High Court: Business and Property Division
David Lammy Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The Government are pleased to support a judiciary-led initiative to modernise the structure of the High Court through the establishment of a new business and property division. This historic modernisation will ensure that the UK remains a global hub for corporate litigation.
It will bring together the current business and property courts into a single division, which will replace the chancery division.
The business and property courts are a collection of specialist civil courts that deal with high-value, complex disputes, including commercial, business, property, technology and intellectual property cases. These courts play a significant role in supporting the UK’s legal services sector and wider economy, with a substantial proportion of cases involving international parties.
At present, these courts are situated across both the chancery division and the King’s bench division. This arrangement can create challenges for users in navigating the system and leads to overlapping governance responsibilities.
Relevant business and property courts will be transferred into the Chancery division, which will be renamed the business and property division. Leadership of the new division will rest with the current chancellor of the High Court, who will assume the title of president of the business and property division.
The new business and property division will stand alongside the King’s bench and family divisions of the High Court. The individual courts and lists that make up the new division will continue their work as they do now, keeping their existing jurisdictions, identities and areas of expertise.
This reform is intended to deliver a number of benefits:
Supporting economic growth by strengthening the international profile and accessibility of these courts, thereby reinforcing the UK’s position as a leading global dispute resolution centre;
Improving access to justice through clearer structures and a more intuitive framework for domestic and international court users; and
Strengthening judicial governance by providing a single point of leadership.
Changes will be made through an Order in Council, which will be laid in Parliament in due course, alongside updates to the civil procedure rules, practice directions and associated court materials.
Further updates will be provided to the House as this work progresses.
[HCWS79]
Judicial Workforce
David Lammy Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I am today announcing my decision on pay for the judiciary.
I value the Senior Salaries Review Body’s expertise and independent advice in recommending a judicial pay award which reflects the important role that the judiciary play across the justice system. When making my decision, I have carefully considered the SSRB’s advice alongside the financial implications for my Department.
The SSRB recommended a pay award of 3.8% for all judicial office holders within the remit group for 2026-27. I have decided to reject this recommendation, and instead a 3.5% judicial pay award will be applied equally to all judicial office holders for whom I have responsibility, from April 2026. I highly value the important work carried out by the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. I have therefore prioritised funding to provide an award 1.5% higher than the 2% affordability set out in published evidence, but this has required tough choices within the Department’s spending plans. This approach carefully weighs the SSRB’s recommendations against the affordability constraints of my Department, as well as the wider pressures on public finances.
The SSRB highlighted their concern over the persistent recruitment and retention issues affecting parts of the judiciary when making this recommendation. I share these concerns. The major review of the judicial salary structure is the right place to address these issues through targeted reform, and presents better value than the flat rate pay uplift of the annual pay review. I look forward to continuing to work with the SSRB on the major review and receiving its report later this year.
I am committed to strengthening our world-class judiciary. I have already announced in December a record investment in sitting days, court buildings, technology and legal professionals. I hope this increase reflects the high value I place on their independence and commitment to the delivery of justice and the rule of law.
The SSRB’s report will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS53]
Oral Answers to Questions
David Lammy Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The Government are reforming the family justice system to better support families and children. We are rolling out the child-focused model nationally, developing a cross-system family justice strategy and legislating for new child safety measures that ensure that child welfare continues to be prioritised.
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful for that response. My constituent Olivia is an extraordinary survivor of sustained coercive control involving psychological, physical and financial abuse—a set of abuses that continued even after her separation from her partner, because of child contact arrangements, which left her in persistent fear for both her safety and that of her child. What steps are the Secretary of State and his Front Bench team taking to strengthen safeguarding in the family courts and to protect domestic abuse survivors from re-traumatisation, particularly when perpetrators use mechanisms such as child contact arrangements to continue their abuse?
Mr Lammy
The whole House will have sympathy for Olivia. The family courts must never be a place for perpetrators to continue their abuse. Repealing the presumption of parental involvement will ensure that children’s wellbeing continues to be the court’s primary focus when considering contact. Under the child-focused model, independent domestic violence advisers can provide victims with specialist family support.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
One of the successes of the family justice system is the family mediation voucher scheme. Two thirds of families who use the scheme avoid going to court, which takes a lot of pressure off the family courts. It started in 2021 and gets renewed every year, often at the end of the year or even when the next year has started, which creates huge uncertainty. Will the Secretary of State just say that he will make the scheme permanent from now on?
