Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member makes a good point. The reform of expenses in this area is important. We are seeing more self-employed people come forward for the magistracy, and we are seeing good numbers in relation to ethnic minorities and diversity right across the country. It is important that younger people feel able to volunteer in this way.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I wish the Lord Chancellor luck with the recruitment campaign—I wish him luck generally—but even if he is successful, those magistrates will be newly recruited, and he is also asking magistrates to try much longer and more complex cases by increasing their sentencing powers. Those two things do not really square up. Is his solution to recruit a lot more district judges and therefore have a lot more judge-only courts in the magistrates court as well as the Crown court?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady makes a good point. We are reforming legal advisers’ pay and career progression. She is right that our magistrates courts need those legal advisers—they have to be in place across the country. We are funding more legal advisers and recruiting 100 new trainee legal advisers each year for the next three years.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that very serious issue. We are aware of it, it is hugely concerning and it underlines why we have to legislate. I hope that, by working cross-party, we can move swiftly in this area.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I am hugely concerned about the manner in which SLAPPs are being used to intimidate and harass individuals in public service. In my constituency alone, I have seen two separate instances of parish councillors being bullied out of public office. Both Hemingford and Ellington parish councils have been targeted due to planning concerns—one by a local company and one by a wealthy individual. Such an attempt to stifle democracy is unacceptable. Parish councils are the bedrock of democracy and the brazen attempt to railroad individual parish councillors is unacceptable. What are the Government doing to protect local councillors from being left exposed to SLAPPs, which deters people from participating in democratic representation?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend, as always, is an outstanding advocate for Harlow. Our judges take the judicial oath to act without fear or favour, which is why our judiciary is the finest in the world, but of course transparency matters, which is why the recording and transcription of proceedings and the review that we have committed to, to test the impact of our reforms, are so important. I observe directly the training that our judges receive, which is first class.
Mr Lammy
Because you almost broke the prison system. You built just 500 places in 14 years, and we had to fix that system. You had 17 different forms of guidance on early release in the last year, all done in secret. That is why we introduced the Sentencing Act 2026, which got Royal Assent in January, and why we are doing everything we can to build more prison places—14,000 prison places by 2031.
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently say to the Justice Secretary, who was saying “you”, that I have no responsibility for any of this.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Catherine Atkinson
I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the work of Eastbourne Survivors. He is right that domestic violence is a choice for perpetrators; it is not about the score when the final whistle goes. To frame it in any other way does a significant disservice in allowing perpetrators to try to deflect from their actions.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
One thing that we know children will contact victim support services about is the letters they receive telling them that their abusers will be getting out of prison earlier. Victim Support supports more than 814,000 victims every year, and its CEO, Katie Kempen, had this to say:
“Having already endured long waits for justice—often with their lives on hold—and the distress of going to court, many will feel shocked and frightened to learn that offenders may now be released months or even years earlier than expected.”
She is right, isn’t she?
Sarah Sackman
Equality before the law should mean just that, and as my hon. Friend says, it is an important principle to bear in mind when we talk about barriers to access to justice, whether we are talking about the cost of representation, which we try to address through legal aid, or about the cost of transcripts. In the current context, the targeted approach that we have taken—prioritising the victims of the most serious crimes, and now extending eligibility so that all victims can request court transcripts through the Sentencing Act 2026 from the spring of 2027—constitutes a big step forward. I hope that developments in technology will enable us to lower the costs and make that freely available to all in due course.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Charlotte Meijer will never have access to her transcript, because her case was heard in a magistrates court where no recording was made. The Government are seeking to address that, but Charlotte has continued to campaign for all victims of crime so that they can gain access to free transcripts, given that some are still being quoted costs of thousands of pounds. Her campaign, Open Justice for All, is calling on the Government to go further and faster to make the justice system fair, transparent and open.
This is a cross-party issue, and I know that many Back Benchers in the Minister’s party feel passionate about it. Will she assure the House that the job is not done, and recognise the desire for all court transcripts eventually to be made free and accessible for all victims?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent Afzaal Hussain for the work that he does alongside Adele Webb. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have heard in this morning’s session about the tragic consequences of knife crime, and it is so important that the Government and wider society work together to do anything we can to reduce it.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Government referred the sentences of the teenage gang rapists who attacked two schoolgirls to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient, but the Government also say that they want to increase the age of criminal responsibility, and the Bar Council has said that age should be 14. That is one year older than the age of one of those rapists—proof that young criminals can commit terrible crimes. Will the Justice Secretary rule out increasing the age of criminal responsibility to 14?
Jake Richards
That is an absolutely shocking figure, and I pay tribute to all NHS staff and frontline public service workers, who often put their bodies on the line, quite literally. I meet the chair of the Sentencing Council regularly to discuss issues, and I will raise this one with her as well.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Guardian reported last week on the case of a US air force officer accused of drugging, strangling and raping a British woman in his apartment. Although the incident took place off duty, off base and on English soil, the case was removed from the jurisdiction of the English courts and was instead tried by US court martial at RAF Lakenheath, with an all-male panel who were all from his base. Does the Secretary of State agree that victims of crimes on English soil should see justice served in our justice system?
Catherine Atkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for all her actions to support her constituent. Local authorities in England are legally required to assess and address the need for safe accommodation for domestic abuse victims who need to flee their home. All our thoughts will be with her constituent; I hope she secures suitable safe accommodation soon. Considering how tenacious and determined her Member of Parliament is, it will, I hope, be very soon indeed.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Prisoner Early Release
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jake Richards
I have listened to the hon. Member speak about this issue a lot, and I must again remind him of his party’s record in government and why the Sentencing Act was an absolute necessity to keep the criminal justice system functioning.
When we came into office, prisons were at bursting point. Only 500 prison places were added in 14 years. Some 10,000 offenders were released by the previous Government, largely in secret. That is the key point, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member has quite rightly and understandably asked how the scheme will be delivered and how victims will be kept informed. Under the Conservatives, it was pure chaos. They lost their grip on the system and did not have a long-term plan for stability in the prison estate, which meant that when they did have to operate early release mechanisms, they gave the victims just a few days’ notice, if any at all. There was complete secrecy and complete chaos. We will not let that happen to the British public again.
There is a choice. No alternative has been offered by the Opposition to the prison crisis that they created. There is a choice: strict—
Mr Speaker
Order. We do not need to worry about what the Opposition’s position is. The question is to the Government—it is about what you are going to do. I also have a constituent who received a letter; I have to say, this is a very serious issue across the country.
Jake Richards
Let me be very clear, Mr Speaker. The Sentencing Act, which received Royal Assent in January, sets out some provisions that will come into effect in September. We are determined to ensure that victims receive due notification in good time, not just because we believe that the Government have a responsibility to let them know, but because we know that victims need to play a role in the licence conditions that we set.
