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.

Family Courts: Child Focused Model

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce today the national roll-out of the child-focused model, formerly known as the private law pathfinder, in the family courts.

The child-focused model implements substantial reform to private law children’s proceedings. With the help and close collaboration of hard-working professionals across the family justice system, the model delivers improvements to the court process and to the outcomes experienced by children and parents involved in these cases, including where domestic abuse has been a feature.

This Government remain steadfast in our commitment to tackle the scourge of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. We are committed to halving VAWG within a decade, supported by systemic change across society and sustained support for victims right across the justice system. The national roll-out of the child-focused model will contribute to this through co-ordinated early identification of risk in the family court, ensuring that children are heard and that victims of domestic abuse are provided with specialist support.

The model is currently active in 10 out of 43 court areas across England and Wales, equivalent to around a quarter of relevant cases. Under the model, families benefit from a streamlined, problem-solving approach that brings forward a holistic assessment of needs and risks, and that enables the court to make safe decisions without delay. The percentage of children seen by social workers more than doubles. Victims of domestic abuse and other harms receive expert support from independent domestic violence advisers.

The model was first piloted in Dorset and North Wales in 2022, and learning from these original pilots has informed our approach to implementation in other areas. Evidence from across the existing pilot areas shows that it is working. The model reduces the number of cases returning to court, protecting children and families from further trauma. The length of time that families are in proceedings has reduced significantly, with cases being resolved up to seven and a half months sooner. The backlog in pilot court areas more than halved, freeing up capacity for other proceedings. Learning suggests that the model is leading to significantly fewer cases per hearing and improvements in timeliness. The model requires all the dedicated professionals, magistrates and judges in our family courts to collaborate better and to adopt a problem-solving approach. A published process evaluation found that professionals are working more closely together and hearing the voice of the child.

The Government are committed to rolling out the child-focused model nationally over the next three years, investing £17 million in 2026-27 to fund the next expansion in the north east, the north west and the east midlands, which I announced in my statement of 25 February. This funding includes a permanent increase in social worker capacity for CAFCASS and CAFCASS Cymru, and for new domestic abuse specialists to work in the family courts. We will work to ensure that all areas are preparing for implementation of the model as part of a phased approach to roll-out that will see the model live across England and Wales by the end of this spending review period.

By putting victims at the heart of our approach, we are strengthening trust in the justice system and guaranteeing that the protection of children remains paramount.

[HCWS1408]

Courts and Tribunals Bill

David Lammy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am very proud to bring this Bill back before the House, because it will drive long-overdue reform to effectively evolve our 20th-century criminal justice system so that it is fit for the 21st century. This House will recognise that a particular kind of silence now echoes through the corridors of our courts. It is not the silence of a jury carefully weighing the evidence, or the hush as a judge delivers their verdict; it is the silence of waiting. It is the silence of victims who have been told, sometimes for the third or fourth time, that their trial has been adjourned because there is no judge, no courtroom, and no capacity to hear it. It is the silence of people like Katie, who reported her partner for actual bodily harm and rape in 2017 but, staggeringly, did not see justice until 2024, after waiting seven years. Her life fell apart over that period—it left her mental health in tatters and caused her to lose her job. This is an injustice. It is Katie’s injustice and the injustice of thousands of victims across the country, and this Bill seeks to redress that today. It builds on Sir Brian Leveson’s thoughtful and considered review. I am grateful to Sir Brian for all his work, particularly in getting us to this point with part 1 and part 2 of this Bill.

This Government inherited a justice system close to breaking point from the previous Government, who could and should have reformed it. The consequences of their inaction are clear: we have nearly 80,000 cases in the Crown court backlog. That is more than double the number in 2019. More than 20,000 cases wait for more than a year, and that includes around 2,000 rape cases. It is an average of 255 days before a Crown court case gets heard and finishes. For rape, it is a staggering 423 days. If we do nothing, the backlog is projected to reach 200,000 within the next decade. That is five times what it was in 2019. This is not a matter of efficiency; the progressive case for court reform is about whether the institutions of the British state can still deliver justice. For the people we were elected to represent in Parliament, when we speak about the rule of law, we do so as though it is a lofty constitutional principle, but the rule of law is not abstract. It is a public service. If that service cannot be delivered in a timeframe that allows victims to move on with their lives, the law is not ruling, but failing.

