King’s Speech

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I add my tribute to today’s maiden speech, and to the predictably exquisite valedictory speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield.

There is much to commend in the gracious Speech. However, I urge noble friends in government and all who aspire to lead it to strive towards an overarching narrative of hope, not just constant reminders of insecurity and threat. The public feel the news as acutely in their pockets as on their screens. We must be careful not to keep repeating grim diagnoses without the prescriptions for justice that people rightly expect of us.

I am proud to see the Hillsborough Bill feature but am less happy that we have not secured it to date. As the Manchester Arena victims’ families will testify, a blanket exemption for the security agencies would be no kind of Hillsborough law at all. Where transparency would compromise security, provision can be made for application to a judge for a specific exemption. Otherwise, understandably, institutions close ranks to spare blushes—but not always lives.

I believe in the importance of jury trials for three reasons. First, like voting and paying tax, they allow ordinary citizens to contribute to civic life. Without them, one class always appears to sit in judgment over others. Juries improve trust and confidence in, and the legitimacy of, our criminal justice system. Secondly, juries protect the judiciary from opprobrium where the evidence points to acquittal in high-profile cases. The demonisation of lawyers and judges has been an extremely dangerous trend in recent times. Finally, the ability of the jury to decide guilt or otherwise without reasons is a precious last-ditch safeguard against abusive laws and prosecutions.

I have grave concerns about attempts further to dilute the right to elect for jury trial. Years of underfunding courts should not become an excuse for further restricting access to them. My concerns relate to principle and practice, but also to democratic politics. Do noble friends really want such an open goal for far-right populists—an opportunity to argue that Labour is for European rights but not ancient English liberties? It is telling that immigration and asylum is grouped with strengthening national security rather than public services or even economic security. Further words are ominous. As under earlier Conservative Governments, asylum is conflated with illegal entry. The desire to tighten the application of Article 8 of the ECHR displays some distrust of courts. Just as open goals on jury trials are misguided, so is trying to compete in performative unkindness rather than administrative competence. Concerns about fairness notwithstanding, the bulk of public opinion remains committed to rights and freedoms. Why legitimise those who would tear them down?

The Representation of the People Bill, with votes at 16 and vital safeguards against foreign interference and domestic election intimidation, is an historic proposal. How wonderful it would be to mark a century of hard-won mass suffrage in two years’ time with this landmark progressive change.