It is vital that victims’ voices are heard. That is why we have already begun communication with victims’ groups and, indeed, with victims who are party to the victim contact scheme. We will go further and ensure that all those who are party to the scheme receive precise information on their case—not just because we want to let them know, but because we want to hear from them to ensure that when we put in the most robust licence conditions in the community, victims’ voices are at the heart of the decisions we make. That is absolutely right, and that is not what happened under the Conservative Government.
Jake Richards
Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she did both in government and in opposition on these issues. She has raised with me outside the Chamber the issue of pre-sentencing reports, in particular in relation to domestic abuse. As she knows, I have spoken with Lord Timpson and we will come back to her on those specific measures.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of community safety. We have invested £700 million into the probation system—the biggest investment in probation for a generation —and recruited more probation officers than ever before. For the first time in several decades, the caseload of the average probation officer is coming down, in contrast to the record highs reached under the Conservatives.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I pay tribute to the victims and survivors of some of the most appalling, heinous crimes for their bravery in speaking out about the fear they have felt after receiving letters from the Ministry of Justice informing them that their perpetrators might be let out early. I understand that the purpose of the letters is to ensure that victims have the opportunity to engage with licence conditions, but what other support will be available to those victims who understandably feel retraumatised and let down by the justice system?
In the other place, the Prisons Minister made a commitment that those released early would be subject to intensive supervision, supported by a significant programme of electronic tagging. The Liberal Democrats were clear that the Government could bring forward those measures only if the Probation Service was adequately resourced to achieve this in the community. The Prisons Minister agreed to an annual review of the state of probation and its ability to cope with the changes. When can we expect the first review?
Finally, the Government inherited a prison system that was running so hot that they were at risk of losing the ability to lock up any offender. Can the Minister guarantee from the Dispatch Box that no victim will ever again be given just two days’ notice, or in some cases no notice, of their perpetrator being released, as they have suffered in recent years?
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I genuinely seek your guidance and support. I have submitted multiple written questions and freedom of information requests. We have a named day question on this matter that was due to be answered on Friday, which the Government have refused to answer as they should. The Minister said that the information we are after is in the impact assessment, but that is not true. There is not the information on the number of offenders in terms of rapists and child groomers being released. How do we and the public get answers to these very basic, incredibly important questions?
Mr Speaker
I am sure that Ministers on the Front Bench have heard that an outstanding question should have been answered. I am quite disappointed if that is the case—it should be answered. Members of Parliament put questions down to Ministers, and Ministers are answerable to this House—not when they feel like it or when they get around to it. That is totally unacceptable. I hope that they will go back and check the records to ensure that letters and questions have been answered. But named day questions—it is in the title—should be answered on the named day.
The point of order has been heard, and I am sure this issue can be rectified today. If it is not, there are many avenues, including coming back to this House. I believe there are questions to be answered, and all MPs should be told not who will be released, but how many people may be released within their constituencies. I say to the Minister that this is bad for all MPs, and MPs rightly need to represent their constituents. The sooner we help them, the sooner this House will be in a better place. I will leave it at that for now.
G7 Summit
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr David Lammy)
I am making this statement on behalf of the Prime Minister. I spoke earlier today on the Prime Minister’s record across the country—stabilising the economy, driving down waiting lists in the national health service, and lifting half a million children out of poverty—but I want to start this statement by paying tribute to his record on foreign policy, which is second to none.
As Foreign Secretary when we entered government, I saw at first hand the Prime Minister rebuild our relationships across the world. The EU reset that we led put Britain at the heart of Europe once again. Embracing President Zelensky on the steps of Downing Street, on one of Ukraine’s darkest days, was symptomatic of the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown across Europe and in relation to the threats from Vladimir Putin—principled, courageous and on the right side of history. He drove investment for working people, with five trade deals in two years.
When it came to the most sober decision that a Prime Minister has to make—on a matter of life, death and war—and others were pushing for the UK to jump head first into another war in the middle east, Keir Starmer stood strong, stood firm and said, “No, this is not our war,” putting British soldiers and the national interest first. He made Britain safer, rebuilt Britain’s reputation around the world, and drove investment and growth that will support working families in Britain for decades to come. Regardless of their politics, everyone in this House owes a debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister on foreign affairs.
I turn now to the specifics of the G7 summit, and let me start with Ukraine. Once again, Russia chose to launch a huge attack on Ukraine on the eve of an international summit. In a show of its disdain for diplomacy, Russia killed innocent civilians in Kyiv and Kharkiv, and hit the 11th-century Pechersk Lavra, a sacred site at the very heart of Ukrainian culture. The G7 has a shared sense of outrage at Russia’s conduct, but we also have a shared sense that the situation is changing. Ukraine has a new-found momentum. It is increasingly able to push Russia back on the battlefield, and the mood in Moscow is turning against the war. Almost half a million Russians have now lost their lives. Each month Russia mobilises around 30,000 people, and each month it loses the same number on the battlefield, with no progress to show for it.
At the same time, the Russian economy is struggling and may already be in recession, so we will seize this moment by continuing our military support. We are providing more air defence missiles and our biggest package of drones to date, financed with the profits of seized Russian assets. We are providing vital export finance to help rebuild Ukraine’s energy system, and we are going further to increase the pressure on Russia’s economy, because we know the impact that this is having.
At the summit my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister announced 70 new sanctions, bringing the UK up to around 500 sanctions on Russia this year alone, aimed at breaking up its military procurement supply chains and the illicit finance networks it uses to circumvent sanctions and, of course, targeting the Russian shadow fleet. I am sure the whole House will pay tribute to the Royal Marines who interdicted a shadow fleet vessel in the channel last weekend alongside officers from the National Crime Agency.
This is the moment to ramp up the pressure, and President Zelensky is clear that he is ready to talk, but this must recognise the reality on the ground and Ukraine’s new-found momentum. Any negotiations would need to be on the basis of the current line of control, not on Putin’s unrealistic demand for territory that he has failed to win on the battlefield. Russia should note the level of unity shown on this point and the G7’s pledge of unwavering support for Ukraine that will continue until we reach a just and lasting peace.
Let me turn to the middle east. Getting to the deal between the United States and Iran has been bumpy, but it creates a moment of opportunity to bring down the cost of living for the British people and put the middle east on a better path, which is vital for global stability. We are now working to help implement this deal to ensure that the region does not go back to war and that the 60-day negotiation period ends in a longer-term settlement.
Negotiations are the best way to secure our aims: first, that Iran is never allowed to have a nuclear weapon; secondly, that it stops its attacks across the region; and, thirdly, that the strait of Hormuz is reopened to shipping, with no restrictions and no tolls. That is why, with President Macron, we have brought together an international coalition ready to help reassure shipping. We are in talks now about how to deploy this multilateral military mission in support of the deal and to explore immediate support for de-mining in the strait.
We should also place this in the broadest possible context, recognising the need to make progress across the region. The extremely fragile ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon must be implemented in full, and I call on the Israeli Government to show restraint to that end, including in their use of inflammatory language. The G7 agreed to work together in support of their process and to strengthen the Lebanese Government, so that they can regain the monopoly on the use of force in the country.