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

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the rule of law is a living thing, and the connection between the public and the exercise of criminal justice is fundamental. Central to that is the age-old principle of juries and jury service. It is a direct engagement of the public in something that otherwise would be remote from the vast bulk of them. Does he retain my view that jury service is critical, and that juries should play a continuing part in the criminal justice system, or is he determined to minimise the number of jury trials? That is certainly what his proposal looks like to the vast majority of people in the Chamber.

[Mr Lammy]

I absolutely retain the right hon. Gentleman’s view that juries are a cornerstone of our system. They are fundamental. This Bill is about protecting them. All Governments put thresholds on where juries sit. He will recall that one of his great heroes, Margaret Thatcher, made such a change in 1989.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the progress he is making. I am for reform. My concern, as his own review in 2017 highlighted, is that this will fall on people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and the inequalities that they already face. Can he reassure me, my constituents in Bradford West and people more widely that he will robustly review the impact of this Bill on people from minority ethnic backgrounds? Will he ensure that it is a meaningful review that holds weight?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend probably has more lived experience of the criminal justice system than many others in this Chamber. She has been a doughty campaigner on issues for ethnic minorities across our country for many years. I can give her that reassurance, and I will come to that point a little later in my speech. It is right that there will be a review, so that we understand exactly how our reforms—and, indeed, our criminal justice system in a deeper and better way—are affecting ethnic minority populations. I hope that she will engage in the ambit, scope and direction of that review.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to set out the importance of jury trials as a cornerstone of our democracy and justice system. They are in place for a very good reason. In the Lammy review, he previously emphasised the importance of jury trials and, in particular, the disproportionate impact on BAME communities. What has changed?

[Mr Lammy]

I know that when my hon. Friend is upset, his baritone deepens—it was not quite as deep today as it has been on other occasions. He will know that I take very seriously the review I did. I will say more about disparities in a moment, but if we look at that review, we see that it was clear that there is tremendous public trust in our juries. When I was asked by David Cameron to do the review, there was concern in some towns and cities and among some ethnic minority populations about situations where they perceived they had an all-white jury. They asked whether it was still fair. Broadly, it was found to still be fair, and there was no evidence that there were unfair trials in our magistrates courts, which do 90% of the work, or if a single judge is sitting on their own. For the reasons that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), it is right that we review how the system is working and fully understand how these changes will affect the system.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister and the Government are caught between a rock and a hard place. They have to address the backlog while trying to ensure that jury trials are retained. The general public have deep concern that speed cannot come at the expense of fundamental rights. I know that the Secretary of State will ensure that does not happen, but can he reassure me that any reforms will preserve the right to have a jury trial where that is essential to justice, rather than making piecemeal changes that will, I suspect, prevent people who need jury trials from having them?

[Mr Lammy]

Juries remain a cornerstone, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that what we are proposing is about protecting juries. Let us be clear, however, that the Bill is not just about juries; it is a whole package, and that is why I set out just a few weeks ago that investment was key. This is £2.78 billion of investment. As Sir Brian told us in part 2 of his reforms, modernisation and dealing with efficiencies in the system are fundamental.

Victims are worn down, people simply give up, cases collapse and offenders remain free to roam the streets, to commit more crimes and to create more victims. To restore swift and fair justice, we are pulling every lever available, with essential investment, modernisation and reform. Let me start by addressing the reform that has provoked the fiercest debate. The new Crown court bench division, or our so-called swift courts, are dealt with in clause 3 of the Bill. The new division will hear cases with a likely custodial sentence of up to three years, to be heard by a judge sitting alone. The independent review of the criminal courts predicts that this will reduce trial times by at least 20%, and Sir Brian believes that the gains could be greater still. It will free up thousands of hearing days for the more serious cases. That is not just Sir Brian’s view; analysis published today by the Institute for Government supports the modelling behind these reforms, and the predicted time savings that they will deliver. Let me be absolutely clear: indictable-only offences will remain for juries. The most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and grievous bodily harm with intent will never be heard in the new division.

This is not a new principle. Judge-alone trials operate successfully in countries such as Canada, where judges told me that such trials were as much as twice as fast as jury trials, and they are already a normal, everyday part of our justice system. District judges sit alone in magistrates courts every single day, youth courts operate without juries, and family courts deciding whether a parent can see their child always sit without juries.

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

When the Justice Secretary talks about juries, is it not right to point out that 0.4% of cases from the magistrates courts are appealed against, and that of that 0.4%, which is about 5,000, 41% are successful on appeal? What does he say about that?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is entirely right: 41% are successful, and that, of course, means that 59% are not. With the new permission stage, those 41% would still get through. It seems to me absolutely right that, in order to make the system properly efficient, we have the same set of standards. As is set out in the Bill, people would appeal from a Crown court beyond, as they appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown courts.

