I said at Second Reading that I was going to oppose a lot of the clauses in the Bill, and I will be standing up several times today to do exactly that. The first clause I oppose is Clause 1, and I find myself signing up to do so with some unusual colleagues—which is obviously a pleasure. I am against this clause because the Government, in order to make the court system easier to manage, are taking away an important protection from people accused of criminal offences. If we cannot get rid of the first clause, I support the other amendments in this group.

The right to elect trial by jury is an important safeguard. This clause removes that choice and hands the decision to magistrates. I have great respect formagistrates—I know quite a few and I appreciate the work they do—but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether a defendant should lose the choice of having their case heard by a jury. The Government argue that this is necessary to tackle the Crown Court backlog, but as we have already heard, removing rights is not a substitute for properly resourcing our courts. It is not going to work; that is fairly obvious from the debates we have had already.

The Bar Council strongly opposes this provision. It warns that the changes will result in more serious and complex cases being heard in magistrates’ courts, which is fairly obvious. But that concern becomes even greater when we consider Clause 5, which I will also be opposing and which increases magistrates’ sentencing powers. Taken together, these provisions mean that more serious cases can be dealt with in magistrates’ courts, with greater powers to deprive defendants of their liberty.

There is also the equality consideration, which I am disappointed that the Government have refused to address so far. Their own equality statement acknowledges that Black defendants, older defendants and women are more likely to elect for a Crown Court trial. In 2022, 26% of Black defendants elected for a Crown Court trial, compared with 15% of white defendants. The Lammy Review found that many people from ethnic-minority backgrounds had

“more confidence in the fairness of juries than … in the fairness of Magistrates’ Courts”.

So removing this choice risks further undermining confidence in a justice system where trust is already quite fragile.

There are consequences for witnesses and complainants too. Section 28 special measures, which allow eligible witnesses to have their cross-examination pre-recorded, is not available in magistrates’ courts. This is particularly important for children, people with certain disabilities, and complainants of sexual offences. With the current spotlight in our country on sexual offences and the fact that women find it incredibly difficult to get justice, this is quite an important component.

The Government acknowledge that there is insufficient data to establish how many vulnerable witnesses could be affected. How can we press ahead with something when we do not even have the data to see whether it is going to be good or bad? I do not understand. The organisation Justice also supports removing the clause.

A fair trial should not depend on whether the Government want to move one backlog to another. The right to a jury trial should not be treated as expendable and Greens such as me will always defend it.

I rise to speak to the remaining amendments in this group. Amendments 8, 67 and 75 essentially agree with the points made by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I draw the Government’s attention to their own equalities statement. It says that

“if more cases are dealt with in the magistrates’ courts, it is likely that an increased proportion of these defendants may be ineligible for legal aid when they would otherwise have been eligible if their case had been heard at the Crown Court”.

That is a pretty big admission, and I think it is something that we have to take into account. I hope that the Government will remember their own words, because it means that they are well aware that their reforms will mean more people going through the courts without a lawyer.

Many of us raised this at Second Reading. The income threshold for criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ court is much lower than in the Crown Court. As Justice points out, someone working full time on the minimum wage will not qualify for legal aid in the magistrates’ court. So the Government are moving more cases into a court where fewer people qualify for legal aid. They know this will happen. It says so in their own assessment.

Justice also points to research by Transform Justice, showing what happens when defendants have to represent themselves. They may not understand the charges, they enter the wrong plea, they struggle to question witnesses or fail to put forward information that could reduce their sentence. The consequences become even more serious when the Bill increases magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years in prison. Someone could face a substantial prison sentence without having had access to a publicly funded lawyer.

Victims can also be affected. In some cases, including assault cases, defendants are allowed to cross-examine witnesses themselves. More unrepresented defendants could mean more victims having to face questioning by the person accused of the offence. The Institute for Government has warned that unrepresented defendants can make hearings longer and more complicated. That does not sound like any sort of efficiency saving that the Government are hoping to achieve.

At Second Reading, the Minister acknowledged these concerns, and the Government’s answer was that they would look at the new income thresholds after the reforms had been implemented, depending on funding and operational considerations. I want to make sure that they are addressed before these huge changes come into effect. The Government know there is a problem; they know that more defendants will be in the magistrates’ courts, where the legal aid threshold is much lower, but they want to press ahead with the court reforms and leave the question of whether people can afford legal representation until afterwards.

Lord Leveson, and the Justice Committee have recommended increasing the income thresholds. My amendment, supported by Justice, would make sure that the financial eligibility criteria in the magistrates’ courts are brought into line with those in the Crown Court before the relevant provisions come into force. People should not lose access to legal representation simply because their case is now being heard in a different court. The Government should get this right before they bring in the reforms and not wait until people have already suffered the consequences.

