Speeches by Fox.

“Let me move on, because the Lord Chancellor might well have been confused.”

“That, I think, is fundamentally different to what the Lord Chancellor said a few weeks ago.”

“Chair, can we ask Cassia Rowland to come in? I know the Institute for Government has made some comments on the productivity of the court, and I am very keen to hear from some of the other witnesses.”

“No, he said the changes would not be retrospective, and now you are giving me a slightly different answer. If someone elects to go to the Crown court at the moment, it is on the assumption that there will be a trial by jury. What you are saying is that it might not be; they might be diverted to the swift court.”

“So when the Lord Chancellor said it will not be retrospective, that was not a wholly accurate answer.”

“So you will relook at cases that have been committed for trial at the Crown court and push some of them through the swift court—that is what you are telling me.”

“On that, nobody disagrees. It is trial by juries that we are talking about. My view, and I suspect the view of most people here, is that that is just not relevant, and it is not going to take effect until 2028 anyway.”

“Your proposal is going to take time, because the Lord Chancellor has confirmed that these proposals will not have retrospective effect. Some parts of the country are booking trials in four years’ time. If you take a year to present your legislation—I think the Lord Chancellor said it would be in autumn 2026—and it take…”

“Minister, the Institute for Government has said, “Proposed restrictions to jury trials are not necessary to turn around performance in criminal courts”. I saw you at the back of the room when Cassia Rowland was giving her evidence. She detailed numerous other things that should be done, and to that extent your proposal…”

“And in your view, addressing those matters would have far more of an effect than scrapping jury trials?”

“Ms Rowland, tell us your views on how productivity in the Crown court system might be improved. I am conscious that the Institute for Government has said that productivity of the Crown court has declined, and that the number of cases being dealt with each day is down 10% since 2016. Putting aside talk about scrapping j…”

“Chair, can we ask Cassia Rowland to come in? I know the Institute for Government has made some comments on the productivity of the court, and I am very keen to hear from some of the other witnesses.”

“Good afternoon. I am Ashley Fox, the Member for Bridgwater. I am a former solicitor and my interests are on the register.”

“And in your view, addressing those matters would have far more of an effect than scrapping jury trials?”

“I think the idea that the resources and the concordat are anything to do with the publishing of the modelling is a complete red herring. You could just decide to publish it if you chose to. You have chosen not to, but that is your choice.”

“May I suggest that you publish this as soon as possible? Making such a dramatic change to what many of my constituents regard as an ancient constitutional right to save time, and then presenting no evidence as to the saving of that time, is a grave error by the Government. That is entirely up to you, but I think you ar…”

“Ms Rowland, tell us your views on how productivity in the Crown court system might be improved. I am conscious that the Institute for Government has said that productivity of the Crown court has declined, and that the number of cases being dealt with each day is down 10% since 2016. Putting aside talk about scrapping j…”

“All right. Given Leveson’s admission that incomplete modelling was undertaken, what independent analysis has your Ministry conducted to validate that judge-only trials will deliver net time savings once written judgments and appeals are factored in?”

“Good afternoon. I am Ashley Fox, the Member for Bridgwater. I am a former solicitor and my interests are on the register.”

“Most people would regard that as a retrospective change.”