Mr Lammy
I can confirm to the Chair of the Select Committee that the family mediation voucher scheme will be extended for another year, giving separating families £500 towards their mediation costs to help them solve issues with childcare and finances without going to court. I will look carefully at the permanency of those arrangements.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
We inherited a justice system in crisis, with a backlog of over 80,000 cases—double what it was in the pre-covid era—and with victims, witnesses and defendants waiting years for justice. That is what truly undermines confidence in our justice system. Justice delayed is justice denied. Only by pulling every lever—investment, efficiency and reform—can we turn the tide.
Gregory Stafford
On the Secretary of State’s watch, the courts backlog has reached record levels, yet his answer is to weaken one of the oldest rights in our justice system: trial by jury. The backlog was not caused by juries and it will not be solved by scrapping juries. The Bar Council says there is very little evidence for the Government’s approach, while the Institute for Government estimates that it would save at most about 2% of court time, and even that may be generous. Why will the Government not drop this ill-judged proposal and focus instead on the serious reforms needed to cut the backlog and speed up justice for victims?
Mr Lammy
If the hon. Gentleman were serious, he would get on top of the detail. We are not scrapping juries; juries remain a cornerstone of our system. Just as Margaret Thatcher made changes to the jury system, and just as the Blair Government made changes to the jury system, we are making changes to bring down the backlog.
Sarah Pochin
On Saturday, the Secretary of State promised extra court time for anyone arrested at the “Unite the Kingdom” march, yet there are grooming gang survivors who have waited more than 20 years for their cases to come to court. How is it that he is able to find court time to arrest protesters, yet some victims of vile sexual abuse are waiting decades to have their cases heard in court?
Mr Lammy
I would have thought that the hon. Lady, as a magistrate, would recognise that the right to protest exists in our country and we defend it, but that where people spew hate or incite violence and where anyone causes criminal damage or harm, of course the courts will bear down on them in the strongest possible way.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Hon. Members fairly hold strong views on these reforms. It is notable that, in Scotland, the right to elect between solemn and summary procedure for certain offences does not sit with the accused but with the procurator fiscal, but the people of Scotland are listening to this salient debate. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must conduct the debate on the Government’s reforms without feeding the increasingly malignant narratives of certain groups who are seeking to undermine public confidence in prosecutions and convictions in every corner of the United Kingdom?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is fundamental that people have confidence in our justice system, wherever they are across these isles. That is why this Government are seeking to do all they can to get both the court system and the prison system out of the crisis that we inherited.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)
It must be absolutely exhausting for the Justice Secretary to hold on to an idea that only he still pretends is a good one. The Mayor of London is opposed to these changes and has tried to persuade the Justice Secretary to bin them. The Mayor of Greater Manchester is opposed to this ludicrous idea. The leader of Scottish Labour was opposed to this idea—and it does not even involve Scotland. The former Welsh First Minister was apparently opposed to it. When is the Justice Secretary going to get his ego out the way and bin the ludicrous idea of curtailing jury trials?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman makes his point with real force. However, he never talks about victims, and has not explained how we should bring down the backlog. The truth is that we are determined to bring down the backlog, and that is why—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Turner, I took the question; I expect you to hear the answer as well.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I come with good news: with increased funding from the Government, uncapped sitting days and improved disposal rates, backlogs in the Crown courts are falling. At the Old Bailey in 2025, the backlog fell by a quarter, in Chelmsford it fell by 10%, and Maidstone saw a 5% reduction. The truth is that proper funding for our courts and uncapped sitting days are bringing down the backlogs, but the Government are choosing to ignore that data and are persisting in taking a sledgehammer to jury trials, although that will not deliver shorter wait times for victims. Why will the Minister not trust those in the justice system who want to deliver for victims using the increased funding and resource that he has delivered for them?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising that we have seen a small reduction because of the increased investment I have put in, and because of the extra sitting days; the modernisation that we have talked about, and enlisting artificial intelligence in particular, will also make a difference. However, given the size of the backlog, if we are serious about bringing it down over the next few years, we will need reform as well.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I am delighted to be working with the Home Secretary and other Cabinet colleagues to deliver our ambitious goal of halving knife crime within a decade. In February, we published the youth knife possession guidance, which delivers tougher consequences for knife carriers. The youth justice White Paper published yesterday sets out how the Government will intervene earlier to stop children becoming involved in offending, and ensure that those who do are dealt with swiftly and effectively.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I welcome the Government’s knife crime strategy, with its ambitious goal of halving knife crime in a decade, and its recognition that serious violence is both a criminal justice issue and a social failure. I commend Thames Valley police on their hard work to tackle knife crime in Aylesbury and the villages. We have seen some really good measures, such as the knife crime amnesty bins, which have had a positive effect. As the Secretary of State knows, the challenge of knife crime starts with its root causes, which include poverty and a lack of opportunity for young people. We still struggle with that in Aylesbury and the villages. What more is the Secretary of State doing across Government to address these two root causes?