On Palestine, I want to speak very frankly. Israel must stop blocking aid into Gaza, stop settlement expansion in the E1 area of East Jerusalem, which threatens the viability of the two-state solution, and stop settler violence across the west bank. We have a precious opportunity now to move on from the violence of the last three years in the interests of innocent people across the region. This should be our aim, bringing all our partners together in that effort.
Significant progress was also made last week on migration, with a strong G7 statement outlining practical common steps on returns and sanctioning the criminal gangs. With President Macron, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister took a big step in our bilateral co-operation by agreeing to extend the groundbreaking Sandhurst agreement, which has already prevented more than 40,000 migrant crossings into the UK. Under this deal, new police units and riot squads will be deployed to French beaches to stop migrant boats before they take to the water. This is vital and important work. It is because of steps like that and the approach of this Government that we have removed 67,000 people with no right to be in our country. We have removed 9,000 foreign national offenders, and we are closing asylum hotels. We are turning the tide on these issues after years of failure. Under the last Government, net migration reached almost 1 million. We have reduced it by 82% in two years. UK immigration figures are the lowest today since 2012. Where the last Government failed, we are delivering.
The same is true on growth and investment. On the eve of the summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcomed the Prime Minister of Japan to Downing Street, to deepen our strategic partnership after they met in Tokyo in January. They agreed more than £18 billion-worth of investment in this country, creating tens of thousands of new jobs in infrastructure, offshore wind and financial services. That shows the value of building such bonds. This was followed, at the summit, with deals for a further £1.3 billion of investment from France and India in clean energy and artificial intelligence, creating more than 1,300 new jobs in Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed with India’s Prime Minister Modi the entry into force of the UK-India free trade agreement. This is the UK’s quickest ever turnaround from signing to entry into force, and it is one of the biggest deals either country has ever done. It will boost British GDP by £4.8 billion and boost real wages for British workers by £2.2 billion.
Finally, the House will note that tomorrow marks the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum. We know the world has changed fundamentally since 2016. We know that Brexit has damaged the economy, so there is no doubt in our mind where the national interest lies today—in closer co-operation with Europe. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed to intensify work to deepen our economic ties. We look forward to a forthcoming second UK-EU summit at the earliest opportunity.
Unity on Ukraine to protect our collective security; unity on the middle east to bring down the cost of living and bring back stability; progress on tackling illegal migration, driving down the numbers day after day; and huge new investments in the UK, creating new opportunities and changing people’s lives—real results for the British people. At the same time, the Government have brought down mortgage rates and inflation to help with the cost of living, and have held them flat to fight what is happening globally.
We are supporting families with the summer savings package, so that they can spend time together this August. We are banning social media for children to keep them safe, lifting half a million people out of poverty, boosting workers’ rights and renters’ rights, and bringing down NHS waiting lists at the highest rate for 17 years. This Government are focused on what really matters: serving the national interest and delivering for the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Extra time was given because I thought we would have a lot more on the G7; I did not know the statement would be all policy. Not to worry. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes, yes and yes. My hon. Friend will be pleased that this issue was discussed at the G7 leaders’ summit. I encourage her to look at the statement that was put out, particularly as regards peace in the middle east.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I start by recognising the courage it took for the Prime Minister to make his statement today. Politics can be brutal, but although we rightly debate issues robustly in this Chamber, we can recognise that we are all human beings here, and can take account of that. However, after years of this chaos—we had multiple psychodramas and short-lived Prime Ministers under the Conservatives, and then under Labour—the country is impatient for real change. This moment shows once again how broken our political system is. It is only by fixing that that we can finally end this chaos and instability. There will be another moment to reflect properly, but for now, I simply thank the Prime Minister for his service.
Turning to the statement, progress on providing more support for our brave Ukrainian allies is indeed welcome, and the Deputy Prime Minister knows that he has cross-party support on that. At the G7, did the Government raise the proposal of using frozen Russian assets around the world to support Ukraine, and if not, why not?
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is boasting about his ceasefire with Iran, but “The Art of the Deal” it is not. His and Netanyahu’s idiotic war, backed by the Conservatives and Reform, has achieved absolutely nothing; instead, it is wreaking havoc on the global economy and on our economy, as the Deputy Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister was right to keep us out of it. Given how determined Netanyahu seems to undermine any ceasefire, what discussions did the Prime Minister have with allies at the G7 to put real pressure on both Netanyahu and Hezbollah to end the fighting?
All this shows how important it is for Britain to strengthen our defences and deepen our partnership with dependable allies, especially our neighbours in Europe. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm whether the defence investment plan will be published before the NATO summit? The Liberal Democrats think that is vital if we are to start to repair the damage done by Conservative defence cuts, and are to have real leverage and influence at the NATO summit. Will the defence investment plan go to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) for his urgent sign-off?
Finally, the Prime Minister promised a crucial summit with the EU next month to start repairing the damage done by the Conservatives, but reports say that this summit has been postponed because of his resignation. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this is a disaster? Fixing our relationship with Europe is far too urgent for these discussions to be postponed yet again. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to urge the right hon. Member for Makerfield to reject the Government’s current timid reset, and instead push for our growth and defence partnership, which would include single market membership, free from the out-of-date red lines that the Prime Minister imposed five years ago.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Stevens
I have to say that it has been rather amusing to hear the new minority Plaid Cymru Welsh Government bragging about what they have done since the election. They have started a review, they have set up a steering group, they are working on a plan for another plan, they have set a target, and they are thinking about things. Meanwhile, this Government have invested £134 million in the Cardiff capital region, approved seven new youth hubs across Wales, launched the summer savings scheme to cut the cost of living, announced a new ban on social media to keep our children safe, given a pay rise to over 3,000 armed forces personnel in Wales, and expanded the Valour programme for veterans. That is the difference between us and Plaid: we are getting on with the job.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
A few months ago I met farmers in Merthyr Cynog, in Brecon and Radnorshire, who warned me about the growing pressures that they were facing. Since then, Trump’s reckless war with Iran has sent fertiliser prices soaring by up to 45% and red diesel prices by up to 30%. Does the Secretary of State accept that unless urgent action is taken, higher costs for Welsh farmers will ultimately mean higher food prices for families across Wales and the UK?
Anna McMorrin
Absolutely. Through collaboration and working together, we are creating tens of thousands of jobs right across Wales. Our Welsh freeports and investment zones have the potential to deliver at least 25,000 new jobs in Wales. Our generational commitment to modernise Welsh rail will bring 12,000 jobs in Wales. This is about a collaborative effort right across the United Kingdom to help and support Welsh communities, but also communities right across the UK.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Boarded-up windows, derelict buildings and deserted towns are increasingly common on high streets in Wales, as highlighted by North Wales Live and its readers. Our hospitality sector is being hollowed out thanks to Plaid Cymru and the last Welsh Labour Government’s disastrous tourism tax. The Conservative and Unionist party believes that this tax should be urgently scrapped to support the approximately 150,000 people in Wales who are employed in this crucial sector. Does the Minister now regret her party’s decision to impose the tax, and will she join me in calling on the new Welsh Government to scrap it?
