pragmatic, clear solutions that could help fix the issues. It also represents yet another in a long list of examples of Labour wanting to take power from citizens and further engorge the state. The Justice Secretary need not listen only to me. The Bar Council’s leadership issued a statement that made clear its position that it was against the curtailment of jury trials, stating:

“There is no evidence we have seen…that it will significantly reduce the Crown Court backlog. However, there is evidence that diminishing the constitutional principle of trial by jury will erode trust in our criminal justice system.”

When the Justice Secretary gave evidence to the Justice Committee in December, he said that the evidence underpinning the 20% time saving that comes from Sir Brian’s report would be released. If that makes the proposition good—I understand that the hon. Gentleman disputes that—would he and his party still oppose even the principle of structural reform, even if it is necessary to cut the backlog and keep it down?

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have just been informed that the hon. Member walked into the Chamber only about five minutes ago—

Order. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) has been here for a while. He was not allowed to make a speech because he was not here at the beginning of the debate, but he has been here for a while.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make progress.

No one who voted for Labour voted for this seismic change. It is rushed, knee-jerk and smacks of a Justice Secretary who is still smarting from his demotion from one of the great offices of state and is now overcompensating by attempting to make his mark. I urge the Government to reconsider, and I urge those on the Government Benches who plan to rebel today to do so with a clear conscience, knowing that they are simply cutting out the middle man, because the Government will inevitably end up where those rebels already are.

Trial by jury is not a luxury; it is one of the oldest and most fundamental protections in this country and a key safeguard of liberty. Yet under this Government, it is being treated not as a principle to be defended, but as a system to be rationed. We all agree that there is a crisis in the criminal justice system and that we need to bring the backlog down. Cases are drifting for years before reaching court, draining justice of its force and credibility. To the frustration of my constituents in Esher and Walton, the consequences fall heavily on victims and witnesses. Prolonged delays weaken evidence, memories fade, statements are withdrawn and prosecutions collapse. Confidence in law and order, and therefore in democracy, falters.

As my local borough commander told me this week, this change undermines policing. The Government have rightly prioritised community policing, and my own force in Esher and Walton has increased the solving rate for burglaries by 84%. Would it not be great if we all slept safely in our beds? But no—residents were shocked to learn that two individuals charged for burglary in December will not appear in court until September 2027. Similar problems arise in youth justice where sentences are repeatedly deferred, leaving young offenders without timely consequences and that most important of lessons for young people: that if they commit a crime, they will be punished. It erodes public confidence.

Why not use the most immediate lever and lift the cap on court sitting days? Late last year, I visited Kingston Crown court. The regional backlog had grown by 25%, yet courtrooms sit unused. Staff described to me the frustration of having judges, clerks, ushers, spaces and cases ready to proceed only to be blocked by limits on sitting days put in place centrally. The Government impose those caps—it is nonsensical. It makes no sense to pay for court buildings, judges and staff and then prevent them from operating fully. That is a false economy, which shifts the cost on to victims and communities and erodes public trust.

The Government have only marginally increased Crown court sitting days, barely touching the scale of the backlog and falling far short of what is needed, and this goes back to the priorities of the Treasury. Surely it must prioritise law and order first. Instead, the Government have decided to treat jury trials as a nuisance. They seem too costly and inconvenient. They are being squeezed not because they have failed, but because cutting them is easier than rebuilding the system around them.

This is a political choice, and it seems like an ideological choice from the conversation earlier, not an inevitability. The Liberal Democrats have set out a serious alternative: to invest in court buildings, lift the cap on sitting days, use courtrooms effectively, fix broken contracts that cancel hearings, including the failure of prisoners’ transport to bring defendants to court on time, and invest in rehabilitation to reduce offending. This policy is not what my constituents in Esher and Walton want.

I do not agree that the Government should curtail our rights to trial by jury. Trial by jury is an ancient right in England and the very essence of our criminal justice system. Combined with the Government proposals for digital ID, it reveals a very authoritarian attitude. It marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state, and I shall vote against it.