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

The Lord Chancellor has quite properly recognised the Government’s debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson, but will he accept that the Government have been somewhat selective in adopting Sir Brian’s recommendations? He knows that Sir Brian did not recommend that all cases that are triable either way should have the right to elect for jury trial to be removed from them. He also knows, incidentally, that Sir Brian did not propose an increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers to up to two years; he suggested that it remain at 12 months. What the Lord Chancellor has not done is adopt some of Sir Brian’s recommendations in relation to encouraging early guilty pleas, which would have a significant impact on the backlog. Why have the Government selected for priority purposes the recommendations that would have an impact on the right of jury trial, and not some other recommendations that would have a similar effect on the backlog?

[Mr Lammy]

We have, of course, accepted the thrust of Sir Brian’s recommendations, but there are areas in which we have chosen to go further—the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right about that—because of the modelling, and what it says the effect on the backlog will be. He will recognise, when presented with the evidence, that the backlog would be heading to 200,000 by 2035—notwithstanding all that has been said about investment, which we are putting in, and notwithstanding all that has been said about modernisation and the efficiencies about which Sir Brian went into such detail in part 2 of his review—because, with all good will, the reform proposed in the Bill will not get through this Parliament until towards the end of the year, we felt that there were some areas in which we wanted to go further.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will, and then I will make some progress.

[Ms Creasy]

I think we all share my right hon. Friend’s passionate desire to support the victims who are waiting too long to get to court, but that means that we also owe them a debt of truth. The concern highlighted in the Institute for Government report is that magistrates courts will struggle to absorb such a large increase in demand, so we may not see the faster justice that he is promising under these proposals. Will he recognise that those of us who cannot support the Bill as it currently stands think that the way forward is to look at the data and consider whether juries are actually a red herring when it comes to the investment that we so sorely need because of the damage done by the previous Government?

[Mr Lammy]

That is why we have uncapped sitting days for the Crown Court, and that is why I am proposing further investment in our magistrates. I want to get the number of magistrates back to more or less where it was when the Labour party was last in government. It was 29,000 then, and it dropped to 21,000 under the previous Government. My hon. Friend is right—we will have to invest, and increase the number of magistrates—but I hope that, given her long-standing record of working with victims in particular, she will look hard at the Bill as it continues its passage, and will ultimately feel able to support it.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am going to make some progress, because I think that otherwise I will upset you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I recognise that some argue that the reform risks eroding trial by jury, but let me make it clear that juries will remain the cornerstone of our democracy under these reforms. Far from diminishing juries, the Bill protects them, enabling them to be used in a timely fashion when it matters most. What we are proposing changes the threshold for juries; it does not change the fundamental right to a fair trial, which remains absolute. Since the Magna Carta, no part of our justice system has stood still. Governments of all stripes have changed jury thresholds—it has been business as usual for Governments. James Callaghan removed automatic jury trials for theft, burglary, actual bodily harm and certain drug offences in 1977, and Margaret Thatcher did the same in 1988 in relation to criminal damage.

There is not, and never has been, an automatic right to a trial by jury. In the current system, only 3% of criminal trial cases go before a jury. More than 90% of all cases are already heard, fairly, by magistrates and district judges across the country. Following our changes, about three quarters of Crown court trials will still be heard by a jury, including the vast majority of serious youth cases. We will also introduce judge-alone trials for complex and technical cases that tie up judges, juries and courtrooms for months—time that could be spent hearing violent and sexual offence trials. Our changes will ensure swifter justice and avoid undue burden on juries.

As the author of the Lammy review and a child of the Windrush generation, as a black man who has been stopped and searched repeatedly because of the colour of my skin, I know as well as anyone in the House that disproportionality in the justice system must be addressed, and now, since I published my review, 21% of judges come from an ethnic minority background. However, we must recognise that the status quo of the broken system does produce injustice, and the burden of that delay is not evenly shared.

Black people are 14% more likely to be victims of crime, and people from mixed ethnic backgrounds, such as my children, are 43% more likely. Defendants from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are statistically more likely than white defendants to be held on remand before trial. As the backlog has grown, remand waits have increased from 16 to 23 weeks. There is nothing progressive about a young working-class black or white man sitting in a cell for months on end, with no judge, no jury, no end in sight. There is nothing progressive about a rape victim waiting years for their day in court. There is nothing progressive about the Tory status quo. That is why tackling delay is in itself a progressive cause.