Anna McMorrin
I will take no lectures from the Conservatives and the hon. Member when her party presided over completely unprecedented wage stagnation and businesses took blow after blow, with—to be specific—the worst wage growth performance of any decade since Napoleonic times. On our side of the House, the Chancellor announced just last week the great summer savings scheme, with a reduction of VAT from 20% to 5% over the summer to help families enjoy the summer and use hospitality venues. This will boost local spend and boost the local economy.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Secretary of State had some cheek earlier, but Wales had 27 years of Labour and has had less than six weeks of a Plaid Cymru Government, so we have work to do, and we are getting on with it.
The Port Talbot steelworks fire caused huge damage, but not a single penny of Labour’s £2.5 billion steel fund has been guaranteed for steel in Wales. Instead, millions are being spent from this fund to support steel at Scunthorpe, leaving Welsh workers fearing they have been pushed aside. Will the Government stand up for Welsh interests and guarantee a fair share of the steel fund to all steel sites in Wales?
Anna McMorrin
I am proud that this Government are resetting our relations with European partners to improve our economic and security co-operation following Brexit. The historic first UK-EU summit last year marked that turning point, and striking a deal is good for bills, good for borders and good for jobs. Our focus is on driving that forward and delivering a very strong EU-UK relationship.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her responses. I want to raise the issue of young people not in education, employment or training. We know that the Conservatives failed our Welsh young people for 14 years, so I am really pleased that this Labour Government are investing £2.5 billion in the youth guarantee. How many Welsh young people will benefit from this scheme?
Jo Stevens
I could not agree more. As I said earlier, the increase in defence spending creates not only a defence dividend but a Union dividend, too. That is why every nation and every Government in the United Kingdom should stand together and play their part in our national security.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
“Inadequate…failing…unable”. Those were the damning words used to describe this Labour Government’s approach to defence by the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), after his dramatic resignation. The defence industry in Wales is vital for the defence of us all, as well as for local jobs. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge why, after a recent defence visit, the Wales Office used the incorrect figure on X of a £270 billion increase in defence spending in this Parliament? Was that post deleted because it was disinformation and factually inaccurate?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that regenerating our high streets and town centres is vital to creating jobs and supporting local businesses, restoring pride in our communities. That is why we are investing over £300 million in Pride in Place funding for Wales, alongside over £500 million through the new local growth fund. It is vital that this funding, which will be delivered by the Plaid minority Welsh Government, is operational as quickly as possible. I have written twice to the Welsh Government Minister responsible about how we can get that funding out to communities, and I look forward to his eventual response.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
The previous Welsh Labour Government spent more than £100 million developing plans for the M4 relief road, only to scrap the project before construction began. Congestion at the Brynglas tunnels continues to cause significant delays, hampering economic growth. The previous Conservative UK Government offered funding to back that crucial scheme. Will the Secretary of State urge her colleagues to make a similar offer to the new Welsh Government, and does she regret her party’s decision to cancel this vital project in the first place?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign to restore the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry. I agree that town centres are the heart of our communities, and we are determined to help them to thrive. Our high streets strategy, backed by more than £300 million of investment, will build on our work to rejuvenate high streets across the country. We are also putting power into the hands of local communities through our flagship Pride in Place programme, which includes £1.5 million for Gravesham. Her local council can make use of the integrated transport funding for local priorities, including ferry services, and I know that Ministers will be happy to help.
Mr Speaker
I call Claire Coutinho, shadow Secretary of State, acting for the official Opposition.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
On behalf of the Conservatives, I extend our condolences to the families of Jo Cox and Roy Hattersley. I know how much pain we on the Conservatives Benches felt when we lost Sir David Amess, and so we share Labour’s pain today. I also pay tribute to those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tower fire. I would also like to congratulate Scotland on their stunning win and wish England the very best of luck for tonight.
It is a great privilege to be standing at the Dispatch Box across from one of the few survivors of Labour’s original Cabinet who has not resigned on principle or been sacked in disgrace—I feel honoured. Will the right hon. Gentleman start by telling me this: why are the Labour Government happy for Britain to get its oil and gas from Russia or Qatar but not from Aberdeen?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I join the hon. Lady in utterly condemning the violence. People are right to feel sickened by the sight of people being burned out of their homes because of the colour of their skin. That is racism, and those responsible will face the full force of the law. We must never go back to 1950s Britain, where my father arrived to signs saying, “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish.” We are focused on bringing people together, and that includes by providing a further £24 million to help to tackle paramilitarism and by acting to tackle those who incite hatred online; our social cohesion plan is about bringing our communities together. I am happy to work with all parties in that endeavour.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
May I associate myself and my party with the Deputy Prime Minister’s tribute to Jo Cox? We extend our condolences to her friends and family, and to those of Roy Hattersley as well. I also join the Deputy Prime Minister in remembering the horrific tragedy of Grenfell, and that the families still await justice. I congratulate all those named in the King’s birthday honours list, congratulate Scotland and wish good luck to England this evening.
The right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) is respected across the House. When he says that he was forced to make decisions that could make the country less safe, we should all take heed. It is now becoming clear that the Treasury’s refusal to consider new ways of funding defence is undermining our national security, so will the Deputy Prime Minister join with us to make the case in Government for new defence bonds, which could raise £20 billion over two years to defend our country?
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Points of order come after urgent questions.
Today is a very important day. This is about Jo Cox, bringing us together, and unity. I hope that we will have more temperate, tolerant language and respect for each other. The Jo Cox great get-together is taking place at lunchtime in Speaker’s House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
The whole House will have sympathy for Olivia. The family courts must never be a place for perpetrators to continue their abuse. Repealing the presumption of parental involvement will ensure that children’s wellbeing continues to be the court’s primary focus when considering contact. Under the child-focused model, independent domestic violence advisers can provide victims with specialist family support.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
One of the successes of the family justice system is the family mediation voucher scheme. Two thirds of families who use the scheme avoid going to court, which takes a lot of pressure off the family courts. It started in 2021 and gets renewed every year, often at the end of the year or even when the next year has started, which creates huge uncertainty. Will the Secretary of State just say that he will make the scheme permanent from now on?
Jake Richards
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is an important role for restorative justice in our criminal justice system. Just yesterday we made an announcement on the use of restorative justice in our youth courts, as well as the appointment of Jacob Dunne as an expert adviser. Jacob Dunne, who will be known to many Members of the House, is a great champion of restorative justice, and someone who has experienced it. There is more to do in the adult estate, and the Government will announce measures on re:hub, which is an essential cog of the restorative justice system, in due course.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Government are talking a good game on reducing the cycle of reoffending, but meaningful prison education plays a key role in that objective. Recent analysis has found a significant decrease in the core education hours in public sector prisons. That has been seen most acutely in female prisons, where there has been a fall of 30%. What is the Minister doing to reverse that decline in education hours across all prisons, end the postcode lottery that we see currently, and ensure that obligations to equality are met?
