Separation Centres Review

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review of separation centres and the Government’s response to it.

On 12 April 2025, convicted terrorist Hashem Abedi brutally attacked three prison officers in the separation centre at His Majesty’s Prison Frankland. I have seen the CCTV footage of what happened, and it is truly horrifying. I pay tribute to the officers, who I know will continue to be deeply affected by the appalling attack that they suffered, simply for doing their jobs and keeping all of us safe.

As the House will know, separation centres are specialist, high-secure units in prisons, containing the most pernicious extremist and terrorist offenders, determined to spread hate and inspire violence. Extremism in the prison estate takes many forms, but to date, these units have only been used to contain Islamic extremists. They protect other prisoners, staff and the public.

Before responding to Jonathan Hall’s review, I visited HMP Frankland’s separation centre. I met the brave officers who serve there. They are dedicated professionals, doing an incredible and essential job—a public service carried out far from the public view. As the Abedi attack made devastatingly clear, extremism and violence in our prisons are real, present threats, and they must be dealt with decisively for the safety of the British public. The Government appointed Jonathan Hall KC to lead an independent review of separation centres so that we can learn lessons, strengthen our defences and reduce the risk of such an attack happening again.

Following this incident, the Government acted immediately to strengthen protections for frontline staff. One of my first acts as Deputy Prime Minister was to invest £15 million in prison security, increasing the number of stab-proof vests available for frontline officers from 750 to 10,000, with 5,000 specifically for officers working in long-term and high-security prisons, and providing training for up to 500 staff in the use of tasers. I believe that Conservative Members welcomed these moves, but could not explain why they had never made such provision themselves when in government. Staff also have access to a range of protective equipment, including helmets, arm and leg protection, gloves, batons and shields, as well as body-worn cameras and PAVA—pelargonic acid vanillylamide, or pepper—spray, to help keep them safe.

The Government are grateful to Mr Hall for his forensic and thorough work. His findings are clear: the core principle behind separation centres remains sound. Small, specialist units are crucial for managing the most dangerous and influential offenders, not just because of the violent nature of the offending, but because of the risk of radicalisation they pose to other prisoners. They must be kept away from the general prison population, but the system must improve. The report makes 13 recommendations for strengthening safety, sharpening accountability and modernising how separation centres operate. The Government accept all 13 in full, and in some areas will go further. Full details are in today’s Government response, but I will now set out the key themes.

The first focuses on managing risk. When it comes to staff safety, Mr Hall finds that the most dangerous offenders actively seek out weaknesses to exploit, and the underlying risk posed by certain terrorist prisoners can never be entirely removed. The Government are clear that prison staff must be properly equipped to spot those risks and tackle them. Alongside our immediate protective measures, we will continue to invest in the tools, training and support that staff need to manage terrorist risk safely and confidently, including a comprehensive, expert-led review of training for separation centre staff, to ensure that it is tailored to the uniquely dangerous environments in which they work.

The second theme addresses how separation centres work in practice, and how they are led. Mr Hall identifies a clear need to transform the way in which separation centres are governed and operated. That is why we will explore all available options to overhaul the system, including, at the next spending review, the creation of new, tougher super-max-style units for the most violent and disruptive prisoners. This will be a tiered system, with movement between tiers permitted only following rigorous new risk assessments. We will begin designing that system immediately. We will also improve the quality of referrals into separation centres through a single, specialist team with the expertise to produce high-quality, defensible referrals.

The third theme focuses on reform of current policy and law. Mr Hall finds that outdated procedures and legal complexity constrain operational flexibility, undermine prison officers’ professional judgment and expose the system to unnecessary litigation. Conservative Members should pause to consider that they did nothing to fix this mess in order to support frontline staff in doing their job with certainty. This Government are clear that process and policy must support effective risk management, not obstruct it. We have already improved the defensibility of our separation centre policy framework, and we will go further to ensure that it is robust and grounded in operational reality.

The Government remain committed to the European convention on human rights, but commitment does not mean complacency. We recognise the challenges that article 8 can pose for separation centre decision making, which Mr Hall highlighted, and the impact that litigation has on the ability to manage terrorists and other dangerous offenders. Again, unlike the Conservative party, we think that that is wholly unacceptable, which is why we are strengthening internal processes so that they are clear and resilient to challenge, and allow staff to focus on managing risk and protecting the public. We will also consider whether new legislation is needed to protect decisions taken by experienced staff in separation centres from litigation on article 8 grounds. We are exploring the full range of options to deliver that, while being clear that we will remain compliant with our obligations under the ECHR.

The fourth theme focuses on intelligence. Mr Hall finds that current intelligence practices are too bureaucratic and insufficiently focused. The Government have already improved how intelligence is used across the prison estate. The new counter-terrorism training package, which was launched last year, supports staff to identify and act on terrorist-risk behaviour. That is another example of how this Government support frontline workers in a way in which they were not supported previously. We will go further by improving collection practices so that higher-quality and more relevant intelligence is gathered. That will be supported by further training for specialist staff, through work with the security service, to ensure that the most serious risks are managed using the full range of available tools, and that high-quality intelligence directly informs operational decisions.

The attack at HMP Frankland was a stark reminder of the dangers that prison staff face every day. Our response will be decisive and determined. We will strengthen security, better protect staff, and reinforce the resilience of our counter-terrorism infrastructure. We cannot accept the situation that we inherited, in which frontline staff who dealt with the most dangerous offenders had to second-guess their actions. This Government will always stand behind those who stand between the public and danger. We will not shy away from reform in this area, and we will never lose sight of our first duty: to keep the British public safe. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before I call the Opposition spokesperson and other Members, I note that the Hashem Abedi case, to which passing reference was made, is sub judice. Members should avoid reference to the specifics of such cases.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome the publication of this important review. The Government commissioned Jonathan Hall to produce his report following the very violent attack on three prison officers last April by Hashem Abedi—the man behind the Manchester arena atrocity. I pay tribute to the vital work done by the brave men and women of the Prison Service.

We should be frank about why separation centres are necessary. They house the most dangerous and radicalised terrorist offenders in the country. Charlie Taylor wrote in 2022 following an inspection:

“The centres were designed to be used for prisoners from any political or religious viewpoint, but so far, they have only been used for Muslim men”.

That should not be a surprise, because Islamist extremism is by far the gravest threat that we face, and attempts to pretend otherwise are not only cowardly but enormously counterproductive. MI5 says that 75% of its counter-terrorism work is focused on Islamists, and 61% of terrorist prisoners are Islamists, yet the figures show that only 10% of Prevent referrals are Islamists. The Justice Secretary was clear about the Islamist threat, but even then he felt the need to caveat his comments by saying that extremism in the prison estate takes many forms. Of course it does, but time after time, we hear people in positions of authority refer to acts of terrorism, antisemitic violence, and the poison of intolerance and hatred, without the bravery or honesty to name the ideology behind it all. Its name is Islamism, and it has no place in our country, but if we are afraid to be honest about it, we will never defeat it.

Mr Hall has said that in prisons,

“The impact of Islamist groups has been underappreciated for too long by the authorities.”

He has reported that Islamist gangs in prisons are too often viewed

“purely through the lens of good order and discipline”,

and governors believe that they

“can sometimes provide a degree of calm and stability”.

He has revealed that

“prison officers sometimes appeal to the wing ‘emir’ for their assistance in maintaining good order.”

When will prison inspectors be directed to investigate Islamist extremism? Will the Justice Secretary ensure that known problems, such as gang-enforced sharia courts in prisons, are investigated and reported on? Will he publish information on the number of religiously and ideologically motivated incidents in prisons?

The problems for prisons caused by our human rights laws are well documented. The Justice Secretary said that he would consider whether new laws are needed to limit litigation based on article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Making full use of the Sir Humphrey lexicon, he said that he was exploring the full range of options, but promised nothing concrete, and—as is obligatory in this Government of human rights lawyers—he pledged fealty to the European convention.

Let us consider the recent case of Sahayb Abu, an ISIS terrorist who planned to “shoot up a crowd” of civilians and is serving a life sentence. He was held in a separation centre and made subject to greater restrictions following the Abedi attack. He used article 3 of the convention—which the Justice Secretary did not mention—to argue successfully that his prison, HMP Woodhill, did not take into account his mental health. Will the Justice Secretary tell us how many prisoners are in the process of suing the Government, under the prison rules and European convention on human rights, to escape separation centres and close-supervision centres? What is he doing to prevent them from being awarded compensation? When will he decide whether he needs to legislate to limit the application of article 8? What will he do about article 3 claims like the one made by Sahayb Abu?

Should not the Justice Secretary be open about the reality of his commitment to the ECHR, which he repeated today? It means rights for criminals and terrorists like Sahayb Abu and Hashem Abedi, but danger for prison officers and the wider public. The Justice Secretary can say what he likes about legislating—perhaps, after careful consideration, and in the fullness of time—to avoid litigation based on article 8, but the simple truth is that, as long as we remain in the ECHR, he cannot guarantee a thing. And that is why we must leave.

[Mr Lammy]

I agree with the shadow Justice Secretary on the dangerous radicalised offenders we are talking about. I sense some cross-party agreement on that and on the importance of the work being done here. He rightly talks about Islamic extremism in our prisons being the main context, and I agree. Some 254 prisoners are in custody for terrorism and terrorism-connected offences in England and Wales, according to the latest figures, and 60% of them have an Islamic ideology, 30% have an extreme right-wing ideology and 10% were categorised as holding other ideologies. He is right that in these separation centres, as I conveyed, we are dealing with Islamic extremism, and it is pernicious and challenging.

The shadow Justice Secretary talked about gangs. Most prisons show no evidence of extremism based on gang activity. Where it does exist, we have a zero-tolerance approach and encourage staff to clamp down swiftly on any threatening behaviour. Jonathan Hall talks about the important training that is necessary in this area. That is why we will be investing in training counter-terrorism specialists and intelligence officers to identify and disrupt gang activity in particular.

The shadow Justice Secretary also talked about previous work in this area. Our internal assessment is that 208 out of 230 recommendations have been completed from all the other reviews that have looked at counter-terrorism work in prison, some of which he will have commissioned during his time in the Home Office. Only seven of those recommendations were rejected, and 15 remain open. All the open recommendations are from more recent reviews and are being actively worked on. Some of them require legislative changes.

We recognise the use of article 8 and article 3 by this group of prisoners, but we are absolutely clear that leaving the European convention on human rights—a convention that was championed by Winston Churchill—would leave children, the elderly and many vulnerable victims, like those of John Worboys, the 97 killed in the Hillsborough disaster and British troops who died in Iraq, in the most vulnerable position. We cannot and must not do that, so first, we are looking closely at the guidance, as I indicated, and secondly, we will explore legislative obligations. That is the sensitive and detailed work that we must do, because we do it within our existing obligations to the ECHR.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I want to begin by paying tribute to those officers who suffered an appalling assault simply for doing their job. They and their loved ones will continue to feel the effects of that day for years to come. They deserve not only our thanks, but the assurance that everything possible is being done to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.

That attack exposed serious weaknesses in how separation centres are run and made clear the need for urgent change. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the independent review conducted by Jonathan Hall KC and the work he has done to examine how these centres operate and what steps are needed to strengthen safety and security, so that something like this never happens again. Getting separation centres right is crucial for the integrity of our prison system and for the staff, who should never have to put their health or lives at risk simply to do their job. These facilities must be fit for purpose and capable of securely managing the most dangerous extremists and terrorists.

The Ministry of Justice has been left firefighting crisis after crisis. If we are serious about restoring confidence in the justice system, we cannot afford complacency, especially when dealing with the most dangerous offenders. It is right that the Government are taking action, and I ask the Secretary of State today to set out a clear timeline for the implementation of those 13 recommendations and when the House will receive an update on the progress. Will he commit to a follow-up report, to assess whether these changes have genuinely improved safety and effectiveness?

A recent report on separation centres by His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that staff support and mandatory training were applied inconsistently across the prison estate. At one site, almost half of officers said that insufficient attention had been paid to their mental health, and at both centres, more than a third said they needed additional training to feel confident in their role. Will the Secretary of State update the House on whether conditions have improved since that report? If not, what concrete steps is he taking to address those gaps in training?

[Mr Lammy]

We will continue to place individuals in separation centres, and Mr Hall’s review confirmed that they remain a vital part of our strategy to manage the most significant terrorist risks in our prisons. I am pleased that there is cross-party support for that.

The hon. Lady asked whether I would update the House on progress as we move to implement Jonathan Hall’s recommendations. I will seek to find ways to update the House as we do that, but I have indicated that some of those recommendations will have some bearing on the next spending review and on legislative timeframes, so I suspect they will go beyond this Parliament.

The hon. Lady rightly mentioned the mental health of the officers involved. To be attacked in that way involves tremendous trauma for those officers, who are putting their lives at risk on a day-to-day basis, as well as for their families and the other officers in the building who remain to deal with the aftermath of those attacks. The training is vital, and she is right that it cannot be inconsistent. That is why the Government’s response today is underpinned by the need to ensure that the intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism are working hand in hand with our experts in prisons to get this right, and that we approach these offenders with a degree of cynicism and scepticism as to their ability to refrain from the ideological conviction that clearly persists.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I agree with everything the Justice Secretary says about making these places safer, but I have been reading the report from the prisons inspectorate, which said that although separation centres were generally safe, there was not enough skilled focus on deradicalisation. This is a highly complex area. Although I do not want to sound like a weak and washy liberal, we believe that prisons are about not just punishment but redemption. The Secretary of State may not be able to reply now, but could he write to me about what skilled psychological pressures we are using on these people to try to change their behaviour. There are many good Muslims who totally abhor violence whom we could perhaps involve in the process. Maybe I am being naive, but I think it is a question that needs to be asked.

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise in the question the power of the right hon. Gentleman’s Catholicism and belief in redemptive capacity. It is important that we have the best psychiatrists and those with the necessary psychosocial skills working with this group of offenders, but I am convinced that we must remain cynical and cautious in relation to that group, recognising that someone can present for years as a passive, compliant prisoner and yet down the line suddenly attack prison officers in the way that we saw.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I entirely agree with what the Justice Secretary says about the dangers of deception. It is also concerning to note that people are now trying to use a mental health argument to get out of separation centres, given that anyone who holds a fanatical Islamist, Nazi or revolutionary view from some other doctrine has, by definition, a mental health question mark over their personality. I appreciate that he may have to write to me afterwards, but can he indicate what proportion of people imprisoned for terrorist offences related to Islamism are in separation centres, and what proportion are in the rest of the prison estate? What is known about the number of other people who have been radicalised by Islamist extremist prisoners in those parts of the prison estate that are not separated out like the units with which he is primarily concerned today?

[Mr Lammy]

I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with the detail, because it is a very good question. There are 254 prisoners in custody for terrorism or terrorism-related offences, 60% of whom have an Islamic ideology, and all the prisoners in our separation centres come from that cohort. He will recognise that that is a tiny proportion of the rising population in prison who say they are of the Muslim faith. It is important to emphasise that. However, radicalisation is a bigger thematic area than just the work of those extremists in separation centres—he is absolutely right—and we have to continue bearing down on it. I have discussed this in Committee stages of Bills under the previous Government. It remains a long-standing issue and will continue to be, I suspect, for decades to come.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I wholeheartedly agree that our most dangerous prisoners should be dealt with appropriately, but I will touch on an adjacent point around prison capacity. We are aware that the Government are in the process of rolling out more prison places—around 14,000—but we are also aware that none of those prison places are currently designated as category A. Looking at the most recent statistics for the beginning of the year, we see that of the available capacity in the prison system, only 12% is category A. Is the Justice Secretary confident that there is enough remaining capacity in the prison system at category A level, given that the remaining prison places planned are categories B to D? What is the number of available prison places remaining that will trigger a need for us to build out that capacity?