Following extensive engagement with Members of this House to ensure that the full impacts of my reforms are properly scrutinised, I am, as I have said, committing myself to a full independent review, which will look at how our new reforms will affect particular groups—working-class people as well as ethnic minorities—and assess more broadly whether justice is being delivered, not just in our new division but in all parts of our courts system, in a way in which no Government have ever done before, because sunlight is, of course, the best disinfectant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Lord Chancellor responds, let me say that many Back Benchers wish to contribute. No doubt he is coming close to a conclusion sometime soon-ish.

[Mr Lammy]

We are piloting the national listing scheme at Isleworth Crown court. I refer the hon. Lady to my speech setting out what we are doing in relation to part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review. She is absolutely right: we have to address all of the problem. Sir Brian was absolutely clear that we need investment, that we have to deal with the inefficiencies that the hon. Lady has talked about, and that we have to modernise our courts, but we also need reform. Look at the tables and graphs that the Institute for Government has corroborated today. If we are to see the backlog fall by the next election, we have to do all three things, not just cherry-pick.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Will the Lord Chancellor give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will not, given what has just been said by Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill will remove the ability of defendants to elect a jury trial for either-way offences. That is too often done by criminals to delay proceedings and wear down victims, preventing justice from being secured. Under our changes, the decision about where a case is heard will rest where it belongs: with a judge. It will be determined by the matter’s seriousness and suitability for jury trial, not by criminals gaming the system.

This Bill also strengthens the role of magistrates. As has been said today, magistrates’ sentencing powers are capped at 12 months, and cases that could be concluded quickly are too often pushed up to the Crown court, clogging up capacity that would be better focused on more serious crimes. We will extend magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 months for offences that are triable either way. The Bill does not increase the maximum penalty for offences; it simply lets cases be heard by magistrates without unnecessary escalation, saving Crown court time for the most serious cases.

[Joy Morrissey]

Will the Lord Chancellor give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will not, given what has been said by Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to make some progress.

We will also reform the appeals process from the magistrates court to the Crown court. At present, an automatic right to a full rehearing forces victims and witnesses to endure the ordeal of their case over and over again, even when there is little merit to an appeal. The Bill will introduce a new permission stage, which will allow judges to filter appeals and decide whether there are genuine points of law that require an appeal hearing. That mirrors the process for appeals from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal. To support that, we will allow audio recording in all magistrates courts for the first time, so that the record is clear and accurate, should an appeal be necessary.

Alongside reform, we are investing. There is a record £2.78 billion settlement for the coming year. That includes £287 million for vital repairs, digital upgrades and unlimited sitting days in the Crown court next year—the most ever funded in the history of our courts. We are modernising, investing in artificial intelligence and other technology, and expanding the use of video hearings to speed up justice. Working with the judiciary, we will bring in a new national listing system to end what some victims justifiably describe as a postcode lottery that has left some waiting longer than others. We will expand blitz courts to clear cases that are stuck in the system, and introduce new case co-ordinators in every Crown court to free up judges’ time.

Even with record investment and ambitious efficiencies, an unreformed justice system has a structural ceiling. That is why the third lever, reform, is essential. The projections are crystal clear: if we do nothing, we will have a backlog of 200,000 cases; if we invest and tackle the inefficiencies, as suggested by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), the backlog will be 133,000; if we pull all three levers, the backlog will be 49,000. The difference is 84,000 more lives on hold. Even if we implement all our measures, the backlog will get worse before it gets better—it will rise before we begin to turn the corner, prior to the end of this Parliament. It is important to be honest with the House: because of the seriousness of the situation, we must proceed with the full, undiluted package. If we step back from or water down action on any of the three levers, victims will continue to be forgotten.

This Bill puts victims first, as well as delivering the swift justice that they deserve. It will also strengthen protections for victims in court. In response to a Law Commission recommendation, clauses 8 and 9 tighten the rules of evidence in sexual offences cases, so that information about a complainant’s past can be used only when it genuinely matters, and cannot be used to fuel myths, to make insinuations, or to humiliate victims, as has been the case. Clauses 12 to 16 strengthen and clarify the use of special measures, ensuring that victims have access to screens, live links and support, so that they can give their best evidence and, importantly, stay in the justice system and the family courts. Clause 17 repeals the presumption of parental involvement—something that many people have campaigned for. That measure was created with good intentions, but it has contributed to a culture in which contact is prioritised.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

The campaign to introduce clause 17 was supported by my Conservative predecessor, Kate Kniveton, who bravely spoke about her experience of sexual violence. Will the Justice Secretary join me in congratulating Kate and all the other campaigners who have been involved in this change?