Catherine Atkinson
Baroness Harman’s record speaks for itself. She has spent decades turning words into action, whether by passing landmark legislation, strengthening protections or relentlessly pushing this issue, which should never be used for party political point scoring, up the political agenda. It is this Prime Minister and this Government who are determined to halve violence against women and girls. Our VAWG strategy sets out the plan to do so, and we are getting on with the job of delivering it.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the new Minister to her post. For all the policies she might be glad to inherit, she is also inheriting a plan later this year to let out potentially thousands of the worst offenders against women and girls, including rapists and those responsible for sexual assault. The Government are refusing to be transparent about this and are not answering freedom of information requests and written questions about how many rapists and sexual assault offenders will be allowed out of prison earlier. Will this new Minister turn over a new leaf and at least be transparent about how many rapists the Government will be letting out of prison early later this year?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman makes his point with real force. However, he never talks about victims, and has not explained how we should bring down the backlog. The truth is that we are determined to bring down the backlog, and that is why—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Turner, I took the question; I expect you to hear the answer as well.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I come with good news: with increased funding from the Government, uncapped sitting days and improved disposal rates, backlogs in the Crown courts are falling. At the Old Bailey in 2025, the backlog fell by a quarter, in Chelmsford it fell by 10%, and Maidstone saw a 5% reduction. The truth is that proper funding for our courts and uncapped sitting days are bringing down the backlogs, but the Government are choosing to ignore that data and are persisting in taking a sledgehammer to jury trials, although that will not deliver shorter wait times for victims. Why will the Minister not trust those in the justice system who want to deliver for victims using the increased funding and resource that he has delivered for them?
Jake Richards
As I said, each case is considered on its own circumstances, and the risk is assessed by the professionals. I am very happy to look into that case and make sure that the appropriate officials look into it too.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
As an MP whose constituency has a category C prison for male sex offenders that is almost at capacity—HMP Littlehey—I welcome the clarity from the Minister regarding paedophiles in the prison estate.
We know that the Minister is on the hook to deliver thousands of new category C and D prison places. I want to ask him about the prison places he has made almost no progress on since the election because the contractor ISG went into administration in September 2024. I first highlighted the failure of that project last year. Can he confirm whether, since then, all those 12 prisons have had new contractors appointed? When will those prison places be delivered?
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Last year, 6,397 knife criminals were sent to prison, and the average sentence was just over eight months. As the Government scrapped almost all sentences of less than a year, will the Justice Secretary say very clearly whether he expects as many knife criminals to go to jail next year as did last year?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Timothy, you get two questions. Can you at least wait half a minute before you jump in?
Mr Lammy
It is a serious subject, and I am pleased that after 22 months in office, we have seen falls in knife crime in the last year. We will continue with our knife crime strategy.
Alistair Strathern
The Anti-Slavery Commissioner recently called out the targeted online grooming of young men by county lines gangs. That is far from being an isolated case of such targeting. Young men growing up in Britain today are all too often targeted by those in the worst corners of the internet—from those in the manosphere to predatory gambling companies to get-rich-quick schemes. However, while Ofcom rightly has guidance for platforms about how to better protect women and girls from the specific harms that they can be exposed to, no such parallel guidance exists for young men and boys growing up in Britain. We are all worse off as a result. We recently convened over 60 MPs to write to Ofcom to urge it to put that right. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join us today in calling on Ofcom to step up? It is in its gift to do so. Let us get this done.
Mr Lammy
It is an excellent question. My hon. Friend is quite right; there are many concerns about the online space and what it means for men and boys in a modern society, and there is an important role for Ofcom. I encourage him to write to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, and I will take a close interest. I hope that he gets a meeting with a Minister.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Let me be absolutely clear: prisoners are not permitted to have access to social media in any circumstances and face punishment if they do so. All cases are investigated by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service if they are discovered. A few weeks ago I visited our state-of-the-art digital forensics lab, which interrogates any phones found and provides evidence to bring successful prosecutions in court. I hope that reassures his constituent.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
This weekend, two marches came to London: one was condemned by the Justice Secretary; about the other—yet another anti-Israel march—there was not a word. Once again we heard crowds of people demanding intifada revolution and other coded calls for attacks on British Jews. If the Crown Prosecution Service refuses to prosecute the thugs who chant “Globalise the intifada” and other calls for violence, why will the Justice Secretary not change the law so that these people get what they deserve?
Youth Justice
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the youth justice system in England and Wales. I am today publishing a White Paper, with a once-in-a-generation set of reforms to build a youth justice system that intervenes early, responds more effectively and does more to turn young lives around, so that we can better protect the public. I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and, before him, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), for all their hard work in getting us to this point.
Over the past two decades, the number of children entering the youth justice system and being detained in custody has fallen dramatically. This progress is the result of real cross-party consensus, with a modern youth justice system that began under Tony Blair’s Government and was continued, during his time as Prime Minister, by Lord Cameron—he famously said he would “hug a hoodie”—who, with Lord Gove, asked me to carry out the Lammy review.
But this success has brought a new challenge. Our youth justice system is now working with significantly fewer young people, but they are significantly more vulnerable and at significantly higher risk. Most begin their journey into crime long before they come to the attention of the police, their lives shaped by instability, by trauma and often by neglect—the kind of childhood that most of us in this House could barely imagine. Some grow up surrounded by violence, addiction and abuse, while others are moved endlessly around children’s homes or foster care placements, never staying in one place long enough to have the stability needed to feel safe, let alone the love and care that would enable them to really thrive. All those factors make them more likely to end up in the justice system. When we fail to intervene early enough, the consequences can be devastating—for those children, of course, but also for victims and entire communities, because around 80% of prolific adult offenders first enter the justice system as children.
The risks that children face have also changed. Today’s children are navigating online harms, criminal grooming through social media and exposure to extremist content. Too often the system has struggled to keep pace: opportunities to intervene are missed, warning signs go unnoticed and agencies do not consistently share information. This means that children can slip through the cracks between services, which risks escalation, and responsibility between agencies becomes blurred. The lessons emerging from the Southport inquiry, following the tragic murders of three young children by Axel Rudakubana, a violent 17-year-old who was known to authorities, are a terrible reminder of what can happen when systems are not sufficiently co-ordinated and not sufficiently decisive in the face of escalating concerns.
We must learn those lessons but also strike the right balance. The system must recognise that they are still developing and that most have huge capacity to change. We should not over-criminalise but, at the same time, avoiding criminalisation must never mean overlooking risk or failing to act. Benign neglect, however well intentioned, is still neglect. Where behaviour causes harm, timely, proportionate and effective intervention is essential to protect the public and to support children to change course.