[Mr Lammy]

I was very pleased to say in oral questions that we are turning the tide on the prison capacity crisis that we inherited. In the context of my statement, I talked about a tiered approach—yes, a supermax approach, but on more than one site. As we enter a spending review and I make that case, as well as the case that Jonathan Hall makes, by definition and necessity the places will have to be category A—at the highest tier—for this group of prisoners. It is important, as we saw after the incident at Frankland, that we are able to move prisoners to other high-security sites; we have Belmarsh prison here in London, which I visited early in my post. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we will need to have those places, and I am happy to write to him with more detail.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his careful words. In Northern Ireland, we operated segregation in our prisons during the troubles, and we found that it was essential to keep those who were able to turn moderates around into fanatics away from the general populace. However, for most of that time, we did not have to wrestle with the ECHR. In matters of national security, we have the right to restrict privileges, such as privacy and the right of assembly. Will the Secretary of State exercise those powers to keep in isolation those whose very presence is dangerous?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of staring in the face, and at the consequences of, terrorist and extremist behaviour. It is important that we remain in the ECHR framework and that we bear down on excessive litigation. It is also important that the guidance is clear for the staff who have to work within this framework and that, where we can, we look at capping compensation payments, for example, and other areas. We will continue to review how, staying within the law, we do not create an excessive and unbearable environment for those who have to work there and protect us all.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

1. What steps he is taking to reduce court delays in Shropshire.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

The Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard in the Crown court. In Shropshire, Shrewsbury Crown court is at maximum capacity, as is an additional court base at Telford justice centre. We have added another 15 sitting days at that additional court base.

[Helen Morgan]

In my constituency of North Shropshire, residents have to travel to Shrewsbury to have their case heard. As of last September, there was a backlog of more than 730 open cases at Shrewsbury Crown court, a 7% increase on 2024. The wider West Mercia area ranks 43rd out of 44 areas for the time that it takes cases to get through the Crown court; they often take more than two years to be heard. Does the Secretary of State agree with Shrewsbury Crown court’s resident judge, Anthony Lowe, who said that this is not a “proper justice system”, and what steps will he take to improve the situation in West Mercia and Shropshire?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member is right, which is why the Minister for Courts and Legal Services visited Telford a few months ago. It is important to say that Sir Brian Leveson has been absolutely clear in his report that we must pull all levers if we are serious about seeing this backlog come down by the next general election. That means investment in more sitting days; the hon. Member will be pleased about the extra days that we have invested in, in her area. It means modernisation, and dealing with the efficiency problems in the system that we inherited. Sir Brian will publish his report tomorrow. We also need reform, and I urge the Liberal Democrats to support our court reforms.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

Since the election, the justice system in Telford and Shropshire has seen a massive increase in capacity. First, a magistrates court has been brought back into use, following years of closure because of a broken roof. We have also received news this week that the Nightingale court will become a permanent court, which is great. However, in order to increase capacity, we need to recruit and retain magistrates. To my great surprise, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is not currently recruiting for magistrates in my area. Will the Justice Secretary take a look at that, and work with me, so that we can recruit and retain as many magistrates as possible for our justice system?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very much looking forward to working with my hon. Friend, and am pleased with his recognition that the Nightingale court will continue, which is very important. The good news is that we are recruiting more magistrates across the system, including in his area. That announcement was made just two weeks ago.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to recruit magistrates.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to recruit magistrates.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

We are accelerating magistrate recruitment to meet future demand. Trailblazing reforms in three regions are streamlining the process, reducing the time from application to appointment, and improving candidate experience. These reforms will shape a 2026 national roll-out. They are supported by work done with the judiciary to speed up onboarding and ensure that new magistrates sit sooner.

[Anneliese Dodds]

After many years of Oxford magistrates court being in a terrible state, I am relieved that the leaks and other faults are finally being repaired. It is obviously harder to recruit and retain magistrates if they are serving in unacceptable conditions, so I am grateful that this is being sorted out, and grateful for the measures that the Secretary of State has announced about recruitment. Will he let the House know what he is doing around retention, because surely that is very important as well?

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is right; there was historical underfunding, which sadly left our courts with a £1.3 billion maintenance backlog. We increased the capital maintenance budget this year to deal with the problems that we inherited in our courts. She is right: magistrates are key. They are the cornerstone of our lay system, with 90% of criminal cases passing through the magistrates courts. We will be recruiting more, but streamlining the system and supporting magistrates with training is also key to retention, and we will invest in that as well.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

Back in 2004, I became a magistrate—a position that I held for 20 years. When I first walked into the magistrates’ retiring room, I thought everybody in there had retired, because I brought the average age down by about 30 years. That shows that the position is a commitment—people serve for years—and how hard it can be to get younger people involved. First, what is the Department doing to properly recognise and reward long-serving magistrates who keep the system going? Secondly, what is being done to bring in more young justices of the peace, so that magistrates better reflect the communities that they serve?

[Mr Lammy]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his service as a magistrate. He is right: we want people from all walks of life, all backgrounds and all ages to feel able to serve in their local community and be a magistrate. He will be pleased to hear that 41% of newly appointed magistrates last year were under 50, as opposed to getting towards the pension age. There is more we can do. Some of that is around simplifying the procedures, and people understanding how to become magistrates, because the complexity of the system was unbelievable, and actually put people off applying.

[Mr Speaker]

And if you had local magistrates courts—for example, in Chorley—it would help as well.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I visited my local court just a few days ago. In Horsham, we are lucky enough to have a sufficient number of magistrates, but we still cannot maximise throughput because of a lack of support staff. In July last year, the Justice Committee reported that shortages of support staff were having significant impacts on delays and court capacity. What are the Government doing to attract younger people into the justice system, so that we can finally get to grips with this horrible court backlog?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are investing in more trainee legal advisers—108 in the last announcement. He is right: there are issues, particularly in the south-east, with being able to compete with the sorts of salaries that support staff might get beyond the courts. We are looking at that very closely.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Justice Secretary very much for his very positive answers about recruiting magistrates, and about the timescale; that is welcome news. He referred to 90% of cases being dealt with by magistrates in the courts. That means that there are a lot of delays, and those affect victims, who have waited ages—even years—for their case to be heard. Can the Justice Secretary assure us that recruiting more magistrates will mean that the backlog that victims clearly face is addressed? It needs to be addressed; victims need answers.

[Mr Lammy]

First off, I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning victims. For too long in this place, we have tended to focus either on the prosecution side or on defendants, but it is important that we put victims at the centre. That is why we are coming forward with more magistrates. We need that 90% of cases dealt with more swiftly, of course, but court reform is what gets us the entire package. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support our court reforms over the coming months.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

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

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

19. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposal to restrict the right to a jury trial for certain offences on court backlogs.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

As I have said, our focus is on victims who are being left to wait three, four or five years for their day in court. That is why I will bring forward bold change to fix the rotting Courts Service that we inherited, deliver record investment in our courts so that they can sit for more days than ever before, introduce modernisation to deal with the inefficiencies that we inherited, and reform the system so that we can triage which trials get a jury and stop criminals gaming the system.

[Sir John Hayes]

As you know, Mr Speaker, the age-old jury system connects the public to the exercise of law, and is therefore at the heart of popular consent for criminal justice. In abandoning this link, are the Government careless of the accountability that it brings, or are they driven wholly by thoughtless expediency? Are Ministers careless or thoughtless?

[Mr Lammy]

We are not abandoning the jury system, but as Sir Brian Leveson said in his Sunday Times article this weekend, the threshold needs to be rebalanced. I am not sure if the right hon. Gentleman was in Parliament in 1988, but I am sure that he did not object when Margaret Thatcher rebalanced the threshold and moved criminal damage and driving a vehicle without authority to the magistrates courts.

[Steve Darling]

There is clear evidence up and down the country of Serco failing to serve the Courts Service appropriately, including for my constituents in Torbay. Does the Secretary of State accept that if we can make sure that Serco can get people to the courts more rapidly, it will give them better access to justice and allow them to access jury trials?

[Mr Lammy]

The Courts Minister and the Prisons Minister are working together on this issue. Sir Brian Leveson will have more to say tomorrow in part 2 of his report, on efficiencies, but one of the things that we are looking at is local authorities opening bus lanes to those drivers, so that they can speed through.

[Mr Brash]

I recognise the Justice Secretary’s sincere commitment to tackling the court backlog that was disgracefully left by Conservative and Reform politicians. However, one of the most troubling aspects of the proposals on jury trials is the suggestion that the changes will be permanent, regardless of whether the backlog persists. Will he consider explicitly making these measures temporary and subject to review, so that their impact, if any, on reducing the court backlog can be properly assessed?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, but may I refer him to Sir Brian’s report, and to his article in The Sunday Times this weekend? He talks about trials being longer, DNA evidence, the fact that we are passing more legislation in this place, and the police arresting more people. For all those reasons, and if we are serious about tackling the backlog and getting to a properly established system in which people do not wait much longer than six months to a year for their trial, the changes that we are making have to be permanent.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

There is a lot of focus on replacing juries with a single judge in some criminal trials, but the Government also intend to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers, so that they can give sentences of up to 18 or 24 months, which is beyond what Sir Brian Leveson suggests. Is it the Government’s intention that district judges sitting alone will be able to sentence offenders to up to 24 months?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue, and he knows that we need to increase the number of district judges. The forthcoming Bill will give us the power to increase the threshold for magistrates. Obviously, it will be essential to look at how that co-ordinates with the new swift bench, once we get Royal Assent towards the end of this year.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Sir Brian Leveson’s review did not contain any specific modelling to support his view that limiting jury trials would reduce by 20% the time taken for trials. If the Government’s own modelling does not support and validate Sir Brian’s assessment, will they U-turn on the policy?

[Mr Lammy]

Of course we support Sir Brian’s assessments of 20%. He also relied on international comparators. That is one reason why I was recently in Canada, which thought that 20% was an extremely conservative estimate, and that 50% was more likely. We will of course publish our modelling alongside the introduction of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

As the Deputy Prime Minister speaks, there is no sitting in 56 of the 516 Crown courtrooms. That is because he and his Department cap the number of sitting days in those courts. It is, in my view, a dereliction of duty to plan to do away with some jury trials when courts are not sitting. The Institute for Government says that Sir Brian’s 20% estimate, which was pulled from thin air, is more like 2%. What on earth are this Government doing? Why do we not get a grip of what is really happening in the system?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—

[Karl Turner]

We used to be friends, David!

[Mr Lammy]

He still is my hon. Friend. I know that he has a principled objection. It is important to recognise that Sir Brian has emphasised that we need to do all of it to deal with the inefficiencies. We will have more to say tomorrow, when Sir Brian publishes part two of his report, which looks at courtrooms, prisoners and how the justice system works as a whole. We are increasing sitting days and investing more than ever before. I am negotiating with the Lady Chief Justice; there will be more sitting days to come. However, we also need reform to ensure that we continue to support the jury system, which is what we are doing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Nick Timothy, and welcome him to his role as shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I have been reading the Labour party manifesto, but without much luck. Can the Justice Secretary tell the House on which page the promise to restrict jury trials appears? Was it on the same page as digital IDs and all the tax rises?

[Mr Lammy]

I welcome the hon. Member to his place, and congratulate him on his recent promotion. We will judge him on his record. We note that he was responsible for cutting 20,000 police officers across the country, and that he was the author of the hostile environment policy, the Windrush tax and, of course, the wonderful election-winning dementia tax. He will note that our obligation in government is—as his was—to ensure a fair trial. We are bringing forward a threshold change very similar to the change that Margaret Thatcher brought forward in 1988.

[Nick Timothy]

Not waving but drowning. Forty of the right hon. Member’s colleagues—the number is rising—say that restricting jury trials is “madness”. He says that he will not listen to them, judges, lawyers or the victims of crime, so perhaps he will listen to these esteemed voices.

“Jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 517.]

That was the Minister for Courts and Legal Services. “There must be a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”—that was the Sentencing Minister.

“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You do not fix the backlog with trials that are…perceived as unfair.”

That was Justice Secretary himself. If even he knows that this is a bad idea, how long must we wait for the 14th U-turn from this miserable Government?

[Mr Lammy]

It is a bit rich raising what my colleagues are up to on the Back Benches when the hon. Member’s colleagues are going to other Benches in this House. He knows that article 40 of Magna Carta makes it clear that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is our judgment and the judgment of Sir Brian Leveson that, for example, if someone has shoplifted an iPhone, they should not be entitled to elect for a jury trial. That should be something that can be dealt with by a magistrate or a single judge.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The Justice Secretary is right to say that justice delayed is justice denied, but the Institute for Government’s report into jury trials showed that his plans to erode jury trials will make very little difference to the courts backlog, so it is no surprise that there is wide-ranging opposition to the proposals from within the legal profession and across these Benches. If the Deputy Prime Minister does decide to press ahead with these unpopular reforms, he stated that it would not be retrospective, but the Courts Minister said it would be retrospective in the Justice Committee. Who is telling the truth?

[Mr Lammy]

The IfG estimated a 10% contribution. If this were a 10% contribution to bringing down waiting lists at a hospital in the hon. Lady’s constituency, she would have it. Sir Brian estimated a 20% contribution. I said we would bring forward the modelling. Of course, it is right that there is no substantive criminal liability change in our proposals, so in that sense, it is not retrospective, but in terms of caseload, of course, they will be subject to the new mode of trial once this Bill gets Royal Assent.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

4. What steps his Department plans to take to ensure the provision of adequate levels of funding for victim support services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to improve the safety of the prison estate.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

Assaults on our staff are unacceptable. We are enhancing security measures and easing crowding to curb violence and improve safety. We are investing some £15 million in protective equipment—I announced that shortly after taking office—to help keep frontline staff working in prisons safe.

[Mr Snowden]

We know that drugs on the prison estate is a perennial problem when it comes to the safety of officers and other prisoners. Governments of all colours have been trying to tackle that for some time. The situation is particularly acute in the open prison estate, due to the different resourcing and the different layout of those prisons. In some places, we have more than 40% of prisoners failing drug tests on arrival in the open estate. Will the Secretary of State consider a policy that says, “If you fail a drug test on arrival, you will be sent straight back to the closed prison you came from”?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited a prison capacity crisis with violence up and drugs up in our prisons. Because of that, we have invested particularly in X-ray machines and extra prison officers to try to bear down on the problem. We are looking right across the estate at what more we can do to reduce drug use. I spoke to prison officers about it when I visited Frankland prison last week. I am looking closely at how the lowest categories of prisons deal with drugs.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That was not relevant to the main question, but I am sure that the Justice Secretary would like to respond to it.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right: we must have capacity in our prisons to deal with the crisis that we inherited, which is why we introduced the Victims and Courts Bill and the Bill which, I am glad to say, has become law and is now the Sentencing Act 2026. That legislation will also enable us to bear down on the waiting list that is ticking upwards for victims of crime—especially women, who are often at the end of crime that makes them most vulnerable—by the next general election.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, whom I welcome to his new role.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The use of drones to bring contraband into prisons has become a significant issue. Last year there was an intra-year increase of 43% in the use of drones for illegal activity on the prison estate, and, as an MP with a prison in my constituency, HMP Littlehey, I find this surge in their use alarming.

Last month the Justice Secretary announced that he had

“tasked British prisons with learning from Ukraine’s drone expertise”

with a £6.5 million funding stream, but no tenders are currently out to develop that capability. The only specific competition from the Ministry of Justice has been November’s £60,000 counter-drone challenge. Can the Justice Secretary tell us what is the current counter-drone strategy for HM Prison and Probation Service, given the current delays in the installation of physical unmanned aircraft systems countermeasures, what specific projects are actually in flight to develop the counter-UAS capability across our prison estate, and by when that capability will be available?

[Mr Lammy]

This is a very serious issue, which is why I announced the partnership with our Ukrainian colleagues. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed it, but I also announced £6 million of funding for that research innovation as part of the package. I know that, because of his own background, he will recognise the substantial expertise that lies in Ukraine; he will recognise, too, that much of what we do to counter the drones that are flying across our prisons is classified, but I can assure him that this is a priority for the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

Since the last session of Justice questions, the Government have delivered the landmark Sentencing Act 2026 to implement punishment that works to cut crime and make our streets safer. It will ensure that we have enough prison cells for the most serious criminals, incentivise good behaviour in prisons and introduce tough, credible community punishments to drive down reoffending. Our second annual statement on prison capacity shows the impact of our reform. For the first time in years, we no longer forecast a chronic shortage of prison places. That sits alongside the most ambitious prison building programme since the Victorians: we aim to build 14,000 new places by 2030, backed by £7 billion of investment.