[Mr Lammy]

Absolutely. I also want to refer to the case of Claire Throssell—she is in the Gallery—and her sons, Jack and Paul. Claire’s loss is beyond words. She is with us today, and I know that the whole House joins me in paying tribute to her for her courage and her tireless campaign to ensure that others do not suffer as she has done.

Finally, the Bill brings the leadership of our tribunals in England and Wales, which have until now been separate, into the 21st century. The Bill brings tribunals into a judicial structure headed by the Lady Chief Justice. It modernises magistrates’ expenses rules, so that they reflect modern working life; that will help us to increase the number of magistrates across the country. The Bill also preserves the unique status of the Old Bailey as the central criminal court.

At its best, Labour has always been a party of institutional renewal. We do not worship at the altar of how things have always been; we ask how things can work better. We have a record of reforming public services that are failing working people. Despite opposition from small-c conservative institutions at the time, our movement delivered trade union legislation before we ended up in government. Bevan created the national health service, despite fierce opposition from the British Medical Association. Against economic orthodoxy, we introduced the minimum wage. Labour has a proud record of putting victims’ voices into the system. We introduced the victims code; we introduced the Victims’ Commissioner; and we bring experiences to this House, including those of Morwenna Loughman, Katie Catt, Vicki Crawford, Jade Blue and Charlotte Schreurs, some of whom are in the Public Gallery. Since taking office again in 2024, we have put victims first. We are introducing protections, so that therapy notes cannot be used against women. The tightened safeguards around how we use their sexual history are important and fundamental to this Bill.

The choice before the House is stark, and we cannot continue with the rising backlog. Clause 40 of Magna Carta is clear:

“To no one will we…deny or delay the right to justice.”

Today, that promise will ring hollow if we do nothing. Let us be the Parliament that chose to act. Let us be the Parliament that turned the tide. Let us be the Parliament that restored swift and fair justice to this country. I urge the House to support this Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Lord Chancellor.

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Day Allocations

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Written Statements

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

It has come to our attention that data tables were missing from HCWS1357, on the concordat made on 24 February, and these can now be found below:

Each year, the Government and the senior judiciary work to agree the sitting day allocations and overall funding envelope for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. This joint approach ensures transparency, supports long-term planning, and enables the system to operate within a realistic and sustainable framework.

Following extensive engagement with the Lady Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, the Judicial Office, I can confirm that we have reached a landmark settlement for 2026-27. This settlement ensures that courts and tribunals are equipped to operate at, or close to, maximum capacity.

For 2026-27, the Ministry of Justice will provide £2,785 million of total funding—£2,498 million fiscal resource and £287 million in fiscal capital funding. This represents a record investment in our courts and tribunals.

I will continue to increase the allocation in coming years. This settlement provides an unprecedented ability to plan for the long term. While this agreement formally governs the 2026-27 financial year, I have established firm funding commitments through to 2028-29 across all jurisdictions. By providing this three-year horizon, I am enabling HMCTS to plan more effectively, recruit with confidence, and begin to address outstanding caseloads with the stability that only multi-year certainty can provide.

The Crown court backlog continues to rise and stands at over 79,000 cases. My focus, as I have said to the House, is on victims who are being left to wait three, four or five years for their day in court. Central to this allocation, then, is the uncapping of the sitting day allocation for the Crown court for the next financial year, removing any financial constraint on the rate at which HMCTS operates. This will allow the Crown court to sit at record-high levels, hearing as many cases as possible, getting swifter justice for victims and tackling the Crown court backlog. Combined with our court reform plans, this investment will help turn the tide on the open caseload, enabling the system to move to a more sustainable footing over the period.

Beyond the uncapped capacity provided for the Crown court, this settlement delivers significant resources across all other jurisdictions. For magistrates courts, I am funding an allocation of 125,800 sitting days for the next financial year, up from 114,000 in the current financial year, and I am funding increases each year thereafter, with a target of 131,000 days in the final year. I have also set money aside for additional sitting days up to 140,000 in the final year of this spending review period if the system is able to deliver this.

The allocation also includes 80,200 days for civil justice and high allocations for the tribunals, including the funding to deliver up to a high ambition of 26,000 sitting days for the immigration and asylum chamber.