I oppose Clause 3. I am particularly concerned that the Government are presenting it as a practical measure to tackle delays when the evidence suggests that it will make very little difference. The Government’s own impact assessment estimates that these provisions will save just 200 Crown Court sitting days a year—around 0.18% of current Crown Court capacity. That is a tiny return for such a huge change to the way that criminal justice is delivered.

There is also no good reason to assume that removing juries will necessarily make these trials shorter. Judges sitting alone will still have to consider the evidence and, in complex fraud cases, they may have to produce lengthy reasoned arguments. Juries also provide an incentive to keep trials properly focused and evidence clearly presented. Fraud cases often turn on questions of fact, including whether someone acted dishonestly, and juries are well placed to judge dishonesty. The independent review by Jonathan Fisher KC found that juries can deal with complex fraud cases when trials are properly managed and presented. He warned that removing juries from serious fraud trials would send the wrong message about the seriousness of fraudulent misconduct.

There is something else in this clause that really concerns me, which is the power of the Secretary of State to add further offences to the list. In your Lordships’ House we get a little fed up with statutory instruments that bring in more and more power to a Bill that we have already passed. Although these initial provisions cover financial crime and related offences, the scope can be widened through secondary legislation. It is a very real risk that restrictions on jury trial will extend beyond the cases the Government are currently talking about. Jury trial is not an obstacle to be removed whenever a case becomes difficult or lengthy. It is an important protection against the concentration of judicial power and a vital part of public participation in the justice system.

Hansard record here: Courts and Tribunals Bill – Hansard – UK Parliament

I oppose Clause 5. It will allow the Government to increase the maximum custodial sentence that magistrates can impose from 12 months to 18 or 24 months. As we have heard, it will also give the Secretary of State the power to make that change through regulations rather than through Parliament, which would allow us to consider the matter through primary legislation. My concern is about not just the length of sentences but the combined effect of this clause and Clause 1. The Bar Council has warned that this is a “dangerous experiment”, particularly at a time when prisons are already at capacity and the backlog in magistrates’ courts is growing. Increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers does not address the underlying problems of an under-resourced justice system.

Like many other Lords, I am also concerned about the delegated powers in this clause. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has specifically recommended that Clause 5(1) be removed. Its chair warned that the clause oversteps the proper limits of ministerial discretion. We should not hand the Government such a significant power to change sentencing limits without proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have not made a convincing case for this change. If they think magistrates should have greater sentencing powers, why will they not justify that proposal to Parliament instead of leaving the decision to future regulations? I told the Minister that I would not say this, but, while he is extremely emollient in trying to calm our fears, I am afraid he has not done so. The Government are faced with opposition from all around the Chamber. The Greens are linking with the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems. Might that give the Government pause to think that perhaps they have got it wrong?

Amendment 35 and my consequential Amendments 58, 70 and 71 would replace Clause 5 with a single, simple provision. It removes the Henry VIII power of the Secretary of State to change by regulations how long a magistrates’ court can send someone to prison for, for an “either way” offence. At Second Reading, I said that I could not support expanding magistrates’ sentencing powers. This amendment offers the Government a constructive alternative, taken directly from the review on which this Bill is built.

Paragraph 14A of Schedule 23 to the Sentencing Act 2020 is a Henry VIII power. It allows a Minister to rewrite an Act of Parliament by statutory instrument, subject only to a negative procedure. That is appalling. We are not a democracy when that sort of action gets taken. Since 2022, the limit has been raised from six to 12 months, cut back to six months in March 2023 and raised to 12 months again in November 2024. That is three changes in under three years, driven by Crown Court backlogs one year and prison capacity the next. Clause 5 widens this even further. It allows the Secretary of State to set the limit at 18 or 24 months, up to double today’s maximum—again, by regulations.

The Minister told your Lordships’ House at Second Reading that the Government intend to raise the limit to 18 months next year, depending on Royal Assent. That is not what Lord Leveson, recommended. In recommendation 15 of Part 1 of his independent review of the criminal courts, he recommended that the power to change magistrates’ sentencing powers by statutory instrument be repealed and that the 12-month maximum should be made permanent. My amendment, therefore, does exactly what recommendation 15 asks.

I absolutely despair of this Government, in the sense that they seem to be backtracking on all the democratic ideas they had when they were in Opposition. I sat here and listened to all the colleagues here on the Labour Benches when they were in Opposition, saying wonderful things that I could agree with. Now, I just see the other Tory party sitting over there. It is very depressing to sit over here these days.

Hansard record here: Courts and Tribunals Bill – Hansard – UK Parliament