Mr Lammy
I agree that poverty, exclusion and a lack of opportunity are all root causes of crime. Our youth justice White Paper focuses on intervening earlier to address risks before they escalate, working across Government to tackle the root causes of crime, and ensuring that every child has the support and opportunities that they need to thrive.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Has the Secretary of State established the success or otherwise of knife amnesties introduced by previous Administrations in reducing knife crime, given the prevalence—and increase—of knife crime in many large urban centres across the country?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a role for knife amnesties. As it happens, I was out last week in Deptford looking at a knife amnesty programme. If he looks at the first item on my Instagram, he will see me doing that.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Last year, 6,397 knife criminals were sent to prison, and the average sentence was just over eight months. As the Government scrapped almost all sentences of less than a year, will the Justice Secretary say very clearly whether he expects as many knife criminals to go to jail next year as did last year?
Mr Lammy
The outrage under the last Government was watching knife crime go up year on year, while the hon. Gentleman was sitting in the Home Office—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Timothy, you get two questions. Can you at least wait half a minute before you jump in?
Mr Lammy
It is a serious subject, and I am pleased that after 22 months in office, we have seen falls in knife crime in the last year. We will continue with our knife crime strategy.
Nick Timothy
What the Justice Secretary just said about the record of the last Government was factually untrue, and he should withdraw it. He does not want to admit it, but it is his policy to send fewer knife criminals to jail. That is why he just said what he did. His White Paper was announced yesterday, and buried in it, on page 46—he can read it again—is his plan to not just go soft on young criminals, but make others,
“including vulnerable adults and young adults…subject to a different process”.
That is wrong. Can the Justice Secretary rule out weaker sentences, and a target of reducing imprisonment rates for any adult criminals?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman left us with a prison capacity crisis. The last Government had success in reducing the number of young people in prison—he knows it, and the record is there—and I worked with Michael Gove and David Cameron as they set out on that mission. The strategy we published yesterday puts public protection first. There will always be young people who have to be in custody, but we are determined to reduce the number of young people on remand in particular by working with the most vulnerable.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The Prime Minister asked me to lead work across Government to improve outcomes for boys and men. That includes a specific focus on convening and co-ordinating the brilliant work being done across Departments, including on health and wellbeing, education and employment, and masculinities and connection. Furthermore, yesterday we set out a plan for youth justice reform, which was the first in many years.
Alistair Strathern
The Anti-Slavery Commissioner recently called out the targeted online grooming of young men by county lines gangs. That is far from being an isolated case of such targeting. Young men growing up in Britain today are all too often targeted by those in the worst corners of the internet—from those in the manosphere to predatory gambling companies to get-rich-quick schemes. However, while Ofcom rightly has guidance for platforms about how to better protect women and girls from the specific harms that they can be exposed to, no such parallel guidance exists for young men and boys growing up in Britain. We are all worse off as a result. We recently convened over 60 MPs to write to Ofcom to urge it to put that right. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join us today in calling on Ofcom to step up? It is in its gift to do so. Let us get this done.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the Secretary of State knows what the question is.