[Martin Vickers]

Could I return the Secretary of State to the issue of jury trials? I have received an email from a constituent who is a practising barrister, who points to the issues, which have already been mentioned, of poor prisoner transport, the cap on sitting days and the condition of many courtrooms. Could the Secretary of State focus on delivering improvements in those areas, and abandon the proposals to limit jury trials?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman really should read Sir Brian Leveson’s report. We have to do all of it. Sir Brian will be publishing the second part of the report, which deals with the issues the hon. Gentleman mentions, but if we did only that, we would not see the backlog fall in his constituency. We have to invest in more sitting days, as we are and will continue to do, but we also need reform, which is why we are bringing forward those reforms on the thresholds.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

T2. As a survivor of rape, I know that the time it takes to get to court, if people even get that far, was one of the things that put me off reporting what happened to me. When people talk about changes to jury trials being justice denied, I understand their concerns, but I do not think it is always appreciated that, for victims of horrendous crimes, backlogs mean justice is already being slowly and painfully denied. Could the Minister assure me that, while hard decisions are made on the speed and rigour of justice, the Ministry will keep in mind those brave survivors who have come forward and are being let down by the system as it is?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

In a world where so many people walk on by or look the other way, I believe it is vital to the rule of law that our whole society gets behind people who are willing to stand up and be counted. We are joined in the Gallery today by one such person—Mark Hehir, a bus driver. Mark leapt to the aid of a passenger who was robbed, and the police said everything he did was entirely lawful, but his employer, Metroline, sacked him. More than 120,000 people have signed my petition giving their full support to Mark. Does the Justice Secretary agree that Mark is a hero who deserves our support?

[Mr Lammy]

Mark is of course a hero and deserves our support. I am following this case very closely.

[Dr Mullan]

I welcome those remarks, and I am sure the public will want us to work across the parties on these issues, but this is not an isolated case. I have heard from employers themselves, shop workers and bus drivers that they want to do the right thing, but the law inhibits them from doing so. The Conservatives will be bringing forward proposals to introduce good samaritan protections in civil law for both employers and employees. Will the Secretary of State work with us to get that on to the statute book?

[Mr Lammy]

These issues have a bearing on the Department for Business and Trade, so we necessarily have to work across Government. However, in a bipartisan manner, I and my Ministers will of course be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman on this issue.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

T3. It has been 10 years since the Jogee ruling on joint enterprise, and I would like to pay tribute to the Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association campaigners, who are in the Gallery today, for the amazing work they have done in this area. However, new Crown Prosecution Service data identifies continued racial disproportionality, with more black defendants swept into group convictions, so can the Justice Secretary confirm that meaningful law reform remains a priority and assure campaigners that this is not going to be a broken promise?

[Mr Lammy]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for continuing to champion this issue, and I also pay tribute to the work of JENGbA. I have met the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission—which has referred, I think, three cases to the Court of Appeal—to look closely at the issue. I am of course taking an interest in this issue, and I look forward to meeting campaigners in the coming months to discuss what more we may be able to do.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is clear, as more evidence comes to light, that Peter Mandelson abused his position while in government, and the Liberal Democrats are calling for a public inquiry. The Hillsborough law cannot come soon enough to ensure that public inquiries hear all the relevant evidence. When the Public Office (Accountability) Bill finally comes back to the House, will the Government seriously consider my amendment, which would ensure that the duty of candour applies to all those leaving public office, including those who retire, resign or are removed?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I am quite confident that the Bill does that now, but I will look closely again at her amendment.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

T8. The rotten culture of secrecy and cover-up at the heart of the SNP Government is laid bare by the Glasgow Queen Elizabeth university hospital scandal. Grieving families were lied to and dismissed, and whistleblowers bullied and threatened. Will the Public Office (Accountability) Bill protect Scottish families from Government dishonesty and corruption?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Prison officers face appalling levels of violence at work every day, but their hands are tied because of the Tory ban on any kind of industrial action—they cannot resist. Does the Minister agree that prison officers should have the legal right to withdraw their labour and to take industrial action to protect themselves and others while at work in what is an extremely dangerous workplace?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the seriousness of the issue my hon. Friend raises. I met prison officer unions just two weeks ago to discuss these very issues. My judgment is that, with the prison capacity crisis as it is and the pay increases we have been able to make to prison officers, this would not be the right time to explore changes in the practices he underlines.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

T7.   It has been reported that lawyers—some of whom now sit in this House and in the other place—have relied on the European convention on human rights to support the prosecution of patriotic Brits who fought for their country. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is yet another example of activist lawyers and unaccountable judges in Strasbourg shamefully pursuing veterans who were doing their duty, and will he, like the Conservatives, commit to withdrawing from the ECHR?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Violence against prison staff is at intolerable levels, with more than double the number of assaults today than a decade ago, all while prison officers are expected to work until they are 68 years of age. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair and unrealistic, and if so, what are the Government going to do about it?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right that we are expecting a lot of our prison officers. I was staggered at the state of what we inherited from the Conservatives. I met the prison officer unions a couple of weeks ago to discuss these issues and we are in a good dialogue about pay, work and conditions. Of course, they also raised the issue of the retirement age.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State instruct his officials who are putting together construction plans for a new mega-prison adjacent to HMP Grendon to actually listen to local voices, rather than insisting from a distance on traffic management plans that will put thousands of heavy goods vehicles down totally inappropriate rural roads?

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government were making great strides on imprisonment for public protection sentences, yet after my constituent, who was held for nearly two decades, had a minor infringement—he missed an appointment—he ended up back inside. That cannot be right. We need to ensure that people get proper support outside. Will the Government review what happens to IPP prisoners post release?

[Mr Lammy]

I was looking at these issues just yesterday with one of the leading campaigners on IPP. We are making progress with the action plan, but I am happy to arrange a meeting with my hon. Friend and the Prisons Minister to discuss these issues in a bit more detail.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Given that the MOJ is responsible for granting exhumation licences, does the Secretary of State agree that significant historical pauper burial sites, such Horton cemetery in my constituency, require stronger safeguards, and will he meet me to discuss how licensing decisions can better protect them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will shortly make a statement on violence in separation centres. I apologise that I will not be here for it as the Select Committee has a long-planned court visit, but I will read Sir Jonathan Hall KC’s report carefully. Will the Secretary of State also look at violence on the youth estate and the 44% year-on-year increase in assaults on staff by children? What are the Government doing about that?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to centre his comments on the youth justice system. We will bring forward an action plan on that area very shortly.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation found that weaknesses in risk assessment, information sharing and planning in domestic abuse cases are leaving victims at greater risk of harm and without consistent safeguarding across Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps his Department will take to ensure that the changes identified in the report are implemented and that victims of domestic abuse receive effective support through the criminal justice system?

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) asked about the two-year parole cycle when she raised the appalling case of James Bulger. James’s dad, Ralph, is now a constituent of mine, which is why I am following up. Will the Secretary of State consider changing the rules around the two-year system, given the family’s re-traumatisation when reliving what happened to James every two years?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue on behalf of Ralph Bulger. I know that he is meeting Baroness Levitt today. I too am happy to meet to discuss these issues in the coming weeks, notwithstanding my important role in this context.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

In their manifesto at the last election, the Government promised to set up specialist rape courts in every Crown court location. Will the Minister update the House on how many have been set up to date?

Separation Centres Review

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

I wish to inform the House of the publication of Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review of separation centres and the Government’s response to his findings.

On 12 April 2025, convicted terrorist Hashem Abedi launched a horrific attack on prison officers in the separation centre at HMP Frankland.

Separation centres are specialised, high-security units within a prison that are designed to house the most dangerous and influential extremist or terrorist prisoners, preventing them from radicalising or influencing others in the mainstream prison population.

Following this incident, on 15 May 2025, the then Lord Chancellor appointed Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, to consider the circumstances of the attack at HMP Frankland and lead an independent review into whether separation centres remain fit for purpose. Mr Hall was tasked with providing recommendations that could be implemented to reduce the likelihood of any such incident occurring again.

Before the review concluded, this Government took immediate steps to strengthen staff safety. The Prison Service commissioned a review to assess whether protective body armour—also known as stab-proof vests—should be rolled out to staff. On 3 June, the Government confirmed that stab-proof vests would be made mandatory for officers working in separation centres as well as close supervision centres, where the most violent and disruptive prisoners are placed. Staff in separation centres already have access to a range of protective equipment, including helmets, arm and leg protection, gloves, batons, shields, body-worn video cameras and PAVA pepper spray for use as required.

Over the past decade, around 230 recommendations have been made through independent reviews and inspections into how we manage the threat posed by terrorism in prisons and probation. Our assessment is that the vast majority have been effectively implemented and those that remain outstanding do so for clear and justified reasons with each kept under active and ongoing consideration.

The Government have now received Mr Hall’s most recent review, and we will take forward his further recommendations as part of our ongoing programme to strengthen the management of terrorist risk within our prisons.

I want to place on record the Government’s thanks for his careful, forensic, and thorough work.

Mr Hall has found that the principle of using small units such as separation centres to separate certain prisoners from the main population remains a sound one. However, he has identified various areas for improvement, and his report sets out 13 recommendations aimed at simplifying and strengthening the operation of the separation centre regime.

The Government are supportive of the report’s recommendations, accepting all 13 and in some areas committing to going further. Mr Hall’s report and the full Government response provide comprehensive information on these recommendations. By way of summary, Mr Hall’s recommendations are grouped within the Government response under four key themes.

The first theme addresses staff safety and risk management and covers recommendations 1, 9, 10 and 11. Collectively, these recommendations aim to create a safer, more resilient environment for both staff and prisoners. The Government recognise that some of the most dangerous terrorist offenders will seek to exploit vulnerabilities, making it essential that staff are equipped to identify and disrupt threats proactively. We will continue to invest in the tools, training, and support necessary to enable staff to manage terrorist risk confidently and safely. The Government remain unequivocal in their commitment to protecting prison staff and have already taken decisive steps to address these risks. We are delivering a comprehensive review of separation centre staff training, led by operational and clinical experts and supported by specialist learning and development teams. This review will ensure that all separation centre staff receive bespoke, evidence-based training tailored to the unique risks and challenges of managing terrorist offenders in high-security environments.

The second theme addresses system design and leadership and covers recommendations 2, 3 and 5. Mr Hall’s review identifies a clear opportunity to transform the way separation centres are governed and operated. The Government agree that the current model must evolve. To achieve this, we will implement a comprehensive redesign programme, developing a tiered separation centre system allowing movement between tiers based on rigorous new risk assessments. We are also committed to improving the quality of referrals for separation centre placement, including through developing a dedicated team with the required drafting and analytical expertise to produce high-quality, defensible referrals. This redesign programme will mark a step change in how separation centres are governed, ensuring stronger leadership, clearer accountability and more consistent delivery across the estate.

The third theme addresses the policy and legislative framework of separation centres and covers recommendations 4, 6, 7 and 8. Mr Hall’s review highlights the need for significant modernisation, noting that procedural and legislative requirements have constrained flexibility and exposed the system to litigation. The Government are committed to ensuring policy frameworks support, rather than hinder, effective risk management. We have already made significant progress in improving the defensibility and clarity of our separation centre policy framework and will go further to ensure it is robust and responsive to operational realities. This Government remain committed to the European convention on human rights, however, commitment does not mean complacency. We recognise the challenges highlighted by Mr Hall that article 8 can pose for separation centre decision making. We are therefore strengthening our internal processes, so they are clear and resilient to challenge, allowing staff to focus on managing risk and protecting the public. In parallel, we will consider whether new legislation is required to better protect decisions taken by experienced staff in separation centres from litigation on article 8 grounds, exploring the full range of options to deliver this, while being clear of the need to remain compliant with our obligations under the ECHR.

The fourth theme focuses on improving the collection and use of intelligence in separation centres and covers recommendations 12 and 13. Mr Hall’s review identifies a timely opportunity to enhance this function, noting that current intelligence collection practices are overly bureaucratic and insufficiently focused. The Government have already taken significant steps to improve how intelligence is gathered, analysed, and used across the prison estate. The launch of the new counter-terrorism training package in April 2025 marked a significant milestone and aims to equip staff with the skills to identify and report terrorist behaviours more effectively. The training package is already helping staff to recognise and report relevant behaviours. We are committed to reviewing and improving intelligence collection practices, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and ensuring that intelligence reporting is purposeful and directly supports operational decisions. These changes will help create a more agile and responsive intelligence environment within separation centres.

Taken together, these four themes, and the action we will take in response to them, form the basis of Mr Hall’s report and the Government’s response. I will place a copy of Mr Hall’s report in the Library of the House, and the full Government response will be laid before Parliament today.

This Government remain steadfast in their commitment to protecting the public and ensuring our prisons are equipped to manage the most dangerous offenders. The steps we are taking in response to this review, as set out in this statement, will strengthen security, protect staff, and reinforce the resilience of our counter-terrorism infrastructure within the prison estate.

[HCWS1298]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 January.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr David Lammy)]

Mr Speaker, I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is visiting China and Japan.

Yesterday was Holocaust Memorial Day. For the first time, a Holocaust survivor, Mala Tribich, addressed Cabinet. I found her testimony profoundly moving, especially having recently visited the Majdanek concentration camp in Poland. We owe it to every survivor, and to the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust, to never forget. We will build a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre next to this Parliament, so that the voices of survivors are never forgotten and their courage inspires future generations.

I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the family and loved ones of Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney of the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, who died on Sunday. We will never forget the courage, bravery and sacrifice made for our country by British servicemen and women.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Anneliese Midgley]

I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister about Holocaust Memorial Day and that British serviceman.

This week, the BBC and “Good Morning Britain” have reported on the national disgrace of out-of-control waste dumps. For years, my constituents in Kirkby have lived with such a dump. People struggle to breathe, they are sick, they have to live with their windows shut and schools sometimes shut down for days. I have been campaigning on the issue with our Labour councillors, but the response from the Environment Agency has been slow and ineffective. Will the Government work with me to sort this nightmare and to stop the Simonswood stink?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The Government will work with my hon. Friend. The situation she describes is unacceptable and people are right to be furious. The Environment Agency is taking action to prevent further dumping, and we are giving it more powers and resources to crack down on fly-tipping. I will ensure that Ministers keep her updated with their efforts.

Speaking of garbage, I note that Reform UK’s spring-cleaning of the Conservative party is continuing this week. The Leader of the Opposition says that the Conservative party is full of unwanted rubbish, but the public worked that out long ago and got rid of them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

May I start by echoing the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments about Holocaust Memorial Day? We must never forget. May I also associate the Opposition with the condolences expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister to the family of Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney. I also offer the condolences of the House to the family of Lord Flight, one of my predecessors in Arundel and South Downs, who served in Parliament with distinction for more than two decades.

After the Chancellor’s U-turn yesterday, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that over 90% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will get nothing?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I welcome the shadow Business Secretary to the Dispatch Box and join him in his condolences—I remember Lord Flight well from when I arrived in this House. It is always a pleasure to hear from the co-author of the mini-Budget and the man who said that Liz Truss had

“the best plan to deliver for the voters.”

Do you remember that?

Of course, all of us want to see our pubs in good health and to support hospitality. That is why the Chancellor announced a £4 billion package of support. Yesterday, in addition, it was announced that business rates for pubs and music venues will be cut by 15% this year and frozen for the next two years, and we will review the methodology for valuing pubs in the future. I must say that contrasts with the Conservatives, who saw 7,000 pubs close under their watch.

[Andrew Griffith]

The Deputy Prime Minister wants to talk about experience. I spent 25 years building businesses and creating jobs; he spent 25 years manufacturing grievance. If the Labour party knew anything about business, it would know that this is too little, too late. Our high streets—their high streets—are bleeding out, and the Chancellor is handing out—[Interruption.] Government Members do not want to hear this. Our high streets are bleeding out, and the Chancellor is handing out a box of sticking plasters. They cannot even U-turn properly. A senior adviser to Andy Burnham said yesterday:

“The Chancellor just wants a cheap headline”.

Meanwhile, our high streets are being decimated. He is right, isn’t he?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman talks about business. We know what his plan for business is. This is the man who opposed the minimum wage and said that it was

“simply something that legislators pass to make themselves feel good.”