That principle is reflected throughout this White Paper. First, we will intervene earlier, investing an additional £46 million over the next three years in our turnaround programme, which is already showing promising results in diverting children from crime, and by strengthening the join-up with other programmes that support children on the cusp of offending. We will also strengthen and expand the use of parenting orders, which can compel parents to address their child’s behaviour, including attending counselling or guidance sessions. If they do not act, they will face penalties. We will deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an offence of child criminal exploitation, building on the work carried out by others, including Baroness May, and placing the focus where it belongs: on the adults who groom, the adults who coerce and the adults who profit from exploiting children. Through new youth diversion orders, we will tackle the increasing number of young people who commit terrorism offences, allowing agencies to intervene before that risk escalates.
Where offending does happen, we will ensure that children get the right response at the right time. Diversion must be firm, fair and effective. We will fundamentally reform the youth out-of-court resolution framework, to improve consistency and public confidence so that children receive interventions that genuinely address their behaviour and cut crime. We will also pilot problem-solving youth intervention courts, laser-focused on rehabilitation and prevention. They bring together judges, youth workers and specialist support to tackle the root causes of offending, whether mental ill health, school absence, addiction or exploitation, while still demanding accountability from young offenders.
Custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences, but for many children even a short spell inside can deepen their problems, exposing them to more violence and criminal influence. So we are setting an ambition to cut the number of children remanded in custody by 25% over this Parliament, alongside an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences, which so often are ineffective, with more than two thirds of children going on to reoffend. Instead, we will invest £5 million in intensive community placements and stronger bail support, protecting the public while giving children a genuine chance to change course.
We will also reform the childhood criminal records regime, because mistakes made at 13 should not become a life sentence of closed doors and lost chances, not least where this prevents young people from getting a job, which is a crucial factor in helping offenders turn their lives around. We will carefully consider the age of criminal responsibility in this country, which currently sits at just 10 years old, to ensure that it still reflects a modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development. We will also strengthen local youth justice services so that they are better equipped to meet the needs of today’s children.
We will soon set out detailed proposals for a new approach to youth justice service oversight, and funding arrangements so that children receive consistently high-quality support wherever they live. That includes reforming the Youth Justice Board, sharpening its focus on continuous improvement of local services and transferring some of its key functions to the Ministry of Justice, so that Ministers are fully accountable for how the system performs.
I have been clear that custody will, where appropriate, be necessary for public safety. However, we will take further action to improve safety and education across the youth estate, while setting a clear long-term direction of travel away from large, outdated institutions and towards smaller settings that can better rehabilitate children.
The White Paper is also about fairness. Not all children in our justice system are equal. Those in care are still far more likely to be drawn into the system. Black children remain vastly over-represented—22% of the youth custodial population, compared with 6% of 10 to 17-year-olds overall. Black children are also over-represented among victims, being around six times more likely to be victims of homicide. I warned about this disproportionality when David Cameron asked me to do the Lammy review, nearly a decade ago, and the fact it persists today should shame us all. These reforms will begin to address that, building a system that is fairer and more consistent.
It is not a choice between punishment and rehabilitation; it is about what works: protecting the public, cutting reoffending, and stopping vulnerable children—so often victims themselves—becoming tomorrow’s dangerous adult offenders. This Government will do whatever it takes to give more children the chance of a better future, and to keep the British public safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Lammy
Exactly—we used to have them, and the Tories abolished them. We want to bring them back and grow their numbers so that we can support these young people.
There are a range of things we can do through this White Paper, and I encourage the hon. Member for West Suffolk to read it in detail. A lot of his predecessors would agree with it. It is good work, and we need to get on with it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the White Paper, which shines a welcome light on an often-neglected part of the criminal justice system. The remarkable drop in the number of young people in custody, from a high of 3,400 a day, is sometimes box-ticked as “job done”, but when half those young people are on remand and a majority do not go on to receive a custodial sentence, there is clearly more to be done.
The Justice Committee is conducting an inquiry into children and young adults in the secure estate. While the Government are right to look at early intervention and alternatives to custody, will the Lord Chancellor also look at the successes and failures of the current custodial system for young people and how it can better rehabilitate young people and reduce the risk of reoffending?
Mr Lammy
We will look at this and do the necessary inquiry, and I know that my hon. Friend’s Committee is doing that work at the moment. He is concerned, quite rightly, about the huge rates of both prolific crime and recidivism. Clearly, the system is not working. We have this group of young people present in the system, and sometimes over two thirds of them go on to reoffend. We can do better, and we must do better. We have put rehabilitation at the heart of this youth justice White Paper.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Government’s White Paper represents a truly critical opportunity to transform the youth justice system and, importantly, reduce lifetime offending. We know that most offenders in our prisons today are repeat offenders and that persistent offending often begins early in life, with eight in 10 prolific offenders in England and Wales committing their first crime as a child. We must stop this chain of escalation, and the earlier we intervene, the better.
Nowhere is that more applicable than for children in care, those from ethnic minorities and those with special educational needs, who are disproportionately represented in the justice system. Will the Secretary of State set out how this overhaul will ensure that these children, given their specific vulnerabilities, will receive the targeted support that they desperately need?
May I take this opportunity to highlight the great work of the organisation SHiFT and encourage the Justice Secretary to engage with it? I believe that SHiFT’s model could be rolled out across the country, helping young people before they even commit their first crime?
Education for young offenders can be a crucial step in diverting them from a path to reoffending. We are pleased that the Children’s Commissioner will undertake a review of education in young offender institutions, but can the Justice Secretary ensure that it will take into account the fact that 80% of young people who are sentenced have special educational needs and make sure that the support they are getting in those institutes is fit for purpose?
The Youth Justice Board provides vital independent oversight of the youth justice system, yet the Government have chosen not to act on the report they commissioned from Steve Crocker, instead bringing a number of the board’s functions more directly within the remit of the Ministry of Justice. What is the purpose of those reforms? What benefit will the Government gain from bringing those functions in-house, and will the Justice Secretary address the concerns from across the sector that these reforms risk reducing specialist experience and weakening independent accountability?
Finally, will the Secretary of State set out how the use of parenting orders will affect the recruitment of foster parents, those being asked to take on special guardianship orders or kinship arrangements, and those considering adoption? If parenting orders will not apply to those families, how will they be supported effectively to ensure that this measure does not lead to further family breakdowns and more children ending up in the care system?
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
In my 20 years’ experience in the courts, I have watched young people’s attitude change: there is no respect for the courts when they walk into the courtroom, and no fear of the police. Prison—or young offenders institution—sentences are no longer a deterrent, because they are simply not given out. We rarely see parents in court in support, for lots of different reasons: these children are neglected because their parents are battling alcohol or drugs, have financial issues or are out of work; or they are in a care system that is letting them down. I have visited care homes that I know let under-age youngsters go out at night and prostitute themselves, because nobody can keep an eye on them or control them. The care system fails those kids too. In places such as my constituency, I witness kids going out in gangs, subject to organised crime gangs. They need opportunities, they need apprenticeships—
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is going to give way and it is not going to be me. [Interruption.] Please, sit down immediately. I need to get everyone’s questions in. If you want to make a statement, you can apply for an Adjournment debate. I am sure there are many other ways to do that, but you cannot just hog the whole of this debate.