There is a crisis within the criminal justice system and specifically with the Crown court backlog, but that backlog was not caused by trial by jury and will not be cured by its removal. Why does the Lord Chancellor believe that abolishing the right to jury trials for those likely to receive a sentence of three years or less is the right thing to do to bring down the backlog? If it is based on evidence, as he says, will he publish that as soon as possible?

In the last two years, Government figures show that the Ministry of Justice, which includes the court service, lost the highest number of days per member of staff in sickness and absence in the whole of Whitehall, at an average of 10.7 days of sickness—more than two working weeks for every member of staff. That is more than 30% higher than the civil service average and over twice the UK average if the private sector is included. Were the Lord Chancellor to focus his efforts on improving the efficiency of his own Department, he might start to see the system as a whole improve.

I was not going to intervene, but I think it is important to because I have just visited Bournemouth Crown court and magistrates court, and the people there talked about that question of sickness. They talked about the fact that their staff have been carrying the load for so many members of a team who were not in place because they had seen austerity. Many staff in the Crown court system may be going on to sickness leave because they are burned out. They are burned out from years of cuts. Does the hon. Member not recognise that we need to invest in our Crown court system so that they can get back on their feet and our criminal justice can also get back on its feet?

In my experience, staff absence is normally the result of poor management. I suspect that the Ministry of Justice is managing its staff significantly worse than the rest of the civil service if staff sickness is 30% above the public sector average, which is not great to begin with. With approximately 16,400 staff in the court service, simply reducing the rate of absences to the civil service average would free up nearly 50,000 working days. That would help cut the backlog without undermining the principle of a fair trial.

We know that this Government have a habit of making bad decisions, getting ambitious Back Benchers to defend them for a few months and sending a hapless junior Minister out to face the media while the Secretary of State hides in his office, only at the last minute to realise what a disaster the plans are before executing a U-turn that comes far too late for them to gain any credit. We have seen that on winter fuel, welfare reform, the grooming gangs inquiry, the two-child benefit cap and, most recently, the family farm and family business tax, so I urge Labour Back Benchers to be very cautious about supporting the Government this evening. They risk voting for something that their constituents do not want and that in their hearts, they know is wrong. Ultimately, they know that late in the day, the Government will back down, leaving their credibility in shreds.

I would not say this of most of the debates that I attend in the House, but this one has been genuinely revealing, primarily because of what the Minister said at the end and the opening of her remarks. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) pointed out powerfully—he speaks with great professional experience on this issue—these proposals will not work. That is exactly what the Minister has been told by her own colleagues. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) described the proposals as “ludicrous” and said that they will not work. It is what she has been told by her own profession—her own colleagues in the legal profession point to the fact that these proposals will not work.

That speaks to a conundrum we have considered in past debates on this issue: why is there such reluctance on the part of the Government to bring forward the impact assessment if they have already made this decision? If they have already taken the view that these changes will work, surely they want to present the evidence to prove that. As was pointed out earlier in the debate, if they will not publish the full impact assessment, surely they will publish the threshold—the minimum tipping point—on which this policy will be determined worth while, not least given how fundamental a change is being proposed.

As the Minister set out at the end of her remarks, she would be making this change irrespective of whether there is a crisis in the courts. There we have the crux—the head of the nail that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim hit—which is that this is an ideological change. That in turn opens up a second paradox: if the change is ideological, why was it not in the manifesto? Indeed, if it is ideological, why is it contrary to what the Justice Secretary said so many times in opposition? When did he have his change of belief to this new ideological position?

Given the time limit, I will turn to a further contradiction. The Prime Minister has so often spoken about the need for more trust in politics, yet here we have a policy that marks a fundamental change after 800 years of legal precedent with no transparency or evidence that it will work, that was not in the manifesto and that is contrary to the remarks that the Government have made.