Mr Lammy
It is an excellent question. My hon. Friend is quite right; there are many concerns about the online space and what it means for men and boys in a modern society, and there is an important role for Ofcom. I encourage him to write to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, and I will take a close interest. I hope that he gets a meeting with a Minister.
Amanda Martin
As the founding member of the Labour group for men and boys, I welcome the Government’s focus on prevention opportunity, because supporting men and boys is not zero sum; it benefits women, girls, families and communities, too. In Portsmouth, too many boys and young men are struggling with education, mental health and pathways into work, while many older men tell me that they increasingly feel isolated, overlooked and mistrustful of institution and politics. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with Cabinet colleagues about rebuilding purpose, trust and opportunity for men and boys across our communities? Will he work with me to turn this ambition into meaningful action for men and boys in Portsmouth?
Mr Lammy
I am keen to work with my hon. Friend on this issue. I recognise that there are real issues in her constituency in this regard. She will be pleased to hear that last month I attended a roundtable with some of the leading figures in the men and boys sector to hear their concerns directly from them. I am also chairing the interministerial group on men and boys. There is real excitement, right across Whitehall, about the fact that we can do something about this over the next two years.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
An often under-appreciated element of the criminal justice system is the impact that it has on fathers’ ability to stay part of their family. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) shared research conducted by the University of Plymouth about fathers separated from their children, and the impact of that on family life. If we are to rehabilitate people in prison, we must help them maintain their family relationships. Will the Secretary of State take steps to tackle communication barriers for those with young children, and improve the way in which children can integrate with parents in prison?
Mr Lammy
A few years ago, I set up the all-party parliamentary group for fatherhood. The hon. Lady is right: the role of fathers in all children’s lives is vital. There is nothing more affecting than programmes in prison, for example, where fathers who are illiterate and unable to write are helped to do so in order to stay in communication with their children. I will look closely.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the former Minister for victims, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for her amazing work. I wish the new Minister the best of luck in the role.
Some 90% of young men and boys incarcerated for violent offences have experienced or witnessed domestic abuse or another form of abuse at home. The Government are investing in increasing the number of independent domestic violence advisers available to adult survivors, but there is no like-for-like equivalent for children to access that kind of direct advocacy. Will the Justice Secretary consider that proposal, which a number of victims charities have advocated for, to ensure that young men and boys have the domestic abuse support that they need and deserve?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her tremendous work. I think the whole House will recognise that, as a Minister, she was entirely on top of her brief and she commanded the respect of victims groups right across our country. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I will look closely at what more we can do for young people who experience domestic violence.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Since the last Justice questions, the Victims and Courts Act 2026 and the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which both put victims at the heart of the justice system, have received Royal Assent. In the Gracious Speech, His Majesty the King confirmed that we will proceed with the Courts and Tribunals Bill to turn the tide on the Crown court backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims, and that we remain committed to a Hillsborough law to bring in a duty of candour for public service and rebuild confidence in the justice system. Those are yet more examples of this Government getting on with delivering justice for the British people.
Ben Maguire
Cornwall continues to face some of the UK’s worst legal aid deserts, with rurality and lack of transport adding to the postcode lottery. According to the Law Society, a third of domestic abuse survivors were forced to represent themselves in court, as even when advice is available, eligibility criteria often stand in their way. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss raising the income threshold for the legal aid means test in line with inflation and removing the capital assets requirement altogether to ensure that victims of economic abuse can access justice?
Mr Lammy
It is of course important that those who need legal aid can access it, including those in rural communities and victims of domestic abuse. We work with the market to mitigate localised pressures where they exist, by supporting a mix of face-to-face, telephone and remote advice provision. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a meeting with the Minister.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Let me be absolutely clear: prisoners are not permitted to have access to social media in any circumstances and face punishment if they do so. All cases are investigated by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service if they are discovered. A few weeks ago I visited our state-of-the-art digital forensics lab, which interrogates any phones found and provides evidence to bring successful prosecutions in court. I hope that reassures his constituent.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
This weekend, two marches came to London: one was condemned by the Justice Secretary; about the other—yet another anti-Israel march—there was not a word. Once again we heard crowds of people demanding intifada revolution and other coded calls for attacks on British Jews. If the Crown Prosecution Service refuses to prosecute the thugs who chant “Globalise the intifada” and other calls for violence, why will the Justice Secretary not change the law so that these people get what they deserve?