Let me tell him that raising the minimum wage does not make us feel good; it changes lives. Labour is proud of how we are supporting small business. On small business, we are creating hospitality zones to cut red tape, creating greater licensing freedoms, which are very important, and tackling late payments. All of that is supporting business. That is a far cry from what small business saw before.

[Andrew Griffith]

You do not make young people better off by putting them out of work. The Deputy Prime Minister’s MPs are already banned from pubs. Where next? Shops, restaurants, hair salons—that might not make a difference to him or to me, but it would for many of them. They should back our plan to scrap business rates, but they have not got the backbone to cut welfare to pay for it. It is not just business rates; under Labour, the cost of hiring is up. Can he tell the House how much more it costs to hire a 21-year-old under Labour?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman talks about young people. The Conservatives left a shameful legacy: one in eight young people were not earning or learning when they left office. We are investing a record amount in apprenticeships, which the Conservatives had on their knees. We are creating technical excellence colleges for our young people, and Alan Milburn is doing a review on young people who are currently out of work. By contrast, the Conservatives would freeze the minimum wage and oppose giving young people an increase. They have nothing to say for the next generation.

[Andrew Griffith]

Mr Speaker, you can feel the Deputy Prime Minister’s frustration. The Prime Minister is away, the Business Secretary is away, and here he is—left-behind Lammy, the designated survivor, having to defend the indefensible. It is very clear that he does not know the answer, so let me tell him. The cost will be up by £3,600 a year. Under Labour, businesses cannot afford to hire, and one in six young people cannot find a job. This Government are blocking people who just want to get on in life—ambitious people like Andy from Manchester, having his dreams crushed by Labour. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why unemployment has gone up almost every month that the Government have been in office?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The shadow Business Secretary should check his facts—500,000 more people are in work than a year ago under us. He is in no position to lecture anyone about U-turns, by the way; this man was Boris Johnson’s net zero business champion, and now he opposes the renewable investment that is creating jobs and opportunities right across the country.

[Andrew Griffith]

The thing that the Deputy Prime Minister did not want to say is that every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they arrived. There is a reason for that: they do not understand what it takes to be an employer. They do not understand business. The Government are strangling business with their red tape, and they are about to make things infinitely worse. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us his Government’s own estimate of the cost to business of the unemployment Act?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I will take no lectures from the hon. Member on business. My father was run out of business under the Thatcher Government—I know what it is like to grow up under a Tory Government. While we are talking about it, 26 Tory MPs and counting have already defected to Reform. Now they are all counting down, because today is 100 days until the Tory transfer window slams shut. It is going to be the longest and most disloyal transfer saga since Sol Campbell left Spurs, and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I do not know where he is—has signed three right wingers in the past fortnight.

[Andrew Griffith]

I do not know what is in the Deputy Prime Minister’s head; it is our party that is getting stronger. Overnight we learned that the former Deputy Prime Minister has got 80 names. On Sunday we learned that the Health Secretary’s allies claim he has got 200 names. Oddly, 50 Labour Members want the Mayor of Greater Manchester, who is not even an MP. They are supposed to be running the country.

Once again, small businesses across this country will see that the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer the question, so I will tell him. The burden to businesses of the Government’s Bill is £1 billion a year. There we have it: they have no answers for small business, and there is no relief coming. They do not care about high streets, hotels, restaurants, farmers or young people. Will the Deputy Prime Minister not admit what the Members behind him are thinking: that it is not the Prime Minister going to China that is the problem; it is the fear that he might come back?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Let us face it, the shadow Business Secretary is not going to get this gig again, is he?

I have set out our position very clearly. This was the week when the Leader of the Opposition told “Desert Island Discs” that Britain needs to learn to queue again, and Tory MPs have taken her quite literally—they are lining up outside the office of the Member for Clacton while they squabble about the damage that they did to our country. Labour this week is capping ground rents, cutting the cost of living and rebuilding our public services. That is the difference a Labour Government make, and there is much more to come.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Q2. Elemore Hall school is a fantastic multi-site provision, supporting more than 200 of County Durham’s vulnerable young people with social, emotional and mental health difficulties. Its personalised alternative curriculum centre in Durham caters for 20 key stage 4 pupils, but special educational needs provision in Durham is at crisis point. With an extra school site and PACC extension, Elemore could offer more young people opportunities to thrive locally, saving thousands in costs for alternative provision and taxis. Will the Deputy Prime Minister arrange for a Department for Education Minister to visit the PACC site, and will the Government work with me to support the urgent need for additional school facilities and PACC accommodation, so that young people in Durham can access the education they deserve closer to home?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We are focused on fixing the SEN system so that every child, wherever they live, has the support they need to thrive. We will continue our national conversation on reforms. We are also boosting investment into SEN. That includes £200 million to roll out more training for teachers and over £100 million for Durham county council. I am sure that a Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and visit the site at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

On behalf of my party, may I join the Deputy Prime Minister in marking Holocaust Memorial Day? We will not forget. We also honour the service of Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney, who died on Sunday.

While the Chinese regime still holds British citizen Jimmy Lai captive in prison, and while the Chinese regime continues to hunt down pro-democracy protesters on the streets of Britain with bounties on their heads, the British Prime Minister has gone cap in hand to China to ask for a trade deal, on the promise of a super-embassy from which the Chinese regime will continue to spy on us. The Chinese regime remains undeterred in its illegal actions against the UK and our citizens, so can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to name one single consequence that the Chinese regime will face if they do not stop their campaign of espionage and repression?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

China matters, and ignoring it would be a dereliction of duty. We will build a consistent, long-term and strategic approach that is grounded in reality. I set that out in the China audit statement I made a few months ago, and it is what our allies do. President Trump, President Macron, Chancellor Merz, Prime Minister Carney are all visiting and engaging. We will co-operate where we can—I am sure that, in areas like climate, the hon. Lady would expect us to co-operate—and we will challenge in areas where we disagree. That is the way that we deliver for the public of this country.

[Daisy Cooper]

I note that the Deputy Prime Minister could not name one single consequence if the Chinese do not stop their espionage and repression. The Deputy Prime Minister has responded as if the world has not changed, but with Russia waging war in Europe, with the Chinese hunting pro-democracy protesters on our streets, and with President Trump undermining NATO and the rules-based order that keeps us safe, we have got to act with urgency to strengthen our alliances with trusted allies in Europe and the Commonwealth, and we have got to ramp up defence spending now. Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider as a first step the Liberal Democrat plan to issue defence bonds to raise £20 billion in the next two years, so that we can rebuild our armed forces and give British savers the opportunity to invest in the defence of our nation?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have been here long enough to remember when Labour left office. We were spending 2.5% on defence. When the Liberal Democrats were in government with the Conservatives, they cut it.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Q3.   Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the good work of this Labour Government to get the NHS back on its feet, with waiting lists down—they are down by 2,400 in my constituency—as well as ambulance waits down and prescription charges frozen, could be put at risk by Reform UK, as was confirmed at the weekend, when the last-but-one defector, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), was asked about a private health insurance system and replied, “I don’t object to that”?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right—waiting lists are down by 3,200 in his local area—and he is also right to highlight the progress with our plan to get the NHS back on its feet. Thanks to this Labour Government’s decisions, waiting lists have fallen by over 300,000 since the election, and we have delivered 5.2 million extra appointments, slashed ambulance response times and recruited 3,000 more GPs. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) confirmed at the weekend that Reform would support privatisation of the national health service. Labour will never let it happen. Reform cannot be trusted with our national health service.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

This week marks two years from the attempted great deception on the part of the former Government and the Democratic Unionist party that the Irish sea border was gone. “No checks, no paperwork” was the strapline. Yet within the first few months of this new year alone, we have seen the imposition of a veterinary medicine border and a ban on new GB cars being sold in Northern Ireland. Now the European Union says that it plans to impose a €3 charge on small parcels coming into Northern Ireland from July onwards. What sort of Government allows a foreign power to impose a tax on parcels coming into its own territory?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I looked at this specifically when I was Foreign Secretary. We have provided a wide range of guidance and support for businesses and we have not seen evidence of significant disruption to the flow of parcels, but of course His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs stands ready to provide support wherever businesses have difficulties.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q4. When the Prime Minister visited Ely in my constituency recently to launch the UK child poverty strategy, I took the opportunity to discuss with him the much-needed Pride in Place funding that we want in Ely and Caerau. My constituents are telling me that they want important things such as a youth zone and provision for recreational sports activities. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss securing this vital funding for my constituents in Ely and Caerau?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the appropriate Minister. Look at the difference that Labour is making in Wales: NHS waiting lists have fallen six months in a row thanks to the largest ever devolution settlement; £445 million has gone into Welsh rail; and we have new offshore wind projects, AI growth zones and the UK’s small modular reactor in Anglesey. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Q5.   The Met Office reports that climate change is driving wetter winters, but the United States withdrew from the Paris climate agreement yesterday, on the same day that much of the west country disappeared under floodwater. My part of Devon is submerged, and needs better flood defences. Would the Deputy Prime Minister like to invite his US counterpart on a fishing trip to the south-west?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Well, I will get a licence if I do!

My sympathies are with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who have been affected by the recent floods. We are investing a record £10.5 billion in flood defences to protect 890,000 homes. The flood defences are of course inherited from the Conservative party, which was shameful, but we have committed to net zero and to the Paris agreement; it is good for lowering bills, and good for jobs and investment in the UK.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

Q6. In my borough, the social housing waiting list exceeds 7,000 live applications. Council housing offers my constituents the safety and security they deserve. What further steps can the Government take to speed up the delivery of the social and affordable homes programme, and build the high-quality social housing that my constituents deserve?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We on this side of the House believe in council housing. We are investing £39 billion to deliver the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation. That will deliver 300,000 social and affordable homes, with at least 60% for social rent, and we will bring forward legislation to strengthen councils’ ability to buy back homes sold under the right-to-buy scheme.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Q7. The Scottish press is full of stories about the plot by Scottish Labour MPs to bring down the Prime Minister. One Scottish Labour MP said he is terrible, another Scottish Labour MP said the handling of the Budget had been incompetent, and yet another Scottish Labour MP predicted that Scottish Labour will be slaughtered in May’s election. They are not wrong, are they?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The people of Scotland have a big decision to make later on this year—certainly not to vote Conservative, but to get rid of the SNP and vote Labour. I and my colleagues will be campaigning every single day to bring that about.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)]

Q11. As the UK’s first borough of sanctuary, Lewisham has a proud history of welcoming people fleeing conflict, persecution and instability. Our council works closely with support organisations to help those people integrate and contribute to our community. How will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that the proposed reforms to the asylum system support, rather than undermine, the positive outcomes already being achieved in boroughs like mine?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Britain has always been a fair, tolerant and compassionate country that has offered safe haven to those fleeing peril, and this Government will always defend those values. We are introducing the largest overhaul of asylum policy in modern times to restore control, contribution and fairness. That includes creating new, capped safe and legal routes for refugees. Asylum claims are falling across Europe, but in Britain they are rising, so we must make it less attractive for those who are coming here illegally to come to Britain, and easier to remove them, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Q8. Six in 10 families say their pay is going backwards, with the lowest earners £73 a week worse off and middle earners worse off too. Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that his Government have broken their promise to improve living standards?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Real wages have risen in nearly every single month since we came into office.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Q12.   Sergeant Matthew Telford, Trooper Robert Pearson and Guardsman James “Jimmy” Major, who was aged just 18, were three heroic servicemen from Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes who made the ultimate sacrifice on their tours of Afghanistan. I want to put on the record my condemnation of President Trump’s plain wrong comments that so undermine the commitment of our brave British servicemen and women at home and abroad, which the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly recognised. This Government have launched the Valour system to ensure that our veterans’ support offer on housing, health, welfare and work is fit for purpose—fully backing our forces. That is in stark contrast to the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who happily takes cash to champion the IRA. My local armed forces charities want to know if the Deputy Prime Minister can set out what urgent action is being taken by this Government to house homeless veterans under Valour.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

One of the greatest privileges of my life is visiting our servicemen and women who are stationed abroad. We are renewing the contract with our veterans, providing millions to eradicate veteran homelessness, and investing £50 million into a nationwide network of support centres.

I want to take this opportunity to pay my respects to Private Jonathan Kitulagoda. He was the first British soldier killed by enemy action in Afghanistan, on this day in 2004. He was just 23. The valour and heroism of those who have served our country to keep us safe must never be forgotten.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Q9.  A month ago today, protests erupted across Iran. In response, the Iranian Government launched a deadly crackdown. They fired indiscriminately on protesters, and they shut off internet access to hide what they were doing from the outside world. In April 2024, the then shadow Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary, asked the Conservative Government if they would finally proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. Just two weeks ago, she described the Iranian regime as a “consistent threat” to the UK’s“stability, security and freedom and to the UK national interest.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 789.]The world order that we thought we knew is being shaken up. The US is no longer able to show moral leadership to Governments who kill their own citizens. Can this Government step up and take the lead, and will they now proscribe the IRGC?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I utterly condemn the Iranian regime’s brutal repression of peaceful protesters. It is a long-standing position under successive Governments not to comment on whether a specific organisation is being considered for proscription. We have long criticised Iran’s authoritarian regime and taken robust action to protect UK interests from Iranian state threats, and that includes over 220 sanctions on Iran and placing the entirety of the Iranian state on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. We are working at pace, of course, to explore what further measures can be taken to respond to these horrific events.

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)]

Violence is again escalating in north-east Syria—Rojava. A humanitarian crisis is unfolding and the city of Kobane is under siege yet again. The Kurdish communities who fought and helped defeat ISIS feel abandoned by their western allies. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to working with our allies to hold the Syrian regime to the March 2025 agreement by securing protection for Kurdish civilians, pushing for a meaningful and immediate ceasefire, opening humanitarian corridors into Kobane and supporting constitutional recognition for Kurdish regions?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Recent events in Syria have been deeply concerning. This is a significant moment for Syria’s future, and we are using every diplomatic lever to urge all parties to stop the violence, protect civilians and ensure humanitarian support can be accessed. The Foreign Secretary has highlighted to Syria’s Foreign Minister this week the importance of protecting the rights of the Kurdish community, and we have consistently advocated for an inclusive political transition. We remain committed to standing with the Syrian people as they seek to build a more stable, free and prosperous future.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Q10. It was reported on the TV yesterday that the Labour Back Benchers are revolting. Now, that is a matter of opinion, but unlike the Labour Back Benchers and the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Unlike the Labour Back Benchers and the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

[Lee Anderson]

Unlike the Prime Minister of our country, I have never been thrown out of or barred from a pub, and after yesterday’s disastrous announcement to save our pubs, it is no wonder he has cleared off to China, but I have one question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he come with me to Ashfield to visit some pubs, speak to some landlords and explain to them why over 500 pubs have closed since this Labour Government came into power and why another 500 pubs will close in the next year? Come on, be a man!

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think I once campaigned with the hon. Gentleman when he was a member of the Labour party. It has been said of him that, when he left, he enhanced the IQ of the Labour party and the IQ of the party he went to. I wonder what job he is pitching for in Reform’s shadow Cabinet. They have Nadhim Zahawi to advise on tax and the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to open up the borders, and now they need Liz Truss to crash the economy!

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

I hope you get well soon, Mr Speaker.