At the start of her remarks, the Minister spoke about choices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out with the list he gave and as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) rightly identified, this will be a choice for Labour Back Benchers, and it is a choice that they are at risk of making only for the Prime Minister to then belatedly change his mind.

I call the shadow Minister.

I am pleased to wind up this Opposition day debate on the Prime Minister and Justice Secretary’s ill-considered, poorly evidenced and rash plan to curtail one of our cornerstone rights—the right to a trial by jury—which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) colourfully described as one in which the bottom fell out of the Government’s argument.

I disagree with the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary on very many issues, but today, for once, I find myself in fulsome, wholehearted agreement with not just the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary, but the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). I agree with all three of them that jury trials are a crucial, vital part of our justice system that should be protected wherever possible. Even with this Prime Minister, who has an unrivalled reputation for having opinions that last as long as they remain popular with whoever’s vote he is seeking at a particular point in time, we are in the extraordinary position where the Government are now putting forward a proposal that the Justice Secretary, the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister himself all previously argued vigorously against.

In fact, I am going to indulge in a degree of parliamentary plagiarism—I am going to let them do the hard work of writing at least some of my speech for today. First, I will hand over to the Justice Minister, who previously said on the issue of limiting jury trials:

“Instead of weakening a key constitutional right, the government should do the hard work…We all have the right to be judged by our peers when the prospect of imprisonment from society is before us. To take that right away would be a wholly draconian act.”

Next, let me ask the Justice Secretary to take over. He said:

“Jury trials are fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”

He also said:

“Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”

I could not have said it better myself.

Finally, although I appreciate that he is a busy man, I will lean on the Prime Minister’s carefully considered words. He said:

“The general and overriding presumption should be jury trial, with very, very limited exceptions”,

and,

“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”

That question of balance is at the heart of the matter. The Minister, as well as Labour Back Benchers—thin on the ground though they have been—have rightly pointed out that we have criminal trials without juries. That is a fact, but it is no argument for these measures. If that is the Government’s argument, we could simply do away with jury trials entirely without anyone being concerned. It is and has always been a balance, but as the Justice Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Prime Minister understand—or understood at one point at least—altering that balance should be considered only when there is no other option.

To draw a comparison that illustrates the seriousness of the matter, during the pandemic—at the heart of the crisis that was widely accepted to be the biggest challenge to face our nation since world war two—jury trials continued. In fact, it was during world war two that we last saw proposals anything like as radical as those we are considering today, but even they did not come close to this proposed curtailment. During that time, we reduced the number of jurors from 12 to seven in most cases. When our nation was under attack and every element of life was turned over to the war effort, we modified but fundamentally retained the right to jury trials.

I am pleased to say that the meeting of minds between me and the triumvirate who are making this decision is only the beginning; I find myself in common cause with 37 Labour MPs today. It is fair to say that the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), as well as the hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) are very far from me on the political spectrum, but, like other colleagues, they are clear that these proposals are wrong, and I wholeheartedly agree. When there are 37 names on a signed public letter, any decent Whip would know that there are at least the same number lurking in the background, not willing to go public but rushing to answer the phone call from the Whips at the weekend to say that they are not happy with the proposals.

What do those 37 Members say? They say that the proposal is “madness”, that it

“will cause more problems than it solves”,

and that

“the public will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given that there are numerous other things the Government could do to more effectively reduce the backlog.”

That final point takes us right back to the issue of balance. The Government have quite simply failed to articulate why these proposals are the only way forward. They might have received a more sympathetic reception had they strained every sinew to tackle the issue and truly exhausted all other options since their election.

As our motion acknowledges, the courts are under unprecedented pressure—no one disputes that. The delays are too long, victims are waiting too long for justice, and defendants are left in limbo. Prior to the pandemic, the Crown court backlogs were lower than those that we inherited from the previous Labour Government—I do not remember Labour MPs being concerned about that at the time—but then covid hit and placed unprecedented strain on the criminal justice system, leaving a long and difficult legacy. The result was an enormous reduction in court capacity that led to backlogs shooting up in a way they never had before.