Mr Lammy
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that everyone inciting violence against Jewish communities in our country must face the full force of the law. I know he will recognise that I represent the Stamford Hill area of London, with its significant Orthodox Jewish community, and I am grateful that he has raised this. Can I just remind him that the CPS updated its guidance on hate crimes on 5 May, to ensure that people face the law as they should?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot allow the rich and powerful to use their resources to stop proper investigation, and I will be bringing forward legislation as soon as time allows.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
There is nothing more tragic than seeing young people, often from deprived backgrounds, preyed on by adults to run drugs and all sorts of contraband across the country. We will be bringing that offence forward as soon as possible.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising caseload. He also knows that the last Government closed courts right across the country. We are legislating for structural reform. We are investing £2.78 billion to bring down the backlog. We will continue to look closely at the needs in Kendal, but he recognises that it will take some time to address what we inherited.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Mr Lammy
Magistrates play a hugely important role. I was sad that they were cut back under the previous Government. There used to be about 29,000. The hon. Gentleman will see the recruitment campaign right across the country. We need a new generation of magistrates, and I want them to come from all backgrounds.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Half of all prisoners lack the basic literacy skills needed to navigate everyday life, only one in three secure employment within six months of release, and a third reoffend within a year. Rehabilitation, reducing reoffending, and improving public safety must be at the heart of our criminal justice system. Will the Secretary of State please commit to increasing funding for prison education, so that offenders can access the basic skills and support they need to rebuild their lives, reintegrate, and contribute positively to society when they leave prison?
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am sure it has not missed anybody’s radar that I recently launched a campaign for lifelong sex education, and last week I met some parish councillors, one of whom works in the Probation Service. She thanked me for the campaign because of the amount of re-education they have to do, particularly for young men, on what is acceptable within sexual relationships. Will the Secretary of State, or a relevant Minister, meet me to talk about the importance of lifelong sex education in re-educating potential reoffenders?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign and work in this area. It is important that prisoners and those on probation are re-educated about codes of conduct, and I am happy for her to arrange a meeting with the Prisons Minister.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking through the criminal justice system to support victims of violence against women, particularly those who report historical cases of sexual violence? Several of my young constituents have faced terrible communication, years of delay, and ultimately the Crown Prosecution Service not progressing with prosecution.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
My constituent Tam is a mental health legal aid lawyer who has seen demand in the sector rise while fees fail to keep up. As a result, many have left that line of work, despite the Government’s Mental Health Act 2025 increasing the workload. This is unacceptable when people’s liberty is at stake, so what specific assessments has the Department made of the current sustainability of the mental health legal aid sector, and what concrete steps is it taking to ensure the financial viability of that sector?
Mr Lammy
We have announced additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates, and an additional £92 million beyond that for criminal legal aid solicitors. The hon. Lady has mentioned the important issue of legal aid in relation to mental health cases, which we will look closely at in the next funding period.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on her first outing at the Dispatch Box. On Friday, I met Jimmy, an imprisonment for public protection prisoner whose case I have previously raised with the Prime Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Prisons Minister. Despite good progress, he still does not have a firm release date after more than 20 years in prison and over a decade since IPP sentences were abolished. Will the Justice Secretary urge his Department to do all it can to expedite Jimmy’s release and that of the estimated other 2,800 people who remain in prison on IPP sentences?
Mr Lammy
I recognise the real issues that exist for IPP prisoners—we have discussed those issues at length, and will continue to do so. The Prisons Minister has done a lot of work in this area, engaging with all of those who raise these issues on an almost weekly basis, including in another place. Of course, we want to do more and see those prisoners who are not going to cause public harm released.
Youth Justice
David Lammy Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the youth justice system in England and Wales. I am today publishing a White Paper, with a once-in-a-generation set of reforms to build a youth justice system that intervenes early, responds more effectively and does more to turn young lives around, so that we can better protect the public. I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and, before him, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), for all their hard work in getting us to this point.
