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

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of restricting the right to trial by jury in some circumstances on levels of public confidence in the criminal justice system.

We inherited a justice system in crisis, with a backlog of over 80,000 cases—double what it was in the pre-covid era—and with victims, witnesses and defendants waiting years for justice. That is what truly undermines confidence in our justice system. Justice delayed is justice denied. Only by pulling every lever—investment, efficiency and reform—can we turn the tide.

On the Secretary of State’s watch, the courts backlog has reached record levels, yet his answer is to weaken one of the oldest rights in our justice system: trial by jury. The backlog was not caused by juries and it will not be solved by scrapping juries. The Bar Council says there is very little evidence for the Government’s approach, while the Institute for Government estimates that it would save at most about 2% of court time, and even that may be generous. Why will the Government not drop this ill-judged proposal and focus instead on the serious reforms needed to cut the backlog and speed up justice for victims?

If the hon. Gentleman were serious, he would get on top of the detail. We are not scrapping juries; juries remain a cornerstone of our system. Just as Margaret Thatcher made changes to the jury system, and just as the Blair Government made changes to the jury system, we are making changes to bring down the backlog.

On Saturday, the Secretary of State promised extra court time for anyone arrested at the “Unite the Kingdom” march, yet there are grooming gang survivors who have waited more than 20 years for their cases to come to court. How is it that he is able to find court time to arrest protesters, yet some victims of vile sexual abuse are waiting decades to have their cases heard in court?

I would have thought that the hon. Lady, as a magistrate, would recognise that the right to protest exists in our country and we defend it, but that where people spew hate or incite violence and where anyone causes criminal damage or harm, of course the courts will bear down on them in the strongest possible way.

Hon. Members fairly hold strong views on these reforms. It is notable that, in Scotland, the right to elect between solemn and summary procedure for certain offences does not sit with the accused but with the procurator fiscal, but the people of Scotland are listening to this salient debate. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must conduct the debate on the Government’s reforms without feeding the increasingly malignant narratives of certain groups who are seeking to undermine public confidence in prosecutions and convictions in every corner of the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is fundamental that people have confidence in our justice system, wherever they are across these isles. That is why this Government are seeking to do all they can to get both the court system and the prison system out of the crisis that we inherited.

It must be absolutely exhausting for the Justice Secretary to hold on to an idea that only he still pretends is a good one. The Mayor of London is opposed to these changes and has tried to persuade the Justice Secretary to bin them. The Mayor of Greater Manchester is opposed to this ludicrous idea. The leader of Scottish Labour was opposed to this idea—and it does not even involve Scotland. The former Welsh First Minister was apparently opposed to it. When is the Justice Secretary going to get his ego out the way and bin the ludicrous idea of curtailing jury trials?

The hon. Gentleman makes his point with real force. However, he never talks about victims, and has not explained how we should bring down the backlog. The truth is that we are determined to bring down the backlog, and that is why—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr Turner, I took the question; I expect you to hear the answer as well.

We are determined to bring down the backlog. The hon. Gentleman knows that Governments of all stripes stand by our jury system and stand by Magna Carta. We are not scrapping jury trials.

I know that the hon. Gentleman gets excited about this, but he should recognise that.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I come with good news: with increased funding from the Government, uncapped sitting days and improved disposal rates, backlogs in the Crown courts are falling. At the Old Bailey in 2025, the backlog fell by a quarter, in Chelmsford it fell by 10%, and Maidstone saw a 5% reduction. The truth is that proper funding for our courts and uncapped sitting days are bringing down the backlogs, but the Government are choosing to ignore that data and are persisting in taking a sledgehammer to jury trials, although that will not deliver shorter wait times for victims. Why will the Minister not trust those in the justice system who want to deliver for victims using the increased funding and resource that he has delivered for them?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising that we have seen a small reduction because of the increased investment I have put in, and because of the extra sitting days; the modernisation that we have talked about, and enlisting artificial intelligence in particular, will also make a difference. However, given the size of the backlog, if we are serious about bringing it down over the next few years, we will need reform as well.