Additionally for family courts, I am funding 96,100 days in the next financial year, alongside funding an expansion of pathfinder courts in 26-27, which will greatly improve the court experience and outcomes for children and parents involved in private family cases, including those who have experience of domestic abuse.

To support this sitting day allocation, I am increasing capital funding by 46% compared to the previous financial year, to £287 million. This investment includes a boost to courts maintenance and will halt the long-term decline of the courts estate that we have seen in the last decade and a half. This investment will also underpin the system’s maximum operational capacity by supporting major estates projects and digital modernisation.

As was done for the first time last year, I am today publishing the total sitting day allocations per jurisdiction, and the firm commitments I am making on allocations for future years. The agreed sitting day allocations across the spending review period are set out below:

Table 1—Sitting day allocations for the complete spending review period

Funding at this level is expected to amount to the sitting-day volumes set out below.

Court Modernisation

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Written Statements

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

This Government inherited a criminal justice system on the brink of collapse. Trials are taking longer, hearings are being cancelled, and victims are facing unacceptable delays.

As the independent review of criminal courts concluded, without action, the situation will continue to spiral, far beyond the point of recovery. Investment is not enough; even with record financial investment and uncapping sitting days so that the Crown court can sit and hear as many cases as possible, backlogs will continue to rise.

Only structural reform, alongside record investment and efficiencies can deliver faster, fairer justice for victims. Earlier this month, Sir Brian Leveson published the second part of his independent review of the criminal courts, focused on driving efficiency and modernising the system. Today, I announce several initial measures we are taking forward.

IRCC part 2 interim response

I remain grateful to Sir Brian Leveson and his panel of expert advisers for the review, which highlights many areas where we can make a tangible difference to productivity in the courts.

Listing and AI-assisted listing tool:

Sir Brian makes recommendations to improve consistency across court scheduling, or listing as a whole. The responsibility for listing sits with the judiciary. However, the Government have a responsibility to support them. Sir Brian recommends standardising the listing process and taking a national approach for the Crown court—recommendation 92. We support this recommendation and I can announce that the Lady Chief Justice will publish a national listing framework to clarify the listings process in England and Wales, setting consistent principles for how cases are listed efficiently.

Sir Brian also makes recommendations to harness new technology, and AI in particular, to improve the scheduling process—recommendations 94 and 95. We are exploring how data and AI can be used to optimise scheduling and listing, piloting new tools that could support the judiciary in their decision making. We have begun pilots of the new tool in Preston and Isleworth Crown courts. Learning from innovation and technology in the NHS, we are developing the tools to give listing officers more complete information about how long cases are likely to take. If successful, this could materially ease the burden on judges and help to maximise court resources. Together, these recommendations will take us from local listing on pen and paper, to a national, digital and data-led listing process.

Case progression:

Sir Brian recommends an increase in our case progression functions to speed up court processes and case progression. Building on the recent pilot of a case co-ordinator function in the Crown court, we will create a cadre of specialised staff with delegated judicial powers to focus exclusively on progressing cases. I today announce that we agree with Sir Brian’s recommendation to increase the number of staff undertaking these case progression functions in the Crown court—recommendation 109—and will expand the role to every Crown court.

Blitz courts:

Sir Brian’s review also endorses an approach to court scheduling known by some as blitz courts . This involves intensive scheduling where similar cases are listed together over a short period of time, allowing courts to crack through outstanding cases in a focused way. At the discretion of judges, there are plans to use them in London to help address the rising caseload from April 2026. By uncapping sitting days in 2026-27 and beyond, I will enable judges to run blitz courts more regularly to enable more cases to be dealt with more swiftly. Initially the blitz courts in London will focus on cases involving assaults on emergency workers and then move onto other offences suitable for this focused approach, such as cases involving possession of drugs or commercial burglary.

Remote participation:

Remote hearings, where appropriate, can make the court system work more efficiently. Remote video hearings can avoid the need for the transfer of prisoners and can enable busy counsel to undertake more than one hearing a day. We believe greater use of remote technology can make a substantial difference to a modernised, efficient court system.

Sir Brian s review considers the expansion of online hearings and how best this can be done while maintaining fairness and transparency. While Sir Brian recommends maintaining the presumption for in-person trials, he recommends that other types of hearing should happen remotely.