Lillia Jakeman is 19 years of age and has been given a devastating diagnosis of motor neurone disease. When she was told that she has a very rare form of the disease that can be treated with a groundbreaking new drug called tofersen, her family were given hope. They have since discovered that although the drug is being made available to the NHS free of charge, her local trust has declined to deliver it. This afternoon, her family will be arriving at Downing Street, having walked from Southampton, to highlight this injustice. Will the Deputy Prime Minister work with me, MPs from across the House, Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS bosses to deliver fair access to tofersen for all living with this rare form of motor neurone disease?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am sorry to hear about those who are waiting for this treatment. Of course, I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets the appropriate meeting with the relevant Minister.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

Q13. G R Carr is a business in Burnt Mills in my constituency with more than half a century of experience in steel manufacturing and fabrication. It is exactly the kind of medium-sized business that builds this country and that we should be championing. Following my visit to the business last week, I was disturbed to find out that many of our contracts, from our flagship deals in Teesside to our nuclear programmes, go offshore, such as the 7,000-tonne order for steel from China and the more than 200 km of fabricated pipework from Germany. That is exactly the kind of investment that should be made in the UK. How does sending it offshore play into the Government’s growth plans?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman will remember that we stepped in to save British Steel, and we committed up to £2.5 billion to rebuild the sector. We will publish a steel strategy setting out how we are going to achieve that shortly. The British industry supercharger will also bring down energy costs for strategically important UK industries.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

At a time when the Government are promoting a duty of candour to ensure that all public servants, including Ministers, have a legal duty to act with transparency and frankness, and when the Scottish Government have indicated that they hope that that legislation will apply in Scotland too, does the Deputy Prime Minister support calls for the current First Minister, a former First Minister and a former Health Minister to appear before the inquiry into the deaths of adults and children as a result of contaminated water at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow, a scandal widely thought to be the worst since devolution began?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that serious matter. It is a scandal—one of the worst failures in modern Scottish public life. The SNP Government must acknowledge the grave failures at Queen Elizabeth hospital. When whistleblowers raised serious failings, SNP Ministers sided with the health board and dismissed families who went through tragic circumstances. That should be condemned as wholly unacceptable, and there is no clearer example of why Scotland needs change with Anas Sarwar.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Q14. The UK’s nuclear deterrent has kept this country safe for over five decades. As the Deputy Prime Minister will know, it is operationally independent, but it still relies on US defence supply chains. Given the shaking of traditional alliances, could the Deputy Prime Minister reassure the House and the country that the UK has sufficient stockpiles of the component parts of the Trident II D5 missiles in our nuclear submarines, and ensure that the supply chain remains resilient and able to cope with any change in the White House, whether positive or negative?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. It is why I was pleased to work with the Defence Secretary on the strategic defence review and why we are investing £270 billion over this Parliament in defence.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know that the Deputy Prime Minister takes a deep interest in Uganda. Two weeks ago, there was a sham election in which people were prevented from voting and Government officials stuffed ballot boxes. Now, the military is pursuing Bobi Wine, the leader of the opposition, with deadly intent. I am gravely concerned about Bobi, opposition activists and British citizens in Uganda. What can we do to safeguard those people and ensure that we do not see violence and bloodshed on the streets of Uganda?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I was very grateful to meet Bobi Wine with my hon. Friend when I was shadow Foreign Secretary. We call for peaceful and credible elections. This dispute must be resolved peacefully and legally. Opposition candidates must be able to campaign freely. We will, of course, continue to make representations forcefully.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Q15.  I join the Deputy Prime Minister in commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day. Unbelievably, the organisation Palestine Pulse planned a protest outside Parliament today entitled, “Confront Power at Parliament: Anti-Zionist Rally”. The Jewish population of our country have had to put up with weekly protests in our towns and cities since 7 October 2023. Now we have protests outside Jewish businesses and restaurants, trying to close them down. The chants are antisemitic, the meaning behind them is antisemitic and we see where it leads: the massacre on Bondi Beach, what happened in the United States, and, unbelievably, two of our Jewish population murdered in Manchester. Lord Macdonald’s review will look at the issue, but the Jewish population of this country do not have two years to wait before this hatred is extinguished. Will the Deputy Prime Minister take concrete steps to ensure that antisemitism is driven out of our country?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have worked cross-party on these issues over many years, particularly as I represent Stamford Hill, one of the historic homes of the Jewish community. He is quite right: the rising antisemitism we see and the nature of some forms of protest is intolerable and unacceptable. That is why the Home Secretary has set out her plans. I will continue to work with her closely to drive antisemitism out of this country.

Bills Presented

Local Government Reorganisation (Requirement for Referendum) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bedford presented a Bill to provide that any reorganisation of local government in England involving changes to electoral boundaries, the establishment of combined authorities, or other specified changes may not be undertaken unless such reorganisation has been approved by a simple majority of residents of any affected local government area voting in a referendum; to make provision about the organisation of such referendums; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 374).

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Josh Babarinde, supported by James MacCleary, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of disregarding compensation received under the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme for the purpose of calculating entitlement to Pension Credit and to other means-tested benefits for which such payments are not disregarded in full; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 375).

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office: Annual Report 2024–25

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

With the concurrence of the Lady Chief Justice, I will today publish the 18th annual report of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

The JCIO supports the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor in our joint statutory responsibility for judicial discipline.

The judiciary comprises approximately 20,000 individuals serving across a range of jurisdictions. Over the past year, the JCIO received 3,279 complaints against judicial office-holders. A total of 89 investigations resulted in disciplinary action.

I have placed copies of the report in the Library of each House. Copies are also available online at:

https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/reportsandpublications

[HCWS1243]

HMP Wandsworth Independent Investigation

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

I wish to provide an update on the independent investigation into the escape of Daniel Khalife from HMP Wandsworth on 6 September 2023.

On 8 January 2024, the House was informed that the investigation, which was led by Keith Bristow QPM, had concluded. At that time, it was not appropriate to provide further detail, due to the ongoing criminal proceedings and the need to protect prison security. Those proceedings have since concluded. Mr Khalife was convicted for offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911 and the Terrorism Act 2000, as well as for escaping from lawful custody. He was sentenced to a total of 14 years and three months’ imprisonment for those crimes.

Following the criminal trial, various details about events that occurred are now in the public domain, including how Mr Khalife escaped while on kitchen duty by using a makeshift sling attached to the underside of a delivery lorry. However, in the spirit of transparency and accountability, I wish to provide a fuller account of the investigation’s findings and recommendations, while also maintaining caution that prison security is not compromised by doing so.

The investigation scrutinised five key operational themes: prisoner categorisation; security protocols and their application; assessment of escape risk; work allocation risk assessment; and operational capacity including staffing levels.

A prisoner’s categorisation determines the level of security required to manage them, based on both their risk to the public and of escape. The investigation found that the decision to hold Mr Khalife in a category B prison was consistent with categorisation policy and based on adequate information. It also noted that category B conditions should have been sufficient to prevent escape.

The investigation nonetheless recommended that HM Prison and Probation Service consider whether improvements are needed to support the sharing of sensitive intelligence between operational partners to better inform future categorisation decisions.

HMP Wandsworth has taken meaningful steps to enhance the systems that inform categorisation decisions. Improvements include streamlining processes relating to intelligence generated by HMPPS, addressing operational backlogs and delivering staff training aligned with national standards. These improvements, combined with wider processes in place with relevant partners, support robust HMPPS decision-making relating to categorisation and prison placement.

The investigation identified shortcomings in the application of several security protocols on the day of the escape, including prisoner and cell searches, vehicle escorting, vehicle search procedures at the prison’s main gate, prisoner counting protocols and the activation of contingency plans. It recommended strengthening local searching policies, enhancing local intelligence and recording practices and adopting a more rigorous approach to security risk assessment. While not found to be material to the escape, the investigation also recommended that the HMPPS policy framework for managing terrorist risk be updated to reflect current practice.

Since then, HMP Wandsworth has significantly strengthened its security framework. Search protocols have been revised, risk-based practices improved and the level of support from specialist search teams increased. Staff training has been prioritised to embed a more consistent and effective security culture. In addition, HMPPS has introduced an updated, internal policy framework for managing terrorist risk.

On the assessment of Mr Khalife’s escape risk, the investigation concluded that the relevant policy had been applied correctly in his case. It also noted that the low incidence of prison escapes suggests that the current approach to escape risk management is almost always sufficient. The investigation nonetheless recommended that HMPPS review whether the current policy relating to escape risk places sufficient emphasis on prisoner behaviour outside of closed conditions, particularly where past behaviour patterns may indicate a greater risk of escape.

HMP Wandsworth has since enhanced its processes for identifying and managing escape risk. This includes improved daily monitoring, updated risk assessments, and assurance checks to ensure operational practices reflect current vulnerabilities. Furthermore, HMPPS has reviewed the national escape list policy, specifically the requirement to consider risk information, such as escape risk, from other secure environments such as police or military custody.

With regard to work allocation, the investigation found that Mr Khalife should not have been assigned to work in the kitchen based on the local policy in place at the time. It also identified that an opportunity to remove him from this role was missed. The investigation recommended improvements to HMP Wandsworth’s work allocation process, including its risk assessment form.

HMP Wandsworth has since improved its approach to work allocation by strengthening risk assessment processes and enhancing the use of information held on HMPPS’s intelligence reporting system. A new system has been introduced to ensure decisions are applied consistently and reviewed regularly, supported by targeted staff training and oversight mechanisms.

The investigation found that while staffing levels at HMP Wandsworth were a broader challenge, they were not a significant factor on the day of the escape. However, the investigation noted that wider staffing pressures may have had an indirect effect. This includes reduced time for staff to carry out essential tasks, less assurance around the quality of processes being followed, and increased cross-deployment of staff across different activities within the prison. The investigation also highlighted the impact of staff churn on institutional knowledge and national pressure on centralised training capacity due to high volumes of new recruits. The investigation did not find evidence that staff corruption was a factor in the escape.

While the investigation made no specific recommendations on staffing, HMP Wandsworth has taken measures to strengthen staffing and institutional resilience, including increased security personnel, targeted training, and enhanced operational awareness.

The investigation also made several strategic recommendations to strengthen prison security more broadly. These included the need for HMP Wandsworth, supported by HMPPS, to develop a comprehensive and dynamic understanding of local security risks, implement a clear strategy to address them, and embed a stronger security culture underpinned by visible leadership. The investigation also recommended that HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice work collaboratively with scrutiny bodies to assess whether prison performance evaluations appropriately prioritise security and risk management, and recommended that HMPPS consider how the investigation’s findings might be applied across the wider prison estate.

The prison has undertaken a comprehensive review of its security arrangements, informed by internal assessments and external scrutiny. A revised local strategy now guides operational practices, supported by strengthened leadership, improved intelligence handling, and embedded assurance processes. HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice continue to work closely with HM Inspectorate of Prisons and other scrutiny bodies, including independent monitoring boards, to support improvement across the system. These measures reflect a sustained commitment to enhancing security governance and provide a model for wider application across the estate.

The Government have taken the findings of the independent investigation into Mr Khalife’s escape extremely seriously. HMP Wandsworth, HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice have acted swiftly and decisively to implement the investigation’s recommendations. Through strengthened leadership, a renewed focus on security culture, and rigorous assurance processes, the prison has addressed the vulnerabilities identified. These reforms are not only embedded, but they are also being independently tested and continuously improved.

I am confident that the actions taken have significantly strengthened prison security. We must not become complacent, however, and I have made clear the importance of maintaining this momentum, not only at HMP Wandsworth, but across the prison estate. I am resolute in ensuring that lessons are learned to help prevent incidents of this nature occurring again in the future.

[HCWS1245]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to ensure adequate provision of legal aid.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

We are making significant investments in legal aid: we have announced additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates and an additional £92 million a year for criminal legal aid solicitors. We are also uplifting housing and immigration legal fees by £20 million a year—the first major increase since 1996.

[John Milne]

My constituent Steve is currently being denied access to justice because he cannot afford to take action against a publicly funded body under Competition and Markets Authority legislation. His only other option is to proceed on a no win, no fee basis. Will the relevant Minister agree to meet me and Steve to discuss possible solutions?

[Mr Lammy]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to write to me first, as it sounds like there is some technical detail in that case. If necessary, I will then ask the relevant Minister to meet him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Select Committee has just begun an inquiry into access to justice. The evidence we are getting suggests that civil and family legal aid in particular are in a dire position, with fees now approximately half what they were 28 years ago. There have been welcome increases in housing and immigration fees, but what wider plans does the Secretary of State have to review legal aid fees, particularly in the area of civil and family law?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will recognise that the uplift of £20 million in housing and immigration is significant; it is actually the first major uplift in his and my time here in Parliament. He is right that we should look across the piece at civil legal aid, combined with what is happening in our courts, and I will continue to do that over this next period.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

My question follows on from that of the Chair of the Select Committee. In 2024, 39% of family court proceedings involved neither party being legally represented; in cases of domestic abuse, this forces victims to relive their experiences and confront their trauma repeatedly. The provision of legal aid in such cases is wholly inadequate, which presents an unacceptable barrier to many victims accessing fair and effective legal representation. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner that legal aid should be provided in all domestic abuse cases to end self-representation and protect victims from retraumatisation?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady is right that legal aid is important, but, in some cases, so is mediation. I would refer her to the pathfinder pilot, which is hugely important in relation to private family law. We are looking closely at provision, but we are also looking closely at the workforce, because as with criminal legal aid, we have seen lawyers—particularly younger lawyers—leaving that area of practice.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking with the Secretary of State for the Home Department to deport foreign national offenders.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

We said that we are determined to remove foreign national offenders from our prisons sooner, and we have. I am pleased to say that the number of foreign criminals removed from the country early has rocketed by 75% under this Labour Government, with more than 2,700 foreign national offenders deported under the early removal scheme in the past year—up from just 1,560 in the last year the Tories were in charge.

[Steve Yemm]

I wonder what reassurance the Secretary of State could give my constituents that foreign national offenders who commit serious crimes will be removed promptly after sentencing, rather than allowing their appeal process to drag on. Does he agree that a deport first, appeal later approach would be most appropriate?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right. That is what we are doing in the Sentencing Bill, which is going through Parliament, which will enable us to remove foreign nationals earlier—a key component of the Bill. We are absolutely clear: if someone comes to our country and commits a crime, they no longer have any right to be here.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Last week in Northern Ireland, a 26-year-old Palestinian migrant was found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy. The police refused to publish an image of this man, meaning that people do not know who he is or if he is showing concerning behaviour. Can the Minister assure us that whether in GB or in Northern Ireland, any migrant found guilty of sexual offences will not only have their picture published, but be deported?

[Mr Lammy]

We are deporting foreign nationals, as I have explained. This is a devolved issue, and it would be wrong for me to comment on individual cases. If she writes to us about it, she will get a ministerial response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

23. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposal to restrict the right to a jury trial for certain offences on the rule of law.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

Everyone has a right to a fair trial, and the essence of a fair trial is a timely trial. Only 3% of all criminal cases are heard by a judge and jury under the current regime. Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of the British justice system. Delayed justice is justice denied.

[Mr Bedford]

The Justice Secretary may have complete faith in the independence of the judiciary; sadly, I do not. We have seen a plethora of cases, particularly involving freedom of speech, where the judiciary has arguably been influenced by political correctness and the virtue signalling of bodies such as the Sentencing Council. If his proposals are designed to reduce the backlog, why do they not include a sunset clause?

[Mr Lammy]

I completely reject what the hon. Gentleman said. It is an absolute essential foundation of our democracy that all of us in this House and in government respect the independence of the judiciary. I remind him that it is precisely because of the judiciary’s independence that it is not able to answer for itself. The Lord Chancellor has that responsibility, and I will do it robustly.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

When the Lord Chancellor made his statement on jury trials last week, he said that an impact assessment would be published with the legislation. Given how powerful a defender of jury trials he has been in the past, will he publish the evidence and the modelling that he has seen since coming to office that caused him to change his mind?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Whenever a Government propose legislation, there must be an impact assessment—both an economic impact assessment and an equality impact assessment—and of course we will publish it in the usual way.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Victims must be at the forefront of our minds when thinking about reforms to our justice system. Many of them wait years and are often retraumatised by going through the process of a criminal court trial. Can the Secretary of State tell me how these changes will ensure that we bring criminals properly and promptly to justice, to bring matters to a close for victims?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A third of all sex victims in the backlog have now been waiting a year or more, and she knows that in many of those cases, there are also defendants playing the system, pleading late with pre-hearing after pre-hearing, with the result that witnesses fall away and cases collapse. It is for that reason that it is absolutely right that we change the threshold and introduce the measures that Brian Leveson has properly looked at, to speed up the process and get those victims justice.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

The Justice Secretary wants to do away with some jury trials. He wants to extend the powers of magistrates to sentence up to 24 months without the right to appeal a conviction or sentence. I think I am right in saying that the capacity in prisons is at 88,000 as we speak today. Where are all those apparently guilty people going to be put?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend and I have been friends for a very long time and I recognise his experience in matters related to criminal trials. May I just remind him that we have the Sentencing Bill passing through the House? That will give us greater capacity in the prison system. He will also know that the Government are on track to provide 40,000 extra prison places by the early 2030s—under the last Government, there were only 500. All of that increases capacity, and of course we hope that jury trials will also make a difference for victims.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary quite rightly says that justice delayed is justice denied, but summary justice is no justice at all. He based much of his argument on the views of the eminent Lord Leveson, but has he read the analysis of that review by Geoffrey Rivlin KC, who went through the report in expert detail and described much of it as unfounded and misguided because it was based on poor data. If the Justice Secretary has not read it, will he please do so before he comes back to the House?