Over the past two decades, the number of children entering the youth justice system and being detained in custody has fallen dramatically. This progress is the result of real cross-party consensus, with a modern youth justice system that began under Tony Blair’s Government and was continued, during his time as Prime Minister, by Lord Cameron—he famously said he would “hug a hoodie”—who, with Lord Gove, asked me to carry out the Lammy review.
But this success has brought a new challenge. Our youth justice system is now working with significantly fewer young people, but they are significantly more vulnerable and at significantly higher risk. Most begin their journey into crime long before they come to the attention of the police, their lives shaped by instability, by trauma and often by neglect—the kind of childhood that most of us in this House could barely imagine. Some grow up surrounded by violence, addiction and abuse, while others are moved endlessly around children’s homes or foster care placements, never staying in one place long enough to have the stability needed to feel safe, let alone the love and care that would enable them to really thrive. All those factors make them more likely to end up in the justice system. When we fail to intervene early enough, the consequences can be devastating—for those children, of course, but also for victims and entire communities, because around 80% of prolific adult offenders first enter the justice system as children.
The risks that children face have also changed. Today’s children are navigating online harms, criminal grooming through social media and exposure to extremist content. Too often the system has struggled to keep pace: opportunities to intervene are missed, warning signs go unnoticed and agencies do not consistently share information. This means that children can slip through the cracks between services, which risks escalation, and responsibility between agencies becomes blurred. The lessons emerging from the Southport inquiry, following the tragic murders of three young children by Axel Rudakubana, a violent 17-year-old who was known to authorities, are a terrible reminder of what can happen when systems are not sufficiently co-ordinated and not sufficiently decisive in the face of escalating concerns.
We must learn those lessons but also strike the right balance. The system must recognise that they are still developing and that most have huge capacity to change. We should not over-criminalise but, at the same time, avoiding criminalisation must never mean overlooking risk or failing to act. Benign neglect, however well intentioned, is still neglect. Where behaviour causes harm, timely, proportionate and effective intervention is essential to protect the public and to support children to change course.
That principle is reflected throughout this White Paper. First, we will intervene earlier, investing an additional £46 million over the next three years in our turnaround programme, which is already showing promising results in diverting children from crime, and by strengthening the join-up with other programmes that support children on the cusp of offending. We will also strengthen and expand the use of parenting orders, which can compel parents to address their child’s behaviour, including attending counselling or guidance sessions. If they do not act, they will face penalties. We will deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an offence of child criminal exploitation, building on the work carried out by others, including Baroness May, and placing the focus where it belongs: on the adults who groom, the adults who coerce and the adults who profit from exploiting children. Through new youth diversion orders, we will tackle the increasing number of young people who commit terrorism offences, allowing agencies to intervene before that risk escalates.
Where offending does happen, we will ensure that children get the right response at the right time. Diversion must be firm, fair and effective. We will fundamentally reform the youth out-of-court resolution framework, to improve consistency and public confidence so that children receive interventions that genuinely address their behaviour and cut crime. We will also pilot problem-solving youth intervention courts, laser-focused on rehabilitation and prevention. They bring together judges, youth workers and specialist support to tackle the root causes of offending, whether mental ill health, school absence, addiction or exploitation, while still demanding accountability from young offenders.
Custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences, but for many children even a short spell inside can deepen their problems, exposing them to more violence and criminal influence. So we are setting an ambition to cut the number of children remanded in custody by 25% over this Parliament, alongside an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences, which so often are ineffective, with more than two thirds of children going on to reoffend. Instead, we will invest £5 million in intensive community placements and stronger bail support, protecting the public while giving children a genuine chance to change course.
We will also reform the childhood criminal records regime, because mistakes made at 13 should not become a life sentence of closed doors and lost chances, not least where this prevents young people from getting a job, which is a crucial factor in helping offenders turn their lives around. We will carefully consider the age of criminal responsibility in this country, which currently sits at just 10 years old, to ensure that it still reflects a modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development. We will also strengthen local youth justice services so that they are better equipped to meet the needs of today’s children.