I remind the ouse again that even during that challenging time, there was cross-party support for the guiding principle that jury trials should continue. After the pandemic, England and Wales resumed jury trials faster than many comparable countries, following one of the shortest suspensions anywhere, because they were treated as a priority. The previous Government opened, and extended the use of, 20 Nightingale courtrooms, increased the number of judges and raised the judicial retirement age to retain experience in the system. In a short number of years, we increased the number of sitting days by more than 20,000—an unprecedented level. Despite that, the loss of capacity could not simply be undone.

In the light of the shadow Minister’s comments about sitting days, does he condemn the Conservative cut of nearly 15% of sitting days in 2019 and congratulate this Labour Government on increasing the number of sitting days?

As the shadow Justice Secretary outlined, there has not been enough investment in the justice system over many decades. I also want to make it clear that the claim about a record number of sitting days is a bit of a statistical anomaly, because, as the Government know, there was a change in how sitting days are measured. Using the historical measure to make the comparison, we matched that number of sitting days—and perhaps even surpassed it. Of course, we uncapped sitting days for a number of years during the pandemic. This Government have failed to do that, and they have failed to rapidly increase the number of sitting days, which the Institute for Government said makes things more difficult. As I said, there is no dispute about whether there are long-standing issues, as Members across the House acknowledge. The question is what to do about them.

Let us be clear about how many of the unacceptably long waits are the result of a wait for a jury trial. The Justice Secretary has rightly been criticised for quoting statistics about victim drop-out rates in a deeply misleading way. We do not want to see any victims drop out for any reason, or any long waits, but fewer than 10% of drop-outs occur post-charge, and that figure is coming down. It is not helpful to understanding this issue for Members to cite waits of six or seven years that in fact relate to the delay from alleged offence to sentencing. Yes, waits for trial from point of charge are too long, but that is just part of the picture.

Jury trials are not a quirk or a happenstance for how we deliver criminal justice in this country; they are a foundational principle of our justice system reaching back to Magna Carta. For more than 800 years, ordinary men and women have been trusted to sit in judgment, to weigh evidence, and to decide guilt or innocence. That public participation is not a flaw in the system; it is one of its greatest sources of legitimacy. Removing juries, even for a narrow category of cases, let alone the radical changes before us, alters the relationship between the citizen and the state, and replaces collective judgment with individual arbitrary authority.

In light of the shadow Minister’s comments, does he think it was wrong of the then Conservative Government, through the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to make offences such as criminal damage and common assault summary only, removing juries for those offences?

I wonder whether the hon. Member was listening to my speech. I have said throughout that the issue is one of balance. As the Prime Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Minister have said, we must tread carefully; for the hon. Member to draw comparisons between minor changes and wholescale huge reductions in the use of jury trials shows that she fails to understand that the issue is one of balance. The obvious flaw in the argument being made by the Government in support of these measures—that they are to tackle what we should all consider a temporary problem—is that the measures are permanent. There is no plan to reverse them when the backlog is down, as the temporary measures in world war two that I mentioned were reversed.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that curtailing jury trials will not solve the delays but simply push the backlog back to the appeal courts? Worse still, it risks creating a two-tier justice system where those who can afford to appeal will do so, and those who cannot will be left behind.

The hon. Member is pointing out one of many flaws in the arguments that the Government have put forward to justify their case, and they simply have not made it. Court sitting days are still being wasted. Yesterday alone, more than 50 Crown court rooms sat empty.

Let us be clear: while the Government lean heavily on at least some of what has been proposed in Sir Brian Leveson’s review, they need only to have looked into the bowels of the MOJ to unearth those exact ideas. That is because—this will come as little surprise to Conservative Members—we have been here before with Labour Governments. As Justice Secretary when Labour was last in office, Jack Straw also proposed removing the right to a jury trial for either-way offences. As is the case today, rightly, Members of both Houses and people from across the political spectrum united to stop those proposals. We can do away with the pretence that this is purely the workings of an independent figure. I am afraid that Sir Brian has become a shield for defending these ideas—a shield that Labour Members lacked last time around, and that they obviously hope will make the difference this time.

