Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

1. What progress his Department has made on creating a national listing framework.

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

Listing decisions are rightly a matter for the judiciary. We know that listing practices can vary between courts, creating what many victims see as a postcode lottery, so I am pleased that the Lady Chief Justice, with the support of this Government, will publish a new national listing framework to clarify the listing process, set consistent principles and help deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Pam Cox]

How will the new listing framework help to fast-track prosecutions for rape and serious sexual offences? What other measures is the Secretary of State introducing or supporting to that end, so that we can honour our manifesto commitments to bring perpetrators to swift justice?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will have heard that we are also piloting new digital and AI-enabled tools to support listing, helping the judiciary to make better use of data. I hope she will have seen that the reforms we are introducing under the Courts and Tribunals Bill include introducing independent legal advisers and expanding the principles of Operation Soteria into the courtroom, making sure that victims have the protection and support they deserve throughout the justice system. The Bill also introduces crucial reforms to ensure that rape victims are no longer unfairly undermined by evidence at court that relies on myths and misconceptions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his positive answer. When I think of the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I am always keen that we share improvements, whether that is from Northern Ireland for here or from England for Northern Ireland. Could the things that the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) has asked for be put to the Policing and Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, so that we can improve our system in the same way as the Secretary of State intends here?

[Mr Lammy]

These issues are devolved to Northern Ireland, but we are in touch and communicate best practice, as the hon. Member would expect.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

2. What steps his Department is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle violence against women and girls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

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

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

The Conservatives left our criminal justice system on the brink of collapse, and we are taking action to clean up the mess they left behind. Our detailed impact assessment, published alongside the Courts and Tribunals Bill, shows that our package of measures will save about 27,000 sitting days per year, a saving of almost 20%. Only through reform, together with record investment and action to modernise our courts, can we finally turn the tide on the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Justice Secretary has just told us that the reason he is cutting jury trials is to get the backlog down. If that is the case, why is there not a sunset clause, so that once the backlog is reduced, those jury trials can resume?

[Mr Lammy]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened during the Second Reading debate, he would have heard me say that demand in the system is up. Police arrests are 10% up. For all those reasons, alongside the backlog that we inherited from the Conservative Government, it is important that we put in place reform that is sustainable for the long term, and that is why there is not a sunset clause.

[Rebecca Smith]

About 6,200 cases are awaiting justice in the south-west. Sexual offences cases take about 320 days, but local victims and defendants deserve justice. The excellent example of Liverpool Crown court highlights how it is possible to tackle the case backlog and secure justice without impacting defendants’ right to a jury trial. Given that tackling the backlog using efficiency, not removing the right to a jury trial, has the backing of the public and the Opposition—and, indeed, Labour MPs—when will the Secretary of State back down from his entirely un-British decision to minimise the use of jury trials?

[Mr Lammy]

It was not un-British when the Callaghan Government made reforms at the end of the 1970s, and it was not un-British when Margaret Thatcher made changes in 1989. It is precisely because we are lifting the system, which was on its knees under the last Government, that it is absolutely the opposite of un-British to support victims, especially women, who find themselves in the criminal justice system.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The Government’s case for curtailing trial by jury is based on an impact assessment that rests on assumptions, rather than hard evidence. Is it not the truth that the Government are asking Parliament to give up and weaken a fundamental safeguard on the basis of hearsay alone?

[Mr Lammy]

Sir Brian Leveson spent months delivering part 1 and part 2 of his reforms. We are building on that. I have set out that this is a 20% saving. If the hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary—I am not sure he ever will be, but if he were—and he was told that a 20% saving could get the waiting list down, he would take it in an instant; so am I.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I think what the Health Secretary is actually doing at the moment is paying people to fudge the waiting lists. I want to be very clear, because there are slightly mixed messages from the Justice Secretary: are there any circumstances in which he would consider the reintroduction of jury trials for those cases that are going to have them removed?

[Mr Lammy]

I know the hon. Gentleman has studied this closely, but there are two problems we have to fix. Demand is going up—I said that the police are arresting more. But he will know that because of the use of smartphones, social media, DNA evidence and forensics—for all those reasons—trials are taking longer. That is what we are seeking to fix in the Courts and Tribunals Bill and that is why we have to put the system on a sustainable footing for the next generation. That is what the Bill will deliver.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Since coming into this role, I have heard from more victims than I ever thought I would in a lifetime. They tell me their stories, and I believe them and listen. What I do not ask them to do is report, because nobody wants to put anybody in a system that is so unsustainable, and re-traumatise them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the changes being presented and driven through by our Government will mean that a victim is more able to report, more likely to feel like they can get an outcome in a reasonable amount of time and less likely to feel that they are the ones on trial?

[Mr Lammy]

I am hugely grateful for my hon. Friend’s continual advocacy in the Chamber on behalf of victims. She is absolutely right. If we do nothing, we head to a backlog of 200,000, and many, many victims sitting behind that backlog. If we do as Opposition Members suggest, we head to a backlog of 133,000. That is why we have to do these reforms and why I am very pleased to put forward a Bill that also does more, in particular for victims of sexual crime and rape.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Under the previous Conservative Government, criminal justice funding was cut by 23%, we lost 42% of our magistrates, half of our magistrates courts were closed and the number of sitting days in our Crown courts went down. That is the record of the Conservative Government. The only thing that went up was the number of victims waiting for justice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the crocodile tears from the Conservative party today just show why the public should never put trust in arsonists to put out the fire?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

Talking of which, I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

Is that the best the hon. Gentleman can do? Of course the Prime Minister was not wrong—that is why jury trials will remain the cornerstone of our system. What a waste of a question!

[Nick Timothy]

I think the public will be disappointed by this behaviour. The Justice Secretary cannot get his story straight. Like the Prime Minister, he once said:

“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”.

Now he says they are a good idea, with his justification for this change changing by the minute. Last week, 10 Labour MPs voted against the courts Bill and 90 abstained. They are looking for a compromise—not in the House of Lords, but while the Bill is in this House. The Justice Secretary just refused to agree a sunset clause in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), so, for the sake of the 100 Labour MPs who do not trust him or his intentions, I will ask again: will he consider a sunset clause, or will he tell his own MPs no?

[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.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to improve transparency in court proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

15. What plans his Department has to provide adequate funding for the Crown court.

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

The Government have agreed a landmark £2.78 billion settlement for courts and tribunals over this next period. That includes £2.5 billion in resource funding—the highest level ever provided to His Majesty’s Courts Service—and £287 million in capital investment. Sitting days in the Crown court will also be uncapped for the next year, enabling courts to sit to maximum capacity.

[Anna Dixon]

For victims of child sexual exploitation, rape and serious sexual offences, the option of having pre-recorded evidence has been a really positive step forward. However, when I visited Leeds Crown court recently, I heard that too often the equipment does not work, leading to significant delays and even postponement of hearings, which is obviously terrible for victims. Will the Secretary of State outline how that investment will help victims get the justice that they deserve and ensure that the technology is available in every courtroom?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right that too often there are problems in the use of that technology for defendants in court, and sometimes there are problems between the prison and the court as well. That is why capital funding is increasing by 46%, enabling essential maintenance, estate improvements and digital modernisation. I am grateful to her for continuing to champion the issue.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Last year, Carlisle Crown court saw a reduction of 71 sitting days. Add to that the fact that Westmorland, our neck of the woods, lost our magistrates court in Kendal 10 years ago. Does that not remind us that backlogs are not because Britain has juries, but because we lack capacity in our judicial system? Will the Secretary of State restore those sitting days to Carlisle, and extend the number of sitting days in Lancaster, too? Will he also look at restoring magistrates courts to places like Westmorland?

[Mr Lammy]

As I said, the number is now uncapped, so the hon. Member will be pleased to hear that Carlisle will have the maximum number of sitting days that it can possibly have. He will note that there were substantial magistrates courts closures under the last Government, and a massive reduction in the number of magistrates. He will also have noted the extra funding that we have found, along with our ambition to increase the number of magistrates across the country.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

16. What steps he is taking to help improve standards in the bailiff industry.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

I want to start by expressing my deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Jeff Blair, one of our country’s court bailiffs, who was tragically killed last week. That was a horrendous incident, and violence against hard-working staff is completely unacceptable.

Since the last Justice oral questions, this Government have introduced a landmark Courts and Tribunals Bill to deliver swift and fair justice for victims. I also announced a £2.78 billion fund for our courts in the largest ever funding settlement, as well as uncapped sitting days. The Government have strengthened action on antisocial behaviour through neighbourhood policing, dedicated ASB leads and plans to expand visible, accessible community policing; there will be 13,000 additional neighbourhood personnel by the end of the Parliament.

[Melanie Onn]

Grimsby town centre is experiencing repeated attacks through antisocial behaviour, particularly by young people, and this is causing a huge amount of concern for shop workers and shoppers in the town. I welcome the Government’s additional funding for police officers, but what is the Department doing to improve the punishments and create an even stronger deterrent to these appalling acts?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy.