This Government agree. That is why we are investing in modernised video infrastructure to ensure our courts and tribunals have access to reliable, high-quality technology. We are supporting the work led by the senior judiciary to introduce new judicial guidance to promote a remote-first principle and greater consistency for the use of video hearings. This will enable more hearings to take place remotely, which will save time, money and make the system more flexible. How hearings are conducted is rightly a matter for the judiciary, but it is the Government’s job to ensure they have the tools to deliver justice as swiftly and accessibly as possible.

Prisoner escort and custody services:

Sir Brian made a number of recommendations to address the late arrivals of prisoners to court, which can mean cases are held up or adjourned, wasting court time and delaying justice.

We recognise the problems we inherited in prisoner transfer with delays occurring at prisons, en route between prison and court, and at courts themselves in bringing prisoners to the dock. We are gripping this with the establishment of an oversight body chaired by the Ministers for Courts and Prisons to review prisoner transfer from end to end. This will monitor and drive performance improvements in prisoner transfer across the country.

We will improve how we communicate and share data and monitor Prisoner Escort and Custody Services and the criminal justice agencies’ performance more closely. Taken together, we believe this will ensure we have the right resources in the right places at the right times and mean we are better able to act where services are not meeting expectations.

We agree with Sir Brian’s recommendation that PECS should be enabled to use bus lanes when transporting prisoners. This scheme is in use in Manchester, Bristol, Salford and Nottingham. We will work with the Department for Transport to issue guidance on PECS’ use of bus lanes to all local authorities. In London, where traffic regularly causes delays, we are working closely with Transport for London to reduce avoidable delays and keep the justice system moving.

Vision:

Finally, Sir Brian recommended that the Government should set a single, shared vision for partners across the criminal justice system with clearly defined policy objectives. The Government support this recommendation and I will work with the Home Secretary and the Attorney General to realise this vision.

We are carefully considering the remaining detailed recommendations in Sir Brian’s review, across part 1 and part 2, and will set out a full Government response in due course.

As Sir Brian makes clear, improving efficiencies alone is not a silver bullet to the current crisis. However, improved efficiency and modernisation form a key plank of our plan for reducing the delays and restoring confidence to the justice system. It is only the combination of pragmatic reform, investment and efficiencies that will ultimately deliver faster and fairer justice.

Broader modernisation measures

Transparency:

The Government are committed to delivering the most modern and open justice system we have had. Openness and transparency is key to fairness.

Through the Sentencing Act 2026, we have extended to every victim in the Crown court the right to request a free copy of the judge’s sentencing remarks, giving them a clear explanation of how and why the sentence was reached.

Judges in the new Crown court bench division will also explain their verdicts in open court. Under a reformed system, every magistrates court will have audio recording, putting the decision-making process on record.

In the Crown court, the broadcasting of sentencing remarks has shone light on this crucial stage of the criminal justice process and gives the wider public the chance to see justice being done. We intend to build on this success and enable more judges to be filmed when passing sentence. I will be working closely with the Lady Chief Justice to agree where we can go further and broadcast more in order to increase awareness.

Digitising the civil courts:

Civil courts are where millions of individuals and businesses bring claims and determine disputes every year. A modernised civil justice system can help resolve disputes earlier and save businesses significant cost. We know that the current system has a long way to go. The public is right to expect that civil claims and processes reflect the needs of a modern, digitised society.

That is why over the spending review period, we will be investing over £50 million to progress digitalisation of the county court. In addition, we will invest over £20 million for a new digital system in the High Court.

The civil courts play a critical role in supporting the UK’s £7.4 billion legal service trade surplus. This investment is crucial in ensuring the UK remains a world-leading jurisdiction for international dispute resolution and supporting the ongoing attractiveness of the property and business court as a venue for international litigation.

This investment is not just about big business. It is designed to improve access to justice by cutting complexity and cost, and making it easier to resolve common, everyday civil problems, such as when a business is failing to pay a supplier for goods provided or a dispute between a landlord and tenant over the condition of a property. Over a million claims have now been issued on our existing digital services for making money claims and damages claims. Cases consistently progress three times quicker through their early stages using these modern, user-focused services.

The Government are working with the Online Procedure Rule Committee to develop rules for online proceedings that are simple to use, accessible and fair—fit for the digital age.

Lawtech:

Lawtech is central to the Government’s vision for justice, harnessing new technologies to revolutionise legal advice and dispute resolution. Lawtech is driving growth and has enhanced access to justice by helping individuals and businesses to quickly understand their legal problems. The UK is a leading jurisdiction for the development of lawtech; 44% of European lawtech start-ups are based in the UK.