Mr Lammy
This is one of the few occasions—the first ever, I think—when I have agreed with the hon. Lady, specifically about the context for these young people. She brings tremendous experience to the Chamber as a magistrate working in this area, and we can agree about children in care, the adult grooming that we are seeing and parents often not being present in the criminal justice system—we have to do more to support them. She will find a lot in the White Paper that perhaps Reform can adopt as its policy for the next election.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Davies-Jones
The funding of £6 million over two years will enable us to introduce independent legal advisers for all adult rape victims, and that is alongside the support package we are introducing in our courts system. We are expanding on Operation Soteria to ensure that rape victims get the support they need. The investment in support services is only one part of a much bigger package to ensure that victims are put back at the heart of the justice system.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I know that Members from all parts of the House support the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls. The metric on which that is based, the crime survey for England, deals with those aged 16 and over, but girls under 16 are also substantially at risk. How will they be included in the recording and monitoring process to ensure that their needs are also addressed?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane), for all their work in shining a light on this horrific issue. I was proud to meet the chief executive of Travelodge yesterday to discuss it in detail, and the Government are looking into what more we can do. We are convening a roundtable with the relevant Ministers in the Departments for Business and Trade and for Culture, Media and Sport to discuss the tourism aspect, and what better regulation and support we can provide to keep people safe wherever they are—in hotels, in the street or online. We will ensure that women and girls are kept safe.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Right now there are potentially thousands of rapists, paedophiles and perverts, who are responsible for some of the worst offences against women and girls, who this Government are going to let out of prison earlier. That is a disgrace, and at the very least the Government should be transparent about it. When I asked them to tell us what their estimates and modelling were on the number of people who were due to be let out, at first they denied they had any of that information; then they admitted that they did, but refused to publish it. Does the Minister not think that they should be transparent about the consequences of their own policies?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member raises an important point. This Government are committed to ensuring that, where possible, foreign national offenders serve their sentence outside this country. To do so, we have to engage in bilateral negotiations with countries to achieve proper and rigorous prisoner transfer arrangements. That is why I have had discussions with colleagues in Ghana, Nigeria, Albania and Poland in the last few weeks; indeed, last month we signed a new arrangement with Italy. We are working at pace to ensure that those agreements are as rigorous as possible. On the individual case that she mentions, I am very happy to meet her, and indeed her constituents, to discuss the details.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to look at the flip side of this issue—specifically, what happens to those detained overseas who return to the UK? The Government are preparing to resume deportations of Syrian foreign national offenders, while the Syrian Democratic Forces have called on countries to repatriate their own citizens. In recent months, several ISIS-linked individuals have been returned to this country from the al-Roj camp. Will the Minister confirm whether these ISIS-linked individuals will return to custody in the UK, given their direct links to a proscribed terrorist organisation, or are those individuals now free in the UK, having faced no consequences for their terrorist affiliations?
Mr Lammy
One hundred per cent. That is why the shadow Justice Secretary, when he stands up, should apologise. He was sat in the Home Office while that was happening.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Opposition Benches were disorderly yesterday; I do not want the Government Benches to be disorderly today. Have the courtesy to hear the question, please. I am inundated with constituents complaining about the behaviour of MPs in this Chamber. I expect Ministers to set the best example, not the worst.
Nick Timothy
The Prime Minister, we learned this weekend, once said that trials without juries mean evidence is not properly tested and can lead to wrongful convictions. Was he wrong?
Mr Lammy
I have to say, the hon. Gentleman has not apologised for the state that the Conservatives left the criminal justice system in, closing 40% of court buildings in England—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I will say this to both sides: there has been quite enough chipping in. The public do not like it, and I am not going to tolerate it.
Mr Lammy
There was also a reduction in funding of 23%. The hon. Gentleman knows that 90% of criminal justice cases are dealt with by the magistrates courts and 10% go to the Crown court, with 7% of those people pleading guilty—that leaves 3%. Our Bill is to deal with a small proportion of cases in a new division so that we can do that swiftly. I have previously explained the reasons—demand in the system and length of trial—why it is my judgment that these have to be sustained changes, as were made by the Thatcher Government at the end of the ’80s and the Labour Government at the end of the ’70s. That is what I proposed. The Bill will now go to Committee and then on to Report, and will be debated and discussed in the usual way.
Alex Davies-Jones
I want all victims to have as much information as possible in a timely and appropriate fashion. That is exactly the type of information that we need to include in a new victims code. This is why we are consulting. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituents to hear about their experiences and how we can best shape this new code. All victims are entitled to information about their offender. We are expanding the victim contact scheme to include that and to ensure that victims know their rights. As I have said, I would be happy to work with the hon. Lady and any other hon. Member to ensure that victims know their rights and that they are up to date.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The family courts urgently need reforming so that victims, especially those of domestic violence, are not experiencing a system that is being used by perpetrators to continue to control and abuse. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner reported that 73% of hearings in the family courts involved evidence of domestic abuse, but it is frequently not recognised in determinations. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Government have included a clause to remove the presumption of parental responsibility, so will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to increase the scope of the Bill by including the family courts as a whole within it, and restore some faith for victims in our family court system?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister will have heard, as I did, the very moving speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) last week. She really moved the House with her testimony of the terrible experience that she had had as a rape victim, and her experience of delays. She will also have heard her say that, according to the Government, abolishing jury trials will save perhaps only a week. So my positive question to the Government is this: why do we not proceed on the basis of the Labour manifesto? It has its merits and it promised specialist rape trials. Why do we not set up courtrooms in every single courthouse with specialist lawyers and really deal with the backlog now?
Mr Speaker
I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Member’s supplementary is relevant to the main question. [Interruption.] No, I think it is not.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has been a great champion of Grimsby over many years and takes these issues very seriously. In my Department, our early intervention programme, Turnaround, has funded more than 15 million ASB referrals, which is up 14%. I am happy to look closely at what is happening in Grimsby particularly.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I join the Justice Secretary in sending condolences to the family of Jeff Blair. I also pay tribute to the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for her successful campaign for a child cruelty register, and I look forward to meeting the Hudgell family this afternoon.
The Government have published their Islamophobia definition, rebranded as a definition of anti-Muslim hostility. We are told that the definition is non-statutory, but it is designed to influence official decision making, so will the Justice Secretary make it clear right now that the definition will not be adopted by the police, prosecutors or the judiciary?