We will soon set out detailed proposals for a new approach to youth justice service oversight, and funding arrangements so that children receive consistently high-quality support wherever they live. That includes reforming the Youth Justice Board, sharpening its focus on continuous improvement of local services and transferring some of its key functions to the Ministry of Justice, so that Ministers are fully accountable for how the system performs.
I have been clear that custody will, where appropriate, be necessary for public safety. However, we will take further action to improve safety and education across the youth estate, while setting a clear long-term direction of travel away from large, outdated institutions and towards smaller settings that can better rehabilitate children.
The White Paper is also about fairness. Not all children in our justice system are equal. Those in care are still far more likely to be drawn into the system. Black children remain vastly over-represented—22% of the youth custodial population, compared with 6% of 10 to 17-year-olds overall. Black children are also over-represented among victims, being around six times more likely to be victims of homicide. I warned about this disproportionality when David Cameron asked me to do the Lammy review, nearly a decade ago, and the fact it persists today should shame us all. These reforms will begin to address that, building a system that is fairer and more consistent.
It is not a choice between punishment and rehabilitation; it is about what works: protecting the public, cutting reoffending, and stopping vulnerable children—so often victims themselves—becoming tomorrow’s dangerous adult offenders. This Government will do whatever it takes to give more children the chance of a better future, and to keep the British public safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is obvious that we are now in the legacy-hunting stage of this Government. Less a range of exhausted volcanoes, more a row of trampled molehills, Ministers are desperate to be remembered for something. This morning a word cloud was published by the pollsters at More in Common. The public were asked for the Prime Minister’s greatest achievement, and emblazoned across the page, in huge capital letters, was the sad word “Nothing.”
Today’s announcement, however, is a fitting tribute to the Justice Secretary and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). So desperate are they to find the causes of crime that they sometimes forget that their job is to prevent and punish crime itself. The truth is that Labour just does not have it in its DNA to be tough on crime. The Government have let 60,000 criminals out of jail early, they are abolishing short-term sentences—so that almost all shoplifters and the majority of knife criminals will no longer be sent to prison—and they are pretending that they are doing these things because they have to, but they are doing them because they want to.
The Prisons Minister says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. The Minister for Sentencing, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), says that a pretty big chunk of the overall population should not be in prison, and today’s announcement is more of the same. So I have some specific questions for the Justice Secretary. He wants to increase the age of criminal responsibility to reflect a
“modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development”.
From smoking bans to voting rights, this Government have a confused view of childhood, so what should be the age of criminal responsibility?
With a wave of sexual and violent crime committed by illegal immigrants, many of whom pretend to be children, can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those people will not escape justice a second time by giving a fake age to the police? The Government say they will review the function and purpose of criminal courts for child defendants, but the purpose of a criminal court is obvious: to try criminals. Can the Justice Secretary rule out abolishing criminal trials for under-18s?
The Government also say that they want to end lifelong disclosure requirements for the under-18s. Can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those requirements will still apply to people guilty of violent crimes and to prolific offenders?
The Government say they will slash custodial remand for young offenders by a quarter, but remand should be used in response to need, not arbitrary targets. What is the Justice Secretary’s alternative? Will he just send criminals home? Will he stick to that target regardless of the level of violent crime and repeat offending?
The Government want more parenting orders, but this morning the Justice Secretary said that they are not used much at the moment because all judges can do to enforce them is issue a fine. He was unclear on this question. So will Ministers—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman was asked on the radio this morning whether parents who do not comply will face custodial sentences. He fudged that question, so I am asking him to answer it now.
The figures show that young repeat offenders often start with theft and move on to drug offences and violence, yet the Government’s big idea is to stop punishing swathes of crimes committed by under-18s. The gangs who swarm shops to steal goods in places like Oxford Street, Ilford and Clapham do not need to be put on a course; instead, they need clear punishment, which can include prison.
The results of soft-touch liberalism are visible in towns and cities up and down the country, yet the changes that the Justice Secretary is announcing today risk amounting to more of the same. This is a big call. If youth crime goes up as a result, it will be on this Government.
Mr Lammy
The Tories have a mixed record when it comes to youