Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Nick Timothy]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As I said to the hon. Gentleman in a statement, he must have a short memory, because we were brought to this House to discuss this matter. The Hillsborough law will be a landmark moment for this Government. It will be a Bill for the victims, written by the victims who have been through those heinous experiences. We will ensure that national security is upheld, and we will bring this Bill forward when it has the full backing by everyone and when it is ready.

Separation Centres Review

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Mr Hall has said that in prisons,

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

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

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

and governors believe that they

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

He has revealed that

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

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

Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

This is my first chance to speak about prisons as shadow Justice Secretary, and I want to get straight to the point: prison works. By taking dangerous and repeat criminals off the streets, prison works. By punishing people who have done wrong, prison works. By sending a clear message that if someone is thinking of committing a crime, they will face consequences, prison works. So when the Government produce sound plans to increase prison capacity, we will support them, but let us cut the spin from the substance in that statement.

The Minister seems to want a medal for letting criminals out of prison early, and what he said about the new prison places created since the election was utter nonsense. Those places were inherited from the last Government. All he and his colleagues are doing is turning up to new prisons to cut the ribbon. Millsike, Fosse Way, Welland Oaks and other prisons he did not boast about were all set up and funded before the Minister and I were even elected to this House.

The Minister pretends that the plan for 14,000 new prison places by 2031 is some radical new departure, but that number depends entirely on the thousands of places from new prisons and houseblocks started under the last Government. Let me read his answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty):

“No new prisons have been (a) planned or (b) approved since 5 July 2024.”

It is a pity he was not so candid in his statement just now. What about the milestones in creating the new prison places? What will be the consequences if Ministers fail to reach them? Is the Minister satisfied that the planning framework, as changed by this Government, will mean no delays in construction? How many projects have been stopped since the construction company ISG went bust? If he cannot rule out delays, what is his plan B? Can he promise the public that there will be no extension to Labour’s early release scheme? The crime statistics out today show that sex offences are up by 8% and shoplifting is up by 5% compared with last year, but with Labour’s sentencing policies, many of these criminals will avoid going to prison altogether.

What about the performance of the Prison Service? For all the talk of transparency today, at no point did the Minister admit that prison officer numbers are down under this Government by 468. Will he confirm that fact? With reports today that record numbers of offenders are being recalled to prison, will the Minister comment on the serious allegation made by the Prison Officers Association that many criminals are breaching their probation terms so that they can return to prison to sell drugs?

On the deportation of foreign criminals, there was another statistical sleight of hand. Deportation numbers under this Government remain roughly in line with the average of the coalition and Conservative years in office and are lower in half of those years.

[Jake Richards]

indicated dissent.

[Nick Timothy]

That is true. But I agree that those numbers remain too low, because we should be deporting all the foreign criminals in our prisons. Can the Minister confirm that that is also his aim, and can he tell us how he will stop the European convention on human rights getting in the way? The Opposition are clear that we will leave the ECHR. Will he condemn the actions of his boss, the Justice Secretary, who in opposition actively campaigned against the deportation of foreign rapists?

Finally, I want to ask the Minister a question of principle. He told a journalist this week:

“a pretty big chunk of the overall population… shouldn’t be in prison”.

His colleague Lord Timpson says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. These are my most important questions, and the Minister needs to answer them clearly: is it true that only a third of prisoners should definitely be behind bars, and will he say very clearly that he agrees with me that prison works?

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the new shadow Justice Secretary to his place; I hope he can do a better job than his predecessor. Let me deal with his last question first. If he had read what I said in that interview carefully, he would know that I was talking about the Youth Custody Service; I was not talking about the adult estate. I urge him to go back and read that interview and perhaps come to the House to correct the record.

On the issue of whether prison works, prison can work. I was abundantly clear in the statement that at the end of this Parliament, under this Labour Government, there will be more criminals in prison than ever before, so prison can work. But I gently urge the shadow Justice Secretary to delve a little deeper and look at short-term sentences, for example. Is it the Conservatives’ position today, which it was not by the end of their time in government, that short-term sentences should not be reformed at all? It was proposed in legislation put forward by the Conservative Government in their final year in office that never saw the light of day because of the general election to make exactly the same changes we are making now—but now they oppose it. I am afraid that the Conservative position on sentencing is all over the place.

When it comes to prison building, the Conservatives expect to get some praise for panicking in their last year of government, realising that they had not done anything for 13 years, that they had underfunded prisons and that places were not keeping up with demand, so they started doing something about it. But none of those places was delivered under a Conservative Government. Unless I am hallucinating, I have been to these sites— I opened them; I put the shovel in the ground. It is a Labour Government who are delivering where the Tories completely failed.

On foreign national offenders, I do not accept the figures that the hon. Gentleman set out today. Foreign national offender deportations are up under the Labour Government. Through the Sentencing Act 2026, which the Conservatives opposed, we are making it far easier to deport foreign national offenders.

The Conservative Opposition have a real problem. They oppose every single step this Government are taking to solve the crisis they created, and then they step up and moan about it. They should support us. We are getting on with the job—we are reforming sentencing, building prison places and making sure the prison system is fit for the future. They should support us, rather than moaning from the sidelines.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

What an absolute shambles. The Government have had long enough to work this out: the campaign for a Hillsborough law started 10 years ago, in 2016; Labour MPs started campaigning for it a year later, in 2017; in 2022, the Prime Minister adopted it as a formal Labour policy; in 2024, he put it in his manifesto, promising it would be one of his first acts as Prime Minister. Yet here we are today, after another set of rushed amendments, with yet another delay and another promise to get it right, but absolutely no idea what the Government are going to do or even when they are going to do it.

This problem was not some bolt out of the blue or unforeseeable surprise. How the Bill applies to the intelligence agencies is an obvious question that has been known for years, but it is a question that the Prime Minister—the man they used to call Mr Forensic—never thought to answer. Instead, he did what he always does: he made the campaigners one promise and made the intelligence agencies another. That is why, when the Bill’s Report stage was due last week, the Government pulled it. It is why, when it was due again today, they pulled it again, late last night. It is why, just now, the Minister was unable to say when the Government will bring forward their next attempt to get this right.

Right now, in the bowels of Whitehall, the Government are trying to draft their way through the problem—trying to find a form of words that will satisfy both the campaigners and the spooks. But I have news for the Minister: they cannot draft their way out of this problem. There is a choice to be made. If the Prime Minister believes it is dangerous to apply this law to the intelligence agencies in full, just as it is applied to other public bodies, then he simply should not do that. He needs to make a decision.

I have five questions for the Minister. I am not asking for classified information, so she need not use that defence. These are reasonable questions that she can answer. First, by what specific date will the Government return to Parliament with a new amendment to address this question? Secondly, do the Government still believe it is appropriate for the heads of the intelligence agencies to determine what information is provided to an investigation?

Thirdly, if the Government believe that somebody else should decide, who do they think that should be? Fourthly, if the Government believe that the decision rightly lies with the intelligence agencies, and that this is necessary for national security, are Ministers prepared to assert that difficult truth to the campaigners? Fifthly, what representations have the Government received from the Governments of other Five Eyes countries that do not have laws like this?

There are five questions; five clear answers are needed. After all this time, we deserve answers for the families who have suffered terrible tragedies, for the brave men and women who work every day to keep us safe, and for the country as a whole.

This completely avoidable situation is the fault of a pointless Prime Minister who has no idea what he wants to do and, even if he did, no idea how to do it. He made a promise but had no idea how to keep it. He made that promise not once, but five times in this House alone. As with tax and spend, jury trials, ID cards and more, the contradictions are piling up. The Government talk about a duty of candour, but if the Minister was to show some candour now, she would admit that this has been, from start to finish, an absolute mess.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I do not know how the Opposition dare. It is utterly shameful. I know that the shadow Secretary of State knows how complex this all is and how much it means to everyone involved. His party did nothing to solve this issue—the Conservatives did nothing for the families or to bring forward a duty of candour. He asks me to be candid, so I will be candid. This is about righting an injustice and preventing people wronged by injustice from going through absolute hell. To try to make political hay from this matter is disgraceful, and he should be called out for it.

The hon. Gentleman has been in the job for only a few days, and I was going to sincerely welcome him to his position and hope that we could work collegiately on this legislation for the families and the victims of these horrendous state cover-ups. However, I advise him that following in the footsteps of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), by attention seeking at all costs does not end well.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, we will continue to work with the families, to listen and to work with the intelligence services and other partners to ensure that the Bill is brought back to the House when it is fit and proper.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

As I have just said, William Fernandez went on to commit an horrific crime but the last Government never came to the Dispatch Box about that. By definition, if we got to the situation that we did in 2024, when 17 releases in error were happening, of course it is possible that people can go on to commit crimes. That is why I am hugely grateful—I know it involves police resource—for the efforts of our police to re-arrest these individuals. Some of them, as we saw last week, hand themselves back in when they realise that their release was in error. Our job is to minimise risk, but in a paper-based system we can never eradicate risk in time.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary said that one of the prisoners accidentally released who is still at large is a foreign national offender. I know that, after PMQs last week, the right hon. Gentleman will be very well briefed this week, so can he say whether the prisoner was inside for aggravated burglary, drug offences or failing to surrender to the police? Can he also say how this foreign national offender entered the country and whether he was an asylum seeker?

[Mr Lammy]

I have made available as much detail as possible, given that this information is normally released in July. Case 2 was in prison for a class B drug offence, and to the best of my knowledge, my understanding is that that was the FNO prisoner. I am telling the hon. Gentleman that, but I will have it double-checked, because this information was made available to me very recently, and I will write to him if I make an error.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The holistic type of support involving the preventive interventions that the hon. Lady has described is exactly the sort of provision that we are considering, in combination with the investment and structural reforms that will also be needed. I know that my colleague in the other place, the Prisons Minister, is taking on board precisely that sort of package of rehabilitation models so that we can break this endless cycle of reoffending.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Over the weekend the Prime Minister rather pathetically told the BBC that he was “a hard bastard”. I think members of the public would find it surprising that letting criminals out of prison early is a way of showing that he is.

The Minister has said, not unreasonably, that she wants time to consider Sir Brian’s recommendations, but it is the case that some things are clearcut. Will she take this opportunity to rule out reducing sentences by 40% for criminals who plead guilty?

[Sarah Sackman]

I think that the Prime Minister probably is a hard bastard, and I think that we on this side of the House are tough on law and order. We would never allow what the Conservative party allowed to happen, running our prisons to the brink of collapse. At the point when we inherited the prison system, there were simply not enough places for us to lock up some of the most serious and dangerous criminals who had perpetrated crimes in this country. It is absolutely scandalous. What we are going to do—as the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out—is engage in the serious business of developing policy and of government. We are going to consider the detailed policy recommendations, and of course we must consider how they interact with David Gauke’s recommendations: it must be knitted together, and it must be appropriate to deliver swifter justice for victims and to protect the public.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

As I think the hon. Lady will be aware, that is primarily a policy area for our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, but I will make sure that we raise those issues with them.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Yesterday, a man was convicted of a public order offence after burning a Koran outside the Turkish embassy. The judge said that the fact that the man was attacked was proof that he was guilty of disorderly behaviour. This is grotesque, and means that in effect, we have a blasphemy law. Does the Justice Secretary believe that this should hold, or will the Government back my Bill to put an end to all of this madness next week?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We do not have a blasphemy law, and we are not going to have a blasphemy law in this country. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I believe that that specific case is going to be subject to an appeal, so it would be inappropriate for me or any other Minister to comment on the details of the matter. However, I am sure that once all other channels are exhausted and we have a final resolution, we will be debating these matters in detail in this House.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

There was a constructive meeting. If the right hon. Member had been in it, I do not think he would have seen it as somebody “asking”. There was a constructive exchange of views, and there is a proper process in place, which I am confident will come up with the right answer.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

It is obviously ridiculous that the Justice Secretary is on her knees before a quango, asking it to respect the principle of equality before the law, but this is not the only example. The Judicial College’s equal treatment handbook says:

“to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”

Will the Minister condemn that logic and say, “No, we must not treat defendants differently because of their race or religion”?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The Government do not believe that there should be differential treatment before the law. The Lord Chancellor has been very clear about that. The “Equal Treatment Bench Book”, to which the hon. Member alludes, is written by and for the judges. Ministers have no involvement whatsoever in its content.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as Justice Secretary, I am not able to interfere in any independent decisions made by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, but he has made his point and I will ensure that it is dealt with by the appropriate individuals—either the Home Secretary or the head of the CPS.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

There are serious questions about the transparency of the police, the CPS and the Government in the days and weeks following the Southport attack. In written answers to me, the Government have refused to provide the dates when the Prime Minister was told that Rudakubana possessed ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual. Can the Justice Secretary tell me why?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Prime Minister has responded to the other questions that have been raised. The appropriate information was made available at the appropriate time to either the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. It was right that the Government did not give any commentary that could have collapsed the trial. On the specific charge relating to ricin, that decision required Law Officer approval, which was sought and immediately given.

Drones: High-security Prisons

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The lesson is that we need to work with prison governors and the police and invest in actions to deal with the problem. That is exactly what we are doing. We are working with everybody in the system to sort this mess out.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Apart from the serious security concerns that this activity raises, it shows that prisons bring resource pressures for local police forces. In West Suffolk, where Highpoint prison is due to grow significantly in the years ahead, the police have asked me to ask the Minister to ensure they receive additional funding to reflect that pressure. Will he do so?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is right that it is important that local police forces work strongly with HM Prison and Probation Service on this issue. That is what is happening. He will know that funding, both locally and nationally, is dealt with in an appropriate way.