[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?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that those are independent bodies, but it is not a statutory definition. It seeks to allow us to intervene to bear down on the rising Islamic/Muslim hate that we are seeing across the country, just as we have had to do to deal with antisemitism and racism more generally.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

T3. My constituents living in private rented accommodation are looking to the Government to take action on the cost of living, rent and utility bills. The Government have legislated to stop above-market increases in rent, and I understand that the Department is consulting on charging tenants a fee to go to a tribunal. Could the Minister give me a little bit more information on this? What do the Government expect this policy to do to tackle high rents?

--- Later in debate ---

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

T8. Prison officers are beyond frustrated. They want the Government to sit down with their union, the POA, to negotiate a fair and realistic pension age. We were told in this Chamber over a year ago that Ministers were waiting for advice from civil servants. What does the advice recommend, and does it recognise that for prison officers, 68 is too late?

[Mr Lammy]

I sat down with the POA just a few weeks ago to discuss this and other matters. Of course, it is right that I prioritise investment in our prisons as I seek to support prison officers, who do an incredible job against the backdrop of a system that was horrendously underfunded for 14 years.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

T5.   My constituent Simon came to see me about his concerns following his family’s journey through family court arrangement proceedings. He mentioned a Both Parents Matter statistic that has stayed with me: 40% of separated fathers experience suicidal thoughts. What more can the Government do to support parents, and everybody, who goes through family court proceedings?

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

T9. Only a couple of weeks ago, I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill—the Police (Declaration) Bill—on a requirement for the police to declare their membership of societies or organisations such as the Freemasons. Given the huge and controversial reduction in jury trials, what reassurances can the Secretary of State give the House that judges will not be unduly influenced by their membership of such organisations?

[Mr Lammy]

This is a sensitive matter. My hon. Friend will recognise that our judiciary is independent, but I continue dialogue with the Lady Chief Justice on these and other matters.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

T10. My constituent Lucinda Ritchie is a disabled woman with full mental capacity. Until recently, she was living in her own home in Horsham, with NHS support. Against her express wishes, she has been moved into a nursing home an hour away from her family, and denied the right to return. Will the Minister look into Lucinda’s case, and will he work with counterparts in the Departments for Work and Pensions and for Health and Social Care to ensure that people’s basic human rights are protected in medical decision making?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Grooming gang survivors have told us that they were trafficked between England and Scotland. Police were aware of those allegations of abuse but failed to do anything about them. Will the Minister explain how the grooming gang inquiries on either side of the border will work together to ensure that the perpetrators, and those responsible for the cover-up, are held to account?

[Mr Lammy]

The sexual exploitation and rape of children by grooming gangs is one of the darkest moments in this country’s recent history. We accepted all of Baroness Casey’s recommendations. We are changing the criminal law to ensure that adults who penetrate children under 16 are charged with rape or equally serious offences for other penetrative sexual activity. I want to assure the hon. Gentleman of that.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Ministers will be aware of the campaign to make all court and tribunal transcripts available for free. Fees can run into the thousands, effectively acting as a paywall to justice. Do Ministers agree that access to the law cannot be based on wealth alone, and what will they do about it?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I have noticed there is a lot of debate on the role of juries at the moment—nothing gets past me. It might be a better informed debate if the researchers and jurors could talk about what happens in the jury room. The Law Commission recommends decriminalising that so it cannot be a criminal offence. Will the Government do that in the Courts and Tribunals Bill?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is something that I will reflect on in the coming days.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

First, I thank Ministers for inviting me to a meeting yesterday on unduly lenient sentences. My constituent, Tracey Hanson, and other campaigners like her continue to raise powerful points on the need for victims to have parity with offenders on rights and support. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government intend to achieve that parity during this Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Last week, Flora Page KC resigned as a board member of the Legal Services Board. In her letter to the Lord Chancellor, she said that she could not stand idly by while he halved the number of jury trials and ripped the heart out of our constitution. She also rebutted the suggestion that backlogs are because of jury trials, saying that was being used as a “cover”. Faced with such a devastating critique, is it not time that the Department thought again?

[Mr Lammy]

I am sorry that Flora Page felt that she was no longer able to serve. We took very seriously Sir Brian’s recommendations that we would need to make more investment, that we would need to modernise —we are doing both of those—and that reform was essential. We put out the modelling because we are serious about bringing down the backlog to levels that are acceptable to the population at large.