We are making sure the conditions are right for lawtech to thrive. The Government’s industrial strategy puts legal services and lawtech at its heart. To support UK lawtech, I am committing £1.5 million a year for the next three years to support our growing lawtech sector.

[HCWS1356]

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Day Allocations

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Written Statements

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

Each year, the Government and the senior judiciary work to agree the sitting day allocations and overall funding envelope for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. This joint approach ensures transparency, supports long-term planning, and enables the system to operate within a realistic and sustainable framework.

Following extensive engagement with the Lady Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, the Judicial Office, I can confirm that we have reached a landmark settlement for 2026-27. This settlement ensures that courts and tribunals are equipped to operate at, or close to, maximum capacity.

For 2026-27, the Ministry of Justice will provide £2,785 million of total funding—£2,498 million fiscal resource and £287 million in fiscal capital funding. This represents a record investment in our courts and tribunals.

I will continue to increase the allocation in coming years. This settlement provides an unprecedented ability to plan for the long term. While this agreement formally governs the 2026-27 financial year, I have established firm funding commitments through to 2028-29 across all jurisdictions. By providing this three-year horizon, I am enabling HMCTS to plan more effectively, recruit with confidence, and begin to address outstanding caseloads with the stability that only multi-year certainty can provide.

The Crown court backlog continues to rise and stands at over 79,000 cases. My focus, as I have said to the House, is on victims who are being left to wait three, four or five years for their day in court. Central to this allocation, then, is the uncapping of the sitting day allocation for the Crown court for the next financial year, removing any financial constraint on the rate at which HMCTS operates. This will allow the Crown court to sit at record high levels, hearing as many cases as possible, getting swifter justice for victims and tackling the Crown court backlog. Combined with our court reform plans, this investment will help to turn the tide on the open caseload, enabling the system to move to a more sustainable footing over the period.

Beyond the uncapped capacity provided for the Crown court, this settlement delivers significant resources across all other jurisdictions. For magistrates courts, I am funding an allocation of 125,800 sitting days for the next financial year, up from 114,000 in the current financial year, and I am funding increases each year thereafter, with a target of 131,000 days in the final year. I have also set money aside for additional sitting days up to 140,000 in the final year of this spending review period if the system is able to deliver this.

[HCWS1357]

Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 2

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Written Statements

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

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases currently waiting to be heard in the Crown Court. Behind those case numbers are victims, many of whom are waiting years for justice.

That is why the Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of the country’s most esteemed former judges, to undertake an independent review and make recommendations for how to reform our criminal courts.

Sir Brian conducted his review in two parts, with the first part published on 9 July 2025. That set out a blueprint for structural reform in our criminal courts. Today, 4 February 2026, Sir Brian has published part 2 of his review.

The Government are extremely grateful to Sir Brian and his panel of expert advisers for their work and I will place copies of Sir Brian’s “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 2”—overview, and volumes 1 and 2—in the Library of the House.

Sir Brian’s second report makes 135 recommendations to improve the efficiency of the criminal courts. It is thorough and I welcome his ambition to see real improvements to the system. The report highlights many areas where existing process can be improved and where we can do more to deliver faster and fairer justice for all. It makes recommendations about new technologies, including AI, and sets out clear steps to help modernise the system.

As Sir Brian makes clear in his report,

“more money and efficiency measures alone will not be sufficient to allow the system to operate as it should”.

Efficiency can only be one part of our plan to deliver faster and fairer justice. On 2 December 2025, I set out why I agreed that structural reform is necessary, alongside investment and efficiency. We will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

We will urgently consider the proposals set out today, alongside Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations from part 1, and respond to them in the coming months. It is clear that we need to expand the use of technology in our courts and modernise the system to tackle the inefficiencies we inherited. Improving efficiencies alone is not a silver bullet to the crisis that victims are facing in our justice system, but it forms a key part of our plan. It is only the combination of pragmatic reform, investment and modernisation that will ultimately deliver faster and fairer justice.

[HCWS1301]

Separation Centres Review

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Mr Hall has said that in prisons,

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

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

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

and governors believe that they

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

He has revealed that

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anneliese Dodds]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Sir John Hayes]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Steve Darling]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Brash]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—

[Karl Turner]

We used to be friends, David!

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Nick Timothy]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Mr Snowden]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

Last month the Justice Secretary announced that he had

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Martin Vickers]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Dr Mullan]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

Separation Centres Review

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS1298]