We are right to fear that this is the thin end of the wedge. Thanks to leaked plans, we know what the Justice Secretary wanted to do, which was to go much further than even these proposals by removing jury trial for sentences of up to five years. Where will the Government go next if they succeed with these proposals?

It is also impossible to ignore the wider context. A number of my constituents have raised with me, and other Members of the House, the point that while the Government argue that fundamental legal safeguards must be set aside, they are spending £1.8 billion on a nationwide mandatory digital ID system. The Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Law Society have all warned against the proposals. They have been clear that restricting jury trials will not solve the backlog, and risks distracting from the real work that needs to be done: fixing the basics, investing in infrastructure and people, and making them function efficiently.

I close by going a little closer to home. Rudyard Kipling, who lived in my constituency—you can find a statute of him in the village of Burwash—said in his 1911 poem, “The Reeds of Runnymede”, about the centrality to British freedom of trial by jury—[Interruption.] I will finish with this, Madam Deputy Speaker, if Labour Members could stop their chuntering. He said:

“At Runnymede, at Runnymede,

Your rights were won at Runnymede!

No freeman shall be fined or bound,

Or dispossessed of freehold ground,

Except by lawful judgment found

And passed upon him by his peers.

Forget not, after all these years,

The Charter signed at Runnymede.”

Conservative Members have not forgotten. Let us hope that enough Labour Members have also not forgotten either.

It will be quite tough to follow that, but here we go.

This has been a very useful debate. Every single contribution, including those from Conservative colleagues, has commented on the crisis in our courts that we inherited from the Conservatives after 14 years. We have heard some suggestions; the gist of the suggestions from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Opposition is, “Let us get more court sitting days.” Would it not have helped if the Conservatives had not closed half of the magistrates courts in England and Wales? Across the entire estate, they sold off more than 40% of all court buildings for far less than they were worth to the communities they served.

As a result of the Conservatives’ vandalism of our court system, there are nearly 80,000 cases waiting to be heard and that number will continue to rise beyond 100,000 without investment, efficiency savings and structural modernisation. Let us be clear: this Government will bring forward a modernisation package that will drag the criminal justice system into the 21st century, ensuring that justice is done fairly and swiftly, that our system meets the challenges that modern criminal cases bring, and that we never again reach a point at which the public’s faith in the criminal justice system is so severely undermined.

The House has heard today a clear and compelling case from my hon. and learned Friend the Courts Minister, who set out the bold but sensible reform we need, bringing down the backlog by the end of the Parliament. It is rooted in evidence, grounded in reality and driven by a simple objective: to fix a criminal court system under unprecedented strain and put it on a sustainable footing for the future.

When the Courts Minister closed her statement, the principle was not about the backlog: she said that she would have gone ahead with scrapping juries to this extent regardless of the backlog. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Is it a principled position or is it about dealing with the administrative burden?

We absolutely have to drag the criminal justice system into the 21st century by modernising its structures, but the context in which we operate clearly has an effect on that programme. The fact that we have inherited an unprecedented backlog in our criminal court system affects the urgency and radicalism of that reform.

Let me take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Sir Brian Leveson, who is no shield. His independent review has driven the reforms that we are taking forward; it is rigorous, thoughtful and absolutely clear about the scale of the challenge before us. Let us be very straight: the reforms being proposed, which will be set out in due course before this House, are not plucked out of thin air but the result of intensive, careful work undertaken by the most senior lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary. The modernisation programme will be built on evidence. These are difficult decisions and no doubt uncomfortable for some in the legal profession, but they are absolutely vital for a properly functioning and robust system that we can be proud of to take into the future.