[Mr Lammy]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it was a serious independent panel and I do not think he can reject Sir Brian Leveson out of hand in that way. I remind him that David Ormerod was also on the panel. The analysis was based on data and on evidence internationally, and that is why it is important that we implement it. There is no silver bullet. To affect change, we have to do it all; otherwise, at the next general election, the backlog will have soared to over 100,000.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I have heard heartbreaking stories of women from my constituency who have waited years for their abuser to be brought to trial. The crisis that has developed in our courts is having a devastating impact on victims. Given that many of the previous reforms to judge, jury and magistrate trials over the past 50 years were also intended to speed up the system, will the Secretary of State outline how these proposed changes will fix the broken system and deliver swift justice for victims?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, we need investment and more sitting days. We did not get that under the last Government—we are getting that now. Secondly, we need reform. We asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at this in great detail. He did that, and we must now respond and not shirk from the reform that is necessary. Thirdly, we need modernisation. That is why, for example, being able to get a transcript and a recording at magistrates is so important.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Under the Justice Secretary’s plans to slash jury trials, he is giving magistrates more serious cases. However, he also plans to scrap the automatic right to appeal—a vital safety valve in courtrooms where justice is delivered at pace by volunteers. Last year, 5,000 cases from magistrates courts were appealed, of which more than 40% were upheld. Given that very high rate of successful appeals, will the Secretary of State be honest with the public and concede that curtailing appeals will unquestionably lead to miscarriages of justice?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on the Conservative Back Benches has just said that summary justice is no justice—either they believe in our magistrates or they do not. I believe in our magistrates. Sir Brian recommended a permission stage, and we accept his recommendation for creating a permission stage on appeal. That is the right thing to do, particularly because many appeals have no merits, and that is why victims fall away.

[Robert Jenrick]

If the Secretary of State maintains that this change will not lead to miscarriages of justice, he must be expecting the same number of cases to be appealed. In which case, there is no point doing it in the first place. The truth, deep down, is that the Government are willing to tolerate some miscarriages of justice to save a paltry sum of money, yet all the while the solution is staring us in the face. Since the Justice Secretary announced his plan on 2 December, 640 sitting days have been missed.

It is the end of term. The Justice Secretary’s report card is marked “improvement required”. Will he reflect over Christmas and make scrapping his plan to slash jury trials a new year’s resolution that we can all support?

[Mr Lammy]

I know the right hon. Gentleman has more front than Blackpool pier, but let us be clear: we are accepting a permission stage that was recommended by Brian Leveson. What we need are more sitting days and more investment, and we are doing that. We cannot shirk reform, he knows that jury trials will continue to be a cornerstone of the Crown court system, and we need modernisation. All of that was not done by the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to provide adequate funding for victim support services.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

Last week I announced record funding for victim support services: £550 million over the next three years—the biggest investment in victim support services to date. This Labour Government are putting victims at the heart of the justice system.

[Tim Roca]

I welcome the increased funding. Victim support and the commissioning of those services is incredibly important, and the operational independence of police and crime commissioners has been invaluable in that regard. What assurances can Ministers provide that, with the abolition of PCCs, victim support will not be led by forces themselves and that we will keep the important progress we have made over recent years?

[Mr Lammy]

We have committed to providing PCCs with £131.8 million for 2026-27 and £134 million for 2027-28 for their work on sexual violence and domestic abuse. It is really important that we ringfence that funding.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Building on the question from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), police and crime commissioners were able to act as a strong independent voice for commissioners. In what has been outlined so far, there is not really a voice for victims in local areas. What will the Secretary of State do to make sure that is remedied?

[Mr Lammy]

We have up to May 2028. It is important that we get the money in and that that money particularly goes to the frontline. When I meet organisations on the ground such as Rape Crisis, they are the voice of women on the frontline, but of course we are looking very closely at how this interaction will work after we no longer have PCCs.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

11. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the implementation of the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction in cases involving domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

I pay tribute to Lenny Scott, who was a dedicated prison officer and much-loved family man. In 2020, he seized an illicit mobile phone from a prisoner, who took revenge four years later by taking his life in broad daylight. Perpetrators of heinous killings like that must feel the full force of the law. I can announce today that we will broaden the starting point for whole-life orders to include murders connected to the current or former duties of a police, prison or probation officer. That means that offenders can expect to spend the rest of their life behind bars. That is the latest step that this Government have taken to keep our hard-working prison and probation staff safe.

[Uma Kumaran]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that clarification. By the time my constituent gets her day in court, she will have waited nearly a decade for justice. That is the cost of the Tories’ broken court system—unacceptable waits, contributing to a tragically high number of victims not proceeding to trial. The result is near-total impunity for the men who commit serious offences of sexual assault and domestic abuse. My right hon. Friend is working tirelessly to reduce the courts backlog. What is he doing to ensure that victims are put first, so that they do not have to face waiting a decade for justice?

[Mr Lammy]

I am truly grateful to my hon. Friend for once again raising the voice of victims in this House. I hope that over the coming months, as we debate our courts Bill, hon. Members will keep in mind those victims, and the voices that we often hear, via female Members of Parliament. The £550 million of multi-year funding that I have found for victims to give them certainty was essential, and we will continue to keep victims front of mind.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

T2. The Justice Secretary’s plan to slash jury trials without any guarantee that the backlog of cases will fall has not survived first contact with Labour Back Benchers. The backlash has forced No. 10 to reassure Labour Members that legislation will not be introduced until October next year, but the Justice Secretary’s team insist that it will come in February. They cannot both be right. Can the Justice Secretary confirm at the Dispatch Box when the legislation is coming forward?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman can do better than that. That is not true. We are serious about bringing down the backlog, and that means that we of course want to introduce our courts Bill in the early part of next year.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

T5.   Following a string of shocking cases in which funeral directors did not treat the bodies of the deceased with the care and respect that they deserved, will the Minister update the House on the cross-departmental work being done to regulate the funeral industry?

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

T7. My constituent is a female probation officer in the early stages of her career. She came to my surgery last week because she is scared for her safety at work. Three weeks ago, her colleague in the Oxford probation office, who was following guidelines put in place following a similar attack in Preston in July, was stabbed multiple times by somebody on probation. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to discuss extending the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which already covers prison and custody officers, to probation officers?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman will have seen the announcement that I just made on whole-life orders. I will of course ensure that the Prisons Minister meets him. We will do everything we can to keep our probation officers safe.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

T6. With some victims of sexual assault being told that their trials might not be heard until 2029, what can we do to reduce delays and tackle the backlogs so that victims can be confident that they will get justice and will not have to face the trauma associated with these delays?

[Mr Lammy]

The £550 million for victims was essential, as is passing the Victims and Courts Bill, implementing Sir Brian Leveson’s review, modernisation and all the work and money we are putting into our courts system.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

T9.   Whatever changes the Secretary of State is seeking to make to juries, they will make not one bit of difference in my constituency if people cannot get the legal advice they need. Can he assure me that the recent funding announcement will be targeted at legal aid deserts such as North Norfolk? At the third time of asking, will a Minister please meet me and legal aid professionals to discuss their challenges?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, we will ensure that that money reaches the hon. Member’s constituency, and I will ensure that the Minister responsible meets him.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. Home Office changes to skilled worker visa thresholds will impact large numbers of prison officers who have migrated from countries such as Nigeria. The Prison Officers Association has made it clear that the prison system could collapse if this policy is applied. Will Ministers please update the House on what conversations are ongoing with the Home Office and whether there will be any exceptions?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right to put on record the huge support that we have had, particularly from west Africans, in our prison system, for which I am grateful. I am in discussions with the Home Secretary and hope to update the House on that shortly, but I do see a way through.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

To build on the excellent questioning by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), how many prisoners have been mistakenly released, and how many will it take before the Justice Secretary considers his position?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, a man was convicted by a jury of sexual assault of a child under the age of 13. This vile perpetrator was given a suspended sentence, with his mental health cited as the reason. He was spared prison and, crucially, his mental health had no impact on his culpability for this horrible crime. My constituents have sought justice, and I agree with them that the sentence is outrageously lenient. Will the Secretary of State please write to the Sentencing Council to stress that this Government believe that those found guilty of sexual crimes against children should go to prison, and that suspended sentences must only be granted in the rarest and most extreme mitigating circumstances?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. She knows that I cannot comment on the individual case, which was subject to a review, but the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), is meeting the chair of the Sentencing Council and will take forward her recommendations.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Both this Government and the previous Government tried to get to grips with the increasing problem of the smuggling of illegal drugs into prisons. Can the Secretary of State indicate that, this time, this Government will get to grips with the problem so that people can be reassured that it is not a continuing and escalating issue?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why the £40 million that we are investing in drone technology in particular is important, but we are also investing in new X-ray machines across our prisons to drive down drug use.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Forests With Impact is delivering innovative prisoner rehabilitation through horticulture, paid work and accredited training at HMP Haverigg, helping people to gain skills for employment on release while also contributing to environmental recovery. Would the Minister be willing to pay a visit and observe this work at first hand, and will he meet me to discuss how similar schemes could be supported more widely?

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

One in three rape trials end up being postponed, in some cases more than six times, and 73% of rape survivors say that police treatment worsened their mental health during the process. What improvements will be made in how the police treat rape survivors?

[Mr Lammy]

The Criminal Justice Board, which brings all the justice partners together, met recently, and of course the police are represented on that board. However, I urge the hon. Lady to look closely at the Victims and Courts Bill, which provides for the reform that we need to reduce the backlog.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I welcome the news that the Deputy Prime Minister has been appointed to lead a national summit to discuss the issues affecting men and boys, but given that those in politics—including, let us face it, progressive politics—all too often fail to see and speak about some of the specific challenges faced by men and young boys growing up in Britain today, how can we make the most of the summit, which could be a truly catalysing moment to start to put that right?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing this issue. As part of our mission to deal with violence against women and girls, we must build a positive agenda that promotes opportunities for men and boys but is in no way at the expense of opportunities for women and girls. The Prime Minister has announced a new programme of work to be led by me and by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), which will include a national summit for men and boys next year.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Survivors’ Network supports all victims of sexual assault and abuse in Sussex. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and I met representatives of the network at the start of the month, they told us that, owing to the rising costs of national insurance contributions and inflation, £40,000 of its costs are now unfunded. Given the Government’s emphasis on driving down sexual violence, is this the right decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a crisis in family mediation, with no confirmation of mediation vouchers going beyond next April and over half of legal aid providers having been forced to give up in the last eight years? Does he agree that this is short-sighted, as mediation saves time, money and families, and will the Government work with the Family Mediation Council to rescue the sector?

[Mr Lammy]

Mediation is hugely successful, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to talk to the sector about this issue. I will update him in the coming weeks.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I served on the Bill Committee for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—better known as the Hillsborough law—and was very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and me to discuss 11 amendments, two new clauses and general points that came up in the line-by-line scrutiny. The Minister was very clear that she is a woman on a mission and that she wants the Bill to be on the statute book as soon as possible. May I seek an assurance that she will meet my colleague and me before the Bill is considered on Report?

Prison Capacity Review: Government Response

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

On Tuesday 5 August, Dame Anne Owers published the findings of her independent review into the handling of prison capacity. The review was commissioned in February 2025 by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), to examine the decisions that led to the prison capacity crisis between 2022 and 2024, and to make recommendations to help future Governments avoid repeated crises. I am grateful to Dame Anne for her thorough and candid analysis, and I will ensure a copy of the review is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

This statement sets out the Government’s response, but first it is important to place this review in its proper context.

This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. Aside from a two-week period at the start of covid, the last time the total prison estate occupancy was under 95% was more than 12 years ago. At one point in 2024, there were fewer than 100 spaces in adult male prisons. If our prisons reach capacity, courts would be forced to suspend trials, and the police would be forced to stop making arrests. The consequences would be dire, and we would face a breakdown of law and order in this country.

The causes were clear—the last Government added just 500 net places to our prison estate in 14 years, while at the same time sentence lengths rose.

That is why this Government have acted decisively. We have committed to the largest expansion of the estate since the Victorians, committing £7 billion to building prison places between 2024-25 and 2029-30. We are delivering 14,000 new prison places, including four new prisons, and are on track to do so by 2031. We have already opened HMP Millsike, a 1,500-place prison, in March 2025, and broke ground on HMP Welland Oaks, a new 1,700-place prison in November 2025. We have delivered around 2,900 new places since taking office.

We have also recently introduced the Sentencing Bill to Parliament in order to implement many of the recommendations in the sentencing review as soon as possible and put prisons on a more sustainable footing.

We need to lift the prison system out of crisis and start improving it, raising standards to keep the public safe while tackling reoffending. Our actions will increase capacity and are the turning point for us to improve prisons’ performance.

We welcome the review’s findings, which shine a light on the flawed decision-making structures and missed opportunities. We acknowledge the need to address prison capacity within the context of wider criminal justice reform and have accepted in principle the majority of Dame Anne Owers’ recommendations. Work is already under way to address these.

For instance, we are increasing investment in probation services by up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review period. This enhanced funding will allow us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders, enabling close supervision in the community and reducing pressure on the prison estate. Alongside this, we are deepening our collaboration with the third sector—through the Our Future Probation Service stakeholder engagement forum and other established channels—to ensure that community services are designed and delivered in ways that reflect frontline expertise and meet the needs of those we support.

We are also committed to improving transparency across the criminal justice system. In December 2024, the Ministry of Justice published the first annual statement on prison capacity, which set out population projections, supply plans and information on probation capacity.

These steps, alongside other planned and ongoing activity, reflect our commitment to building a more resilient, transparent and forward-looking criminal justice system. Dame Anne’s review will help inform our strategic approach to prison capacity and ensure the mistakes of the past are never repeated and that prison places are always available for those who pose a risk to public safety.

[HCWS1139]

Criminal Court Reform

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

On 9 July 2025, part 1 of the independent review of criminal courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, was published. I am grateful to Sir Brian and the panel of expert advisers for their work.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis—with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court. Some victims are waiting years for justice, which is why the Government asked Sir Brian to make recommendations for how to restore confidence in the system.

The first part of Sir Brian’s review sets down a blueprint for bold, structural reform in our criminal courts. In accepting that blueprint, the Government intend to rebuild the system through investment, structural reform and modernisation.

In addition to the significant investment this Government have announced already in our court estate and criminal solicitors, I am committed to investing up to £34 million more a year for criminal defence advocate legal aid fees to recognise the crucial work that our legal professionals do in delivering for our justice system. This is subject to consultation. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation that the Government match-fund a number of criminal barrister pupillages, with a particular focus on opening a career at the criminal Bar to even more young people from across society.

I will agree sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. This year, I allocated a record 111,250 days to the Crown court, and I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise, and that our ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.

Today, I am confirming that the Government agree with Sir Brian’s blueprint for structural reform and intend to legislate for the following measures:

Magistrates’ courts sentencing powers will increase to 18 months, with provision to extend to 24 months if necessary to relieve pressure in the Crown court.

The right of defendants to elect for a jury trial will be removed, meaning that it will be for the court to determine where a case will be heard, based on the severity of offences.

The appeals process from magistrates’ courts will be reformed so that automatic appeals to the Crown court in criminal cases are replaced with a permission stage, limited to points of law.

A new bench division will be established in the Crown court for triable-either-way cases with likely sentences of three years or less, heard by a judge alone.

Jury trials will remain for indictable-only offences and cases with likely sentences over three years.

A small number of serious but particularly technical and lengthy fraud and financial cases may be heard by judge alone in the Crown court, subject to certain requirements and at the discretion of the court.

The threshold for criminal damage to be tried summarily will be updated from £5,000 to £10,000, in line with inflation.

These reforms are grounded in the rule of law, equality before the law, and the right to a fair trial.

Sir Brian’s second report will set out a further blueprint for modernisation in the criminal courts, focused on efficiency improvements and the better use of technology, and I am grateful to the judiciary for their ongoing support for this work.