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Renters Rights Act 2025 represents the biggest expansion of renters’ rights in a generation, but of course, rights are not worth the paper they are written on unless they are enforceable. That is why the role of appeals, including to our property tribunal, is so important. My hon. Friend will know that court fees are a feature right across our system, but we will ensure that fees do not represent a barrier to access to justice.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I associate the Liberal Democrats with the Secretary of State’s condolences to the family of Jeff Blair. Strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as SLAPPs, have been used by the rich and powerful to silence victims and undermine the free press in this country. Anyone engaging in public-interest activities can be a target of SLAPPs. Powerful individuals who are exploiting the justice system in this country should not be shielded from scrutiny, so when can we expect legislation from this Government to address this?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
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
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.
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
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
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.
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?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that very important case. I think the thoughts and sympathies of the whole House will be with all the victims of these most heinous crimes. Child abuse is one of the most heinous crimes, and it is right that we have the correct support services available for child victims. The Sentencing Minister is meeting colleagues in the Home Office today to discuss this case, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a full update as requested on the specifics.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that passing the Hillsborough law would be one of his first acts in office, but last month the Government arranged to bring the Bill to the House for its remaining stages twice, only to pull it at the last moment on both occasions. The Prime Minister has made a promise to the Hillsborough law campaigners that he cannot keep without breaking the assurances that he gave to the intelligence agencies. It is another fine mess from Mr Forensic. Can the Minister guarantee that the Bill will complete its passage through both Houses of Parliament before the end of this Session—yes or no?
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
The reason I use this powerful Chamber to speak about crimes like rape is that I am desperate to encourage women across the country watching us to use their voice to speak out and report. I am so determined to support the Government in their changes because I am desperate, when these brave women come forward, for them to have a system where they are supported every step of the way to get the swift justice they deserve. I am determined to do everything I can to play my part. When we make these changes and make it easier for victims to get justice, how will the Government ensure that there is capacity in our prisons to take these criminals?
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.
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?
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I thank my hon. Friend, who has spoken on a number of occasions about his horrific experience, and I think I speak for all in this House when I say that that takes a lot of courage. What he says about the impacts on people of delays in our courts and how knowledge of that is putting off people reporting or continuing with their cases—and we know witnesses and victims pull out of their own cases—means not only that that is a torment for them, but that justice is not even being served and people are walking away. That is why we must pull every lever, and why we are bringing forward these reforms.
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?
Jake Richards
If the right hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will get back to him on those details.
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?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend raises the great work going on in that local system. The work to renew the women’s health strategy is partly about finding those good examples. We rightly talk about how the experiences of women are often poor examples of healthcare—we know that—but we also want good examples of where local systems are leading that work. We certainly want to learn from what they are doing to inform the wider strategy, and part of renewing that strategy is making sure that it is effective.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Seventy-five-year-old Valerie Kneale died four days after a stroke due to manslaughter, a coroner ruled. Her death prompted a murder investigation, as the post-mortem showed that a forcible sexual assault directly caused her death. Surviving in Scrubs campaigns to tackle sexual harassment and, crucially, sexual assault across the healthcare system. Hospitals and care homes should be the safest places to recover from childbirth, accident or illness. What is the Minister doing to deal with predators lurking in our NHS who target women at work or, sickeningly, those who are at their most vulnerable?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady raises a shocking example. I think I have said this at the Dispatch Box before, but it is one of the most shocking experiences, on coming in as a new Minister, to see the scale and depth of sexual harassment of staff and other women. We have worked hard with staff groups to make sure that that is given primacy in our strategy. I am working with the Minister with responsibility for violence against women and girls—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—and this is part of our attack more generally on misogyny and violence against women. We absolutely recognise that it needs to be resolved.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
In September, I raised the case of my constituent Mary in the House. Mary is among the parents of at least 7,000 children who have suffered birth defects because of the anti-epilepsy drug sodium valproate after it was prescribed to pregnant mothers in the 1970s. Next week marks the second anniversary of the Hughes report into the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals. Mary and other mothers like her needed redress and support for their children years ago, and the Government response to the Hughes report is long overdue. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the women and their children who are left in limbo by this Government’s failure to respond to the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report of February 2024?
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right: we must narrow that gap. We are ensuring that large employers, including in the Scottish private sector, publish plans on how they will address the gender pay gap. Of course, I am proud that, alongside my hon. Friend, this Labour Government are delivering the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Nurses up and down the country, including the Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle, are being hounded and harassed by the NHS simply for recognising that biological sex is real. I am grateful that the Minister has previously agreed to meet Jennifer and hope that she still will. The Minister takes up the cause of working-class women—these are working-class women, and they are being abused by people in positions of power—so will she go further by holding accountable those in the NHS, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the unions who have harassed and victimised those hard-working nurses?
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.
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
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.
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?
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not want to have to get up. Mr Anderson, one of us will have to sit down, and it is not going to be me. [Interruption.] Order. Who was speaking out then? If they have not got the guts to admit to shouting somebody down, they should leave the Chamber.
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!
Jury Trials
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why if the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is easier if you look at me because I cannot pick up what you are saying when you are turned the other way.
Robert Jenrick
Of course, Mr Speaker—apologies.
If the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence and the modelling. This is not a minor policy; it will change something that we have enjoyed as a country for hundreds of years. Something as significant as this should be done on the basis of evidence, so I say to the Minister that whether the Government accept our motion or not today is by the bye, but they should accept the spirit of it and publish the evidence now so that everyone can see it; so that the lawyers, judges and practitioners who care and are worried about this can engage in a proper debate; and above all, so that we in the House of Commons, who are the guardians of our constitution and our ancient liberties, can have a debate on the basis of facts.
Robert Jenrick
Both parties must share the blame for the present situation. The former permanent secretary of the Ministry of Justice came before the Justice Committee last year and was asked broadly the same question that the hon. Lady just asked me: what is the root cause of the current backlog? She responded that although the system had been poorly funded for some time, which had created a number of challenges, the primary cause was the pandemic. Covid created immense strain on our justice system. As a result of that, a backlog that had, broadly speaking, been falling in the years prior to the pandemic—it had begun to rise slightly in the period immediately before—shot up. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I will not have all sides cross-examining each other. I am listening to just one person at the moment.
Robert Jenrick
I am just restating, I think fairly, what the former permanent secretary said. The Ministry of Justice did not do enough to get the backlog under control. There has been a serious failure to fix the productivity problems in our court system, as I think the Institute for Fiscal Studies set out independently in a report last year. Could the last Government have done more? Well, perhaps they could have. They did try to do things: they increased the number of sitting days and brought in special courts, such as Nightingale courts, in parts of the country, which began to make some difference. None the less, the backlog kept rising.
The backlog has risen very substantially under this Labour Government as well. In fact, to the extent that we have accurate figures, it is rising by about 500 cases every month, so the problem has continued to get worse and worse. I therefore do not see today’s debate as a partisan debate between the two main parties. The key thing is how we solve the problem. How do we look to the future? Is slashing jury trials the answer? No. Are there better ways to do this? Yes.