Let me bust some of the myths that we have heard in the debate. Some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested that these changes tear up a historical right to a jury trial. Let me be abundantly clear that they do not. Article 40 of Magna Carta reminds us that we must not

“deny, or delay right or justice”,

giving us the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. Sadly, in this country today, justice delayed has become justice denied for far too many victims. The Government will not cling to mythological tradition at the expense of fairness, effectiveness and public confidence. We will rise to meet the challenge of the day, rather than living in the past.

I have heard on countless occasions the assertion that this Government are scrapping jury trials. That is not true. Everyone has and will always have the right to a fair trial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) made clear in her compelling speech. There has never been an inalienable or unqualified right to a trial by jury.

Let us set out the maths in some detail, because this is very important. Currently, 10% of all criminal cases are subject to jury trial. Some 7% of those are pleas, where there is no trial, so just 3% are subject to a jury trial. The reforms before the House would reduce that number to just 1.5%. These are modest reforms affecting a small proportion of the criminal cases in our country.

I have great respect for what the Minister is saying, but I and many others on the Labour Benches still have questions. Will he agree to meet those of us who think, for example, that the proposals from the Criminal Bar Association deserve closer scrutiny, so that we can discuss those proposals in further detail?

As ever, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this or many of the other issues he raises in the House.

Let us be very clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) has set out, this is a modest change to jury trials—something that has happened throughout our history. The Opposition were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) that their party has made modest changes to jury trials in the past. It was Margaret Thatcher, one of the shadow Justice Secretary’s various political heroes, who reclassified crimes including taking a motor vehicle without authority and who raised the threshold for criminal damage. Those became summary-only offences in 1988—they were not subject to juries at all. I wonder whether Conservative Members consider Mrs Thatcher to have torn up the Magna Carta or undertaken constitutional vandalism. It is a rhetorical device that Rumpole would be proud of.

We have heard today about what more we could be doing, but let us set out what we are doing. This Government are investing at record levels; this year alone, we have allocated over 100,000 Crown court sitting days—the highest number ever and 5,000 more than the previous Government. I remind the House again that in 2019, the previous Government cut Crown court sitting days by almost 15%—that is their record and their legacy, but Conservative Members did not mention any of that in their speeches today. The Government have committed £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates and £92 million a year for criminal legal aid solicitors, in recognition of their vital role in the justice system and to fix the problems caused by the previous Government’s mismanagement. We are also looking at match-funded criminal barrister pupillages, with a clear focus on opening up the criminal Bar to more talented young people from every background.

The Minister tells the House that an insignificant number of cases will be impacted. If that is true, what is the point? I am sure he has heard the adage that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. It can only been done through jury trials.

It is a small number of cases, but they take an inordinate amount of time. That is the whole point of what Sir Brian Leveson has put forward, and in due course, when this legislation comes before the House and the impact assessments are put before it, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that for himself.

Others have argued that investment alone, or ironing out inefficiencies, would be enough to deal with the record and rising caseload. We have heard about the problems with getting prisoners to court and about the buildings left with leaking roofs after 14 years of austerity. We are going to fix those too, but Sir Brian Leveson could not have been clearer that that will not be sufficient. Even with record investment, the Crown court caseload is projected to exceed 116,000 by 2029. The demand is simply too great, which is why we are driving forward a full programme of modernisation.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way on that point, and then I will make progress.

The Minister talks about record demand and the pressure on court services. Is he able to outline what assessment has been made of the increase in pressure on the court system as a result of cracking down on the right to protest in legitimate cases?

We treat all cases the same. The hon. Gentleman can make that point in a debate on that subject at another time.

Let me end where I began. The crisis that this Government inherited has no doubt given rise to a heightened need to deliver a more modern, resilient and flexible model of criminal justice: one that protects what is fundamental—such as jury trials for the most serious offences—but is bold enough to change where change is needed so that it truly serves victims, commands public confidence and is fit for the realities of the 21st century. These changes will provide long-term, stable foundations for the criminal courts system and prevent the caseload from ever again reaching its current levels. That should be our focus—not a narrow debate on the merits of tradition versus the challenges of the day, or preserving a system that so clearly no longer works for the British people.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.