In addition to structural court reform, the Government will continue to consider the review’s broader recommendations, including those focused on efficiency, in the second part of the review, once published. We continue to explore options to stop cases coming to court in the first place, through smarter and wider use of diversion. We will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.

The Government recognise that the structural reforms will take time to implement and are committed to supporting victims during this period. We have committed multi-year funding for victim support services, and commit to investing £550 million over the next three years.

The Ministry of Justice will continue to work with the judiciary and stakeholders and will bring forward legislation for Parliament’s consideration in due course.

[HCWS1123]

Criminal Court Reform

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker I will make a statement on criminal court reform.

As the House is aware, the first part of the independent review of criminal courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson—one of the foremost judges of his generation—and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Shaun McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once-in-a-generation court reform. That is desperately needed, because the Government inherited an emergency in our courts: a record and rising backlog currently at 78,000 cases, and victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case.

Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six-year wait for justice. During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated; it is systemic.

We are all proud of our justice system, rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to

“deny or delay right or justice.”

When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves. Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This Government have already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose, a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown courts—5,000 more than those funded last year by the previous Government.

Today, I can announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates, to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.

However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The case load is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse. To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian’s bold blueprint for change. First, I will create new “swift courts” within the Crown court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hardwire transparency into our new approach.

Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials—a practice not found widely in other common law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up. I will limit appeals from the magistrates courts, so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further.

Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.

These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences. Among others, that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.

I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill’s time, and today magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.

Conservative Members talk about the Crown court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971—the year before I was born—to replace a patchwork of part-time courts unable to cope with a rising caseload. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. We now face an emergency in the courts, and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve.

I am also clear that we must future-proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a second report, focused on efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.

We will also continue to support victims, to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announced this week that I will provide multi-year funding for victim support services, including specialist emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increase budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million—more than half a billion. I want those victims to stay the course.

Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation, which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the shadow Justice Secretary, although I am a little surprised that in his tirade, he never once mentioned victims—not once. Not once in his clip did he talk about the people waiting in the backlog.

The right hon. Gentleman has boasted that he is an armchair historian. May I give him a history lesson? In 2019, Crown court sitting days were cut by almost 15%. The Conservatives oversaw a 12% reduction in Crown court trials, and many of us remember, over those 14 years of austerity, the magistrates courts and Crown courts that closed in local communities under his watch. The senior presiding judge in England and Wales said:

“It was a political decision.”

I wonder if the shadow Justice Secretary will try to blame the pandemic for that decision.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about what I tweeted in 2020. We are saving and protecting jury trials. Jury trials will continue. He talks about trial by jury as if we lived in the United States, but 90% of criminal trials—1.3 million—are done by our magistracy, which has existed for 650 years. We are going to grow our magistrates, who we believe could do more.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about Magna Carta. Yes, clause 39 establishes the jury trial and a fair trial—we are proud of that—but he knows, too, that clause 40 asks us not to delay justice. That is the substance of this debate, and that is why we need reform. He knows that the Conservatives took juries away from defamation cases in 2013. Back in 1933, we had juries sitting in civil cases. Of course we reform; we do so to meet the needs of the system. He also knows that because of DNA evidence, CCTV and a whole raft of reasons, including that the police now arrest 10% more people, we have a demand issue. We must meet that challenge, and we must ensure that we put victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. That is who it is there for, and it is why he should have mentioned them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

May I recognise the commitment of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State in grasping the issue of the Crown court backlog, which, as Sir Brian Leveson says, is a threat to our whole system of criminal justice? The criticism of these proposals from those on the Opposition Benches comes with no solution whatsoever. I also acknowledge the Lord Chancellor’s decision to stay within the limits proposed by Sir Brian for cases that will be tried without a jury in the future.

None the less, these are profound changes to the criminal justice system that not only restrict the role of juries, but substantially extend the powers of magistrates and judges sitting alone. Will the Lord Chancellor therefore evaluate the effects of these changes to see whether they, along with other measures such as increased investment, bring down the backlog and whether they do so fairly, without bias and without increasing conviction rates or sentence length? If they do not deliver on all these points, will he think again?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work in these areas. Yes, I can commit to that evaluation, which is very important indeed. In his report, Sir Brian estimated that the system would be 20% faster: it takes time for juries to deliberate, and without the conveyance of information between barristers, the judge and the jury being necessary, he expects that a judge-led or magistrate-led system will be speedier. As my hon. Friend will know, the magistrates courts do not currently have a backlog and with an increase in the number of magistrates, they can do a little more.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The Government’s plan, announced today, to reduce the use of trial by jury would be an historic upheaval of our court system, with profound consequences. The Justice Secretary has not argued in favour of judge-only trials on their own terms; instead, he has argued that there is no alternative, which is simply not true. Many within the legal profession have argued that removing trial by jury is a misdirection from the multitude of problems that underlie the backlog.

Those problems, caused by years of Conservative mismanagement, have resulted in countless wasted hours of sitting time and in victims failed time and again. Perhaps the defendant does not arrive in court because of the broken private contract, there is no interpreter, the witness care unit forgets to tell witnesses to attend, key evidence is not served until the day of trial so the defence has no time to consider it, or there are not enough court staff to manage security on the door, so the trial runs late. Maybe our crumbling court infrastructure means there is no running water, a broken lift or even a flooded courtroom. We need a real solution to tackle these issues that plague our justice system, but instead the Justice Secretary intends to remove a huge number of jury trials, despite his previous opposition to that, all while the Ministry of Justice capital budget is being cut by 3% in real terms every year.

While I welcome the £500 million investment in victims and witness support over three years, the total courts maintenance backlog is estimated at £1.3 billion. Where is the investment to fix the collapsing infrastructure in the justice system? Will the Justice Secretary consider reopening many of the Crown courts closed under the Conservatives, including mine in Chichester? As he confirmed to the media today, an entire jury’s worth of prisoners have been released in error in recent weeks. Does the Secretary of State have confidence in his Department to oversee such an extreme and radical reform when it is not even getting the basics right?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady mentions a range of issues that are important in ensuring that our 80 or so courts and 500 courtrooms are working effectively. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at efficiency as part 2 of his review. We need not just our courts but the Crown Prosecution Service and our police to work together at a reasonable level to deliver that improvement.

When we think about either-way cases, I think that it is legitimate for the Government to take a view on whether, for example, a driving licence fraud, fly-tipping or the theft of a bike requires a jury trial that will last for about two days, or whether those cases can be dealt with by a magistrate or a judge. I know that the hon. Lady is committed, like us, to bearing down on violence against women and girls. It cannot be right that if someone is charged with an offence such as theft of a bicycle, theft from a vehicle or employee theft, they can opt for a trial that, by necessity, goes into the system and will delay a rape trial, a murder trial or something like that. That is the balance of the decision that I have sought to make. I think that the Government have made the right decision in implementing Sir Brian’s review.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Mother of the House.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

The entire House is concerned about victims, including the victims of attacks on women and girls. However, the entire House is also concerned about the men and women who will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages of justice if the right to trial by jury is curtailed. To quote from a lawyer:

“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 lawyer is our current Prime Minister. He wrote that in 1992—it was as true then as it is today. How can the Lord Chancellor propose a limitation of the right to trial by jury when he knows perfectly well the category of defendant who will suffer the ill effects?

[Mr Lammy]

I am hugely grateful for my right hon. Friend’s expertise in these areas. She will know that for lots of reasons, particularly to do with poverty, many women are affected by criminal cases that do not command a sentence of much more than 12 months. Actually, the vast majority of crimes committed by women are dealt with by magistrates, and it is my judgment that those magistrates could do more. Keeping in mind the victims and centring them in our thinking, it cannot be right that we are asking women to wait. In a city like London, a woman who is raped tomorrow will not have her trial listed until 2028 or 2029. The Victims’ Commissioner supports these changes because they put those women first. I also remind my right hon. Friend of the £550 million that I am dedicating to victim support to support the very women she talks about.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The Government deserve credit for taking seriously a serious report into a serious problem, but is it the Justice Secretary’s preference that the changes he has outlined to jury trial will be permanent or that they will recede when the problem of backlogs recedes? In relation to judges alone deciding either-way cases, he knows that Sir Brian’s recommendation is that the presumption should be that there would be judge-only trials for cases where the sentence may be three years or less, but that presumption could be rebutted. Is it the Government’s intention that that should be a presumption and not a definitive rule? Finally, he knows that Sir Brian also recommended that plea hearings be pushed back to allow for advice on guilty pleas to be given more clearly and more fully, and that is likely to increase the number of guilty pleas preventing cracked trials. The Justice Secretary has talked about extra funding for the criminal Bar, but will he focus that funding so that people can be advised early and we can avoid those cracked trials?

[Mr Lammy]

We will consult on how we implement it so that we can deal with cracked trials. I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the importance of Sir Brian’s work and his deliberations with his panel. It is not my expectation that these rules will change. Sir Brian drew on his tremendous experience to reflect on the complexity and the demand that we are seeing in our criminal justice system. For example, DNA evidence, phenotyping, the range of new laws that this Parliament is introducing, and the increase in sexual crimes as a result of smartphones and other technology all require changes in the system, so I believe that the changes that we are making will be permanent.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I understand that my right hon. Friend has inherited a disastrous situation in the criminal justice system. A huge backlog was left by the austerity of the Conservatives, so I have no truck with them. However, does he fear, as I do, that restricting trial by jury will put a certain class of people in judgment over the rest of us, and that the check and balance on that is that a jury can be drawn from those I would describe as working-class people? Does he fear that we will create an “us” and “them” in the criminal justice system by taking away people’s right to go to trial by jury?

[Mr Lammy]

I understand my hon. Friend’s anxiety, but I remind him that the vast majority of these individuals will be tried by magistrates. The historical system we have is actually an aspect of the right in clause 39 of Magna Carta to be tried by one’s peers. Importantly, they are people who live in every neighbourhood in our country and who volunteer their efforts.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

When the Secretary of State took office, he swore an oath of office, which reads:

“I…do swear that…I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”.

That last bit matters. Governments of his party, my party and—before they get too sanctimonious—the Liberal Democrats all starved the courts, from Blair to now. The Secretary of State has to put that right, because if he does not get sufficient extra sitting days, this problem will not be solved. When I say “sufficient extra”, I do not mean 1,000 days, or even 5,000 days; we need an increase of an order of magnitude. Instead, he is undermining a bulwark of our constitution. In the words of Lord Denning:

“It has been the bulwark of our liberties too long for any of us to seek to alter it.”

Why will the Secretary of State not go and have his argument with the Treasury and solve this problem properly?

[Mr Lammy]

I understand the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman says. He is right that our courts have been starved of funds for too long, but he knows that, despite the extra investment we are putting in and the investment we got in the spending review for new courts in places such as Blackpool, this will take considerable time. We have asked Sir Brian to reflect, and he is one of our most eminent judges. Would it really be right to ask the victims to wait a decade until we have fixed the system? It cannot be. For all the reasons that Sir Brian reflects on in his report, we have to chuck everything at this. We need more investment, reform and modernisation, which we are doing.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Any of us who has supported a constituent in a rape trial will take no lectures from the Conservatives about how they managed our courts. There is clearly a challenge here. The worry for many of us is whether the Justice Secretary’s prescription is the solution; as he points out, juries are involved in less than 3% of all criminal cases. It is difficult to see how this measure, with all the challenges it may bring for justice and fairness, particularly for some of our minority communities, will address the backlog. Lord Leveson himself pointed out that increasing sitting days would not be a solution unless we had the barristers and solicitors. Can the Secretary of State give a guarantee that there will be funding for the legal aid required to ensure that every defendant has decent representation?

[Mr Lammy]

I remind my hon. Friend that we are increasing the uplift for barristers and their fees by £34 million. We have also increased legal aid, with £92 million for our solicitors. Because we need a pipeline of criminal lawyers, we have a match-funded scheme for pupillages so that we see the next generation of young people from all backgrounds becoming our criminal legal aid lawyers.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; if they were, we would not see similar extended delays in the magistrates courts, which have a record backlog of 361,000 cases. The cause is not just pupillages, but legal advisers in magistrates courts. Given that some of these cases with potentially longer sentences will move to the magistrates courts, what additional investment will go into them so that we do not just see the problem move from the Crown court to the magistrates court and see victims wait just as long there?

[Mr Lammy]

That is why we are putting money into legal advisers and why we are growing the magistracy. There is not anything like the backlog that exists in our Crown courts in our magistrates courts, so the question is: should we leave it as a year, or could our magistrates do more? I think 18 months is right in terms of the sentencing threshold.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I need to be honest: the prospect of citizens in our country being put away in jail for up to three years without the benefits of a trial by jury sends a chill through my heart. I gently say that no Government should ever govern as if they will be in power for ever. Those on the Front Bench denounce members of Reform as Putin’s pals—I think that is a fair description. Does the Justice Secretary want to think again? Imagine if Putin’s pals, as they are described, were in government in this country and people could get put away for three years without trial by jury. How would they use that? Is that not a frightening prospect? If we make these changes under pressure and hand them on to forces that would take things even further, would that not concern the Justice Secretary?

[Mr Lammy]

Clearly, my hon. Friend would accept that justice is not being served now. I simply would not equate either our magistrates or our independent judiciary with anything like what we see under Putin’s Russia.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Nobody would disagree with the Lord Chancellor’s diagnosis—the criminal courts are in crisis. It is the treatment that is in dispute. The question is whether the watering down of jury trials will be the solution, when in fact the problem is a lack of judges, court space and infrastructure, and inefficiencies in the system. Crucially, it is about a lack of appropriately trained defence and prosecution counsel who can deal with the complexities of these cases. Is this not a case of the Government choosing to prioritise other areas of spending, such as welfare, over our courts system?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman’s party did not come up with any solutions, and the backlog continued to rise. We commissioned an independent review, led by one of the country’s most eminent judges. Having reflected on that review, we are getting on with the business of recognising what he said: there is not a silver bullet, we have to do it all, and we are building on the reform that he asked us to do.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I welcome the additional money for the criminal legal aid advocates and for more pupillages? If we are to rely more on judges, often sitting alone, is there not a need for greater transparency with regard to the selection of those judges, even to the point of individual selection on individual cases? I wrote to the Secretary of State this morning on behalf of a number of our members about a particular instance of the disappearance of a judge. I would be grateful if he could read that letter and possibly meet a group of MPs concerned about that matter.

[Mr Lammy]

I will read that letter and commit to a meeting with my right hon. Friend and other MPs, either with me or with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services. He is absolutely right; transparency is core. When I looked at this issue in the Lammy review, I was very concerned that too often there was no transcript of what happened in our magistrates courts and Crown courts and that it was not easy. That is absolutely part of what we are now investing in, particularly with AI technology, and we will come forward with it.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Caernarfon justice centre is only 16 years old, but the roof leaks when it rains, and the heating does not work. Let me list some of the root causes for criminal courts processing fewer cases: high workloads, staff shortages and inexperience, poor administration, crumbling buildings. How does the Justice Secretary think that undermining one of the basic tenets of English and Welsh law will be a solution to those problems?

[Mr Lammy]

I refer the right hon. Lady to paragraph 9 of Sir Brian’s review, which says:

“it is important to underline that greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”

We are investing, but it will take time. It is not fair to ask victims to wait.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I spent two decades working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, and I can tell hon. Members that this crisis has been building for years and years and years. I spoke to one of my former colleagues today to ask him how things are. He said:

“Something has to be done. The backlog and delay is distorting the justice system as people need to wait so long for justice that defendants are pleading not guilty in the hope that the case ends up being considered not in the public interest. Meanwhile the public, victims and witnesses pay the price. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

Right now, my former colleague is working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, so let us support the people working in that system, and let us support our victims of crime so that they get justice quickly and fairly. My request to the Secretary of State is please to be bold.

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts her remarks so well. Let us be clear that there are defendants playing the system, and if we continue to allow them to do so, vulnerable victims of the most serious offences in our country will pay the price. That is why this is not just about financial investment; it has to be about reform, and I am determined to see this through.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

In his report, Sir Brian Leveson made a number of recommendations to reduce the Crown court backlog. Many of those recommendations are welcome, but curtailing the right to a jury trial is not one of them. Will the Secretary of State instruct his Department to publish the modelling it will have undertaken, so that we can see how much of an effect on the backlog each individual recommendation will have, and this House can take a view on the efficacy of his legislation before we vote on it?

[Mr Lammy]

I undertake that there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

The governance of jury trials has changed considerably over time—dramatically so in the 19th century, and again in the 1970s. In both cases, that was to improve public access to justice. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that if our traditions are to endure, including our legal traditions, they need to adapt?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Demand is soaring. Quite rightly, we are asking our police to arrest more, and we all know that smartphones, DNA, and phenotyping to tell the colour of a person’s eyes increase the workload. We have to reform the system, or we will break it.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but we have a proud history of juries in this country. If juries are to be suspended for cases in which a sentence of less than three years is expected in order to clear the backlog, will that just be for a limited time, and when will normal jury service be resumed?

[Mr Lammy]

For the reasons of complexity that Sir Brian has set out, and because the process of passing legislation means that I think we will only see the numbers starting to fall by the next general election, no, this change has to be permanent.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Given that the Bar Council has said it has seen “no evidence” that removing the right to elect to have a jury trial will significantly reduce the Crown court backlog, and that both the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have said that the real cause of delays is years of underfunding and reduced sitting days, will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are pursuing the removal of jury trials without publishing any modelling to show that juries—rather than chronic under-resourcing—are responsible for backlogs? Will he release the evidence base underpinning this proposed reform? Releasing impact assessments after the reform is made will be too late.

[Mr Lammy]

I say to my hon. Friend, who has tremendous expertise in these areas, that the evidence is contained in Sir Brian’s very lengthy review. That review looks at all the issues and says it is likely that the new division within the Crown court and the changes to magistrates courts will speed up the process by 20%.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The idea that we have to scrap jury trials to save jury trials is simply farcical. A legal framework 800 years old is being upended, and not to reduce backlogs or save money; this is a reframing of rights and of where power lies, taking power away from the people. Does the Lord Chancellor accept that jury trials—being judged by one’s peers—protects the vulnerable and enables fairness, and that as the Mother of the House said, this decision will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice?

[Mr Lammy]

Our criminal law cannot be set in aspic. The system that we have now largely came about as the result of legislation in 1971. Just prior to that, this House decriminalised homosexuality, and it was only in 1991 that we outlawed marital rape. Of course we make change, and it is right that we make change in this circumstance.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I have immense sympathy for the difficult position that the Lord Chancellor and the many victims of crime in this country are in. There is, however, a category of offences relating to the right to protest—a right that has been restricted by multiple Governments over time. It is very important that we maintain jury trials in anything that touches on that area, so can the Lord Chancellor commit to retaining jury trials in cases where the offence would currently go to the Crown court or would be an either-way offence?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise that there will be a range of cases beyond those that will now sit with the magistrates, in which the sentence would be more than 18 months and up to three years. However, I believe it must be left to our magistrates and judiciary to make the appropriate determination.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

We are supposed to have a legal system we are proud of, and the purpose of jury service is to ensure a fair and impartial justice system. Although there are dire backlogs in Crown court hearings in England, as well as delays in Northern Ireland, would the Lord Chancellor consider other options—such as fully funding and resourcing the system to address backlogs—as opposed to removing a civic obligation that people in this country believe in and have upheld for the sake of a fair judicial system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

The evidence is in Sir Brian’s review. This is an independent review, and I will read once again what Sir Brian has said:

“it is important to underline that greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I welcome the £550 million investment in victims, but trial by a jury of your peers is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system in this country. Court backlogs are a serious problem—I know that first hand—but the evidence shows that this is because of issues such as a chronic lack of funding, rather than the use of juries. Surely the Secretary of State can see that it would be a grave error to erode a principle that has stood the test of hundreds of years and is widely regarded as producing the fairest outcomes, including by his own 2017 review, all for the sake of time-saving and cost-saving measures that might in practice save neither time nor cost.

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the sincerity of my hon. Friend’s remarks, but I have really reflected on what Sir Brian has said. There is no silver bullet in this area—I am not suggesting that the changes we are making to the threshold for a jury trial will fix this entire problem. It will take more investment, and we are making that investment. It will take modernisation, particularly in relation to transcripts and audio, but it will also take reform. We have reformed the criminal justice system in the past; we can do so again in a way that is fair and right for everybody.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

In the event that a volunteer magistrate makes a mistake and jails someone for two years, that person’s automatic right to a rehearing will have been removed. Can the Justice Secretary confirm whether he believes this is efficiency, or just easier wrongful imprisonment?

[Mr Lammy]

Of course that person would get permission to appeal if the circumstances were legally correct.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the proposals to tackle the court backlogs and delays, which the previous Government did nothing to address. Will the Secretary of State please confirm that this Government will preserve the sanctity of jury trials, and that the proposed changes relate only to some either-way offences—those that are considered to be less serious and can therefore be properly dealt with by magistrates, who already deal with 90% of criminal cases?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I can. For every victim of a crime, the crime is serious, but the decisions that I am announcing at the Dispatch Box are about the length of sentences—about asking our magistrates to go up from one year to 18 months, and asking the new division in the Crown courts to deal with sentences of 18 months to three years.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Does the Secretary of State not agree that his policy of abolishing trial by jury in all but the most serious cases undermines the whole foundation of law and order in this country, and risks the further politicisation of our judicial system, with judges acting alone as the state and no longer being held to account by the people in the form of a jury?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

No, I do not.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Victims are waiting for years for their cases to go to trial. Christmas after Christmas, they are unable to heal or move on. The backlog of cases is now a record 78,000, and it was growing under the Conservative Government before the covid pandemic. Does the Secretary of State find the hypocrisy and faux outrage of the Conservative Opposition as galling as I do, given that reform is needed to clear up the mess that they made of our criminal justice system?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend has put it very well. As I have said, it worried me when the shadow Justice Secretary did not mention victims at all, and he did not talk about the Conservatives’ record in office, either. Much has been said about further investment, but behind those questions is the suggestion that we should ask victims to wait for another decade for it, and I do not think we can do that.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I appreciate the focus on victims, but has the Secretary of State considered the risks of removing juries when charges involve state or corporate victims if we are to preserve dissent, whistleblowing and protest? Given that big concerns have been raised about representation among judges, is he concerned about the potential for damaging attacks on, and politicisation of, individual judges and their decisions?

[Mr Lammy]

We must protect our judges, and there is a climate of increased concern about their security because of statements—some of them made in the House—that would undermine the independence of our judiciary.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The proposed new “swift courts” will mean that decisions regarding guilt will be made by judges alone, who will have received vital, inadmissible and potentially prejudicial evidence. Can the Secretary of State assure us that judges’ decisions are not influenced by inadmissible evidence, given the significant consequences for both victims and defendants involved in cases that are no longer eligible for jury trials? If this policy goes ahead, will he consider a non-extendable sunset clause?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for that question, and I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about evidence, but as I have said, I do not believe that a sunset clause would be right in this area because of the demand and the complexity to which Sir Brian has referred, and also because legislation will take some time. I hope to see the backlog reducing by the next election, but I do believe that these changes have to be permanent.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Tony Blair’s Administration put forward similar proposals, but were eventually forced to abandon them, thanks to opposition in the House and beyond. A similar coalition of opposition appears to be building up yet again. On the reply that the Justice Secretary has just given, may I urge him to reconsider the sunset clause, which might be the only way that he can get these proposals through the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I came out of practice at the beginning of the Tony Blair period, and the number of cases then was nowhere near what it is now. There was no backlog—cases could come on within a year—so the circumstances were vastly different, and we did not then commission a lengthy review to look at all these issues in the way we have today.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

In September, I attended a roundtable meeting with survivors of child sexual exploitation, hosted by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, and one of the key issues that they raised was the delays in court proceedings. It is unacceptable that perpetrators are not being brought to justice more quickly. I welcome these reforms, but how will we ensure that court delays are reduced as much as possible and perpetrators are brought to justice as quickly as possible?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right. Implementing the recommendations, moving to legislation as soon as we can, continued investment in the court system, the concordat, and my obligation to bring about more sitting days are all important, as is the modernisation of our courts through, for instance, the use of AI and technology throughout the system. The discussion today is about our criminal courts, but we also need investment in our civil and family courts.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a practising barrister and a law firm owner.

Our centuries-old right to jury trial is not an ornament of the past. It is the living guarantee of a fair trial. It is the safeguard that ensures that no citizen is judged except by their peers. It is the cornerstone of our legal heritage, and the bedrock of public confidence in criminal justice. It must not be curtailed for administrative convenience, and let us be clear: curtailing jury trials will not cut the backlog, or, if it does, it will simply shift that backlog straight to the appeal courts. Why, then, have the Government chosen not to prioritise court capacity, judicial recruitment and proper case-management reform, but instead to curtail jury trials?

[Mr Lammy]

We are doing all of it, I would say. I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman and his experience as a criminal practitioner, and of course I have heard a great many messages over the last few days from friends of mine who are at the Bar or are criminal legal aid solicitors. Change is hard, but the Government’s responsibility is to look at the whole system and at all that has been said, and to put victims at the centre. What I am not hearing in the Chamber from those who oppose what we are doing is what else can be done. What I am hearing is, “More money might fix this problem.” Sir Brian has made it clear that investment alone will not fix the problem, and it is not acceptable to ask victims to wait another decade for that investment to kick in.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the news that the Government will match-fund criminal barrister pupillages, and I agree that there should be a focus on opening up a career at the criminal Bar to even more young people from across society and from all socioeconomic backgrounds. What additional plans does the Lord Chancellor have to make law a more accessible sector for young people from all backgrounds?

[Mr Lammy]

The day I was called to the Bar, back in the mid-1990s, was a huge moment in my life. I came from a working-class, poorer background, raised by a single mother, and I am deeply saddened that over the last few years young people from all backgrounds have been put off from becoming criminal legal aid solicitors or barristers. We must do something about that, and I have found the money not only to raise fees for barristers and other lawyers in this area, but also to ensure that the next generation of lawyers comes through. I hope that is not lost in some of the misconceptions about jury trials.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary blames the court backlog on a reduction in funding by the past Government, yet he plans to reduce access to jury trials permanently. Is not the truth of it that he does not want to fund courts because his Government have prioritised welfare for the few over justice for the many?

[Mr Lammy]

No. Absolutely not. We are implementing and building on the work of Sir Brian Leveson, and we are determined to bring the backlog down. It takes investment, it reform and modernisation.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. Residents in my constituency of Harlow are rightly concerned about the court backlog. Waiting six years for justice is not justice. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that these changes will bring down the court backlog, and can he reassure us that for the major crimes he spoke about, there will still be trial by jury?

[Mr Lammy]

I can confirm that the jury remains the cornerstone of our system, and must do for obvious reasons. I want to see the backlog coming down, but this is a mountain to climb, and that is why I have said that I want reductions by the next general election. The trend at the moment is upwards, and we have to throw everything at the problem if we are to solve it.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I have previously raised the case of my Woking constituent Dani, a victim of grooming and sexual abuse, who is having to wait more than six years for justice. Although I am concerned about these proposals from the Justice Secretary, I and others can probably be convinced if they do genuinely put the victims first without undermining our justice system. To persuade me, please will he agree to publish the impact assessment in full and let the Justice Committee fully scrutinise these proposals before a Bill is introduced?

[Mr Lammy]

As the hon. Member would expect, there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation, and full scrutiny of these proposals both in this place and in the other place. I just say to him: listen to victims’ voices today, to our Victims’ Commissioner, and to the groups that support victims. They support these proposals because they know that, combined, they are our best attempt to recalibrate the system and bring it back to where it should be.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Justice is devolved to Northern Ireland, with the exception of the regulation of non-jury trials. On 9 June, the then Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said in a Committee of this place on the extension of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland that

“the Secretary of State has asked officials over the next two years to examine how Northern Ireland could move away from those provisions”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 9 June 2025; c. 5.]

Is that still the Government’s mind?

[Mr Lammy]

Northern Ireland is of course in a special and unique position on this issue, and I am happy to get the appropriate Minister to meet the hon. Member and any colleagues to discuss these issues.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I am hoping that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Justice Secretary can rule out any changes to inquests with a jury, which are required when the deceased has been detained by the state. These inquests are also subject to agonising delays for bereaved families. Given those delays, what plans does he have to address backlogs in the coroner’s court?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful for the question, and I can rule that out. I am happy to have a Minister discuss with the hon. Member what we are doing in the coroner’s court.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I declare an interest as a practising criminal barrister. Before the Justice Secretary tears up clause 39 of Magna Carta, which guaranteed that no free person shall be imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of their peers, I ask him to consider that, when I was in the Crown court in Birmingham only a few weeks ago, a matter was delayed and adjourned because we did not have courtroom availability, so eliminating jurors will not solve the backlog in the way he has described, but it will erode public confidence in the principles that have protected our justice system for over 800 years. I accept that justice delayed is justice denied, but I am sure that he understands that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that can only be done through juries.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member accepts that justice delayed is justice denied, but then does not come up with a solution. Does he respect Sir Brian Leveson and his work? Does he recognise that it is important that we reform the system, so that it is fit for purpose and for the next generation? Does he accept—he must, as a criminal practitioner—the huge demand, and the changes that we have seen in criminal practice since I qualified as a lawyer 30 years ago? Of course he does.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Having spent my professional life practising in the criminal courts in Northern Ireland, where we have had both jury trials and non-jury trials to deal with terrorist offences, I must say to the Justice Secretary that whatever the intellectual capacity of judges, they do not have the practical life experience of 12 jurors collectively, and that is what brings superior credibility to a jury verdict. Dissipating juries will strain the quality of our justice, particularly in circumstances where the presiding judge will have to decide on the admissibility of evidence, and then put from his mind evidence that he might have dismissed when reaching a verdict, but none the less convey to the public that justice has been seen to be done?

[Mr Lammy]

I am hugely respectful of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s experience in these areas. We do ask our judges to make life-changing decisions across a whole range of areas. I am the father of an adopted daughter, and believe me, there is no greater decision someone can make than to take a child away from its birth parents. Judges do have to make difficult judgments, and they do so with the assistance of those who give evidence before them. So I believe we can do this, and I just ask him to reflect on the three-year threshold and the sorts of crimes about which we are asking our magistracy and our judges to make those fine judgments.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The previous Government should hang their head in shame for leaving our judicial system—the courts, the backlog and the prison system—in such disarray. A 2022 survey of 373 legal professionals, conducted by barrister Keir Monteith KC and the University of Manchester, found that 56% of respondents had witnessed at least one judge acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant, while 52% had witnessed discrimination in judicial decision making, and concluded that there is

“institutional racism in the justice system”.

Given that the Justice Secretary now seeks to remove juries, does he foresee greater injustice, prejudice and racial discrimination in our courtrooms, and what steps is he taking to tackle the existing and likely increase in institutional racism?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the former Prime Minister David Cameron and the former Justice Secretary Michael Gove asked me to conduct the Lammy review. In that review, I recommended that training, which was not happening in the way it should, should happen, and it is now happening. I was concerned about the diversity of our judiciary and our magistracy. That has improved, but there is more to do. In London, for example, 31% of our magistrates are now from an ethnic minority background. It is also important that, with the changes we are making, we will now get a judge’s reasoning, which lawyers such as those on the Back Benches can challenge. Where we have a jury, we do not get the reasoning, which I think is important as we look at issues of accountability.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the questioning, the Justice Secretary referred to the Victims’ Commissioner supporting these proposals. For the record, will he make it clear that, sadly, the Victims’ Commissioner passed away a number of weeks ago and cannot possibly have seen these proposals? He may have been referring to the incoming Victims’ Commissioner, who starts in January, but the statement she has released today makes no reference to the Justice Secretary’s proposals on changes to jury trials. I wonder if he might have inadvertently misled the House about that.

[Mr Lammy]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the Secretary of State wants to respond.

[Mr Lammy]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to clarify, I did discuss these proposals with the incoming Victims’ Commissioner. Today, an event on violence against women has been held at No. 10 with many victims organisations. From them and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—she is in her place to make the next statement—there is a wide welcome for these proposals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That concludes the statement.

Royal Assent