What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

The Conservatives left our criminal justice system on the brink of collapse, and we are taking action to clean up the mess they left behind. Our detailed impact assessment, published alongside the Courts and Tribunals Bill, shows that our package of measures will save about 27,000 sitting days per year, a saving of almost 20%. Only through reform, together with record investment and action to modernise our courts, can we finally turn the tide on the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims.

The Justice Secretary has just told us that the reason he is cutting jury trials is to get the backlog down. If that is the case, why is there not a Sunset clause, so that once the backlog is reduced, those jury trials can resume?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened during the Second Reading debate, he would have heard me say that demand in the system is up. Police arrests are 10% up. For all those reasons, alongside the backlog that we inherited from the Conservative Government, it is important that we put in place reform that is sustainable for the long term, and that is why there is not a Sunset clause.

About 6,200 cases are awaiting justice in the south-west. Sexual offences cases take about 320 days, but local victims and defendants deserve justice. The excellent example of Liverpool Crown court highlights how it is possible to tackle the case backlog and secure justice without impacting defendants’ right to a jury trial. Given that tackling the backlog using efficiency, not removing the right to a jury trial, has the backing of the public and the Opposition—and, indeed, Labour MPs—when will the Secretary of State back down from his entirely un-British decision to minimise the use of jury trials?

It was not un-British when the Callaghan Government made reforms at the end of the 1970s, and it was not un-British when Margaret Thatcher made changes in 1989. It is precisely because we are lifting the system, which was on its knees under the last Government, that it is absolutely the opposite of un-British to support victims, especially women, who find themselves in the criminal justice system.

The Government’s case for curtailing trial by jury is based on an impact assessment that rests on assumptions, rather than hard evidence. Is it not the truth that the Government are asking Parliament to give up and weaken a fundamental safeguard on the basis of hearsay alone?

Sir Brian Leveson spent months delivering part 1 and part 2 of his reforms. We are building on that. I have set out that this is a 20% saving. If the hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary—I am not sure he ever will be, but if he were—and he was told that a 20% saving could get the waiting list down, he would take it in an instant; so am I.

I think what the Health Secretary is actually doing at the moment is paying people to fudge the waiting lists. I want to be very clear, because there are slightly mixed messages from the Justice Secretary: are there any circumstances in which he would consider the reintroduction of jury trials for those cases that are going to have them removed?

I know the hon. Gentleman has studied this closely, but there are two problems we have to fix. Demand is going up—I said that the police are arresting more. But he will know that because of the use of smartphones, social media, DNA evidence and forensics—for all those reasons—trials are taking longer. That is what we are seeking to fix in the Courts and Tribunals Bill and that is why we have to put the system on a sustainable footing for the next generation. That is what the Bill will deliver.

Since coming into this role, I have heard from more victims than I ever thought I would in a lifetime. They tell me their stories, and I believe them and listen. What I do not ask them to do is report, because nobody wants to put anybody in a system that is so unsustainable, and re-traumatise them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the changes being presented and driven through by our Government will mean that a victim is more able to report, more likely to feel like they can get an outcome in a reasonable amount of time and less likely to feel that they are the ones on trial?

I am hugely grateful for my hon. Friend’s continual advocacy in the Chamber on behalf of victims. She is absolutely right. If we do nothing, we head to a backlog of 200,000, and many, many victims sitting behind that backlog. If we do as Opposition Members suggest, we head to a backlog of 133,000. That is why we have to do these reforms and why I am very pleased to put forward a Bill that also does more, in particular for victims of sexual crime and rape.

Under the previous Conservative Government, criminal justice funding was cut by 23%, we lost 42% of our magistrates, half of our magistrates courts were closed and the number of sitting days in our Crown courts went down. That is the record of the Conservative Government. The only thing that went up was the number of victims waiting for justice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the crocodile tears from the Conservative party today just show why the public should never put trust in arsonists to put out the fire?

One hundred per cent. That is why the Shadow Justice Secretary, when he stands up, should apologise. He was sat in the Home Office while that was happening.

Talking of which, I call the Shadow Secretary of State.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Order. The Opposition Benches were disorderly yesterday; I do not want the Government Benches to be disorderly today. Have the courtesy to hear the question, please. I am inundated with constituents complaining about the behaviour of MPs in this Chamber. I expect Ministers to set the best example, not the worst.

The Prime Minister, we learned this weekend, once said that trials without juries mean evidence is not properly tested and can lead to wrongful convictions. Was he wrong?

Is that the best the hon. Gentleman can do? Of course the Prime Minister was not wrong—that is why jury trials will remain the cornerstone of our system. What a waste of a question!

I think the public will be disappointed by this behaviour. The Justice Secretary cannot get his story straight. Like the Prime Minister, he once said:

“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”.

Now he says they are a good idea, with his justification for this change changing by the minute. Last week, 10 Labour MPs voted against the courts Bill and 90 abstained. They are looking for a compromise—not in the House of Lords, but while the Bill is in this House. The Justice Secretary just refused to agree a Sunset clause in answer to my hon. Friend Jerome Mayhew, so, for the sake of the 100 Labour MPs who do not trust him or his intentions, I will ask again: will he consider a sunset Clause, or will he tell his own MPs no?

I have to say, the hon. Gentleman has not apologised for the state that the Conservatives left the criminal justice system in, closing 40% of court buildings in England—[Interruption.]

Order. I will say this to both sides: there has been quite enough chipping in. The public do not like it, and I am not going to tolerate it.

There was also a reduction in funding of 23%. The hon. Gentleman knows that 90% of criminal justice cases are dealt with by the magistrates courts and 10% go to the Crown court, with 7% of those people pleading guilty—that leaves 3%. Our Bill is to deal with a small proportion of cases in a new Division so that we can do that swiftly. I have previously explained the reasons—demand in the system and length of trial—why it is my judgment that these have to be sustained changes, as were made by the Thatcher Government at the end of the ’80s and the Labour Government at the end of the ’70s. That is what I proposed. The Bill will now go to Committee and then on to Report, and will be debated and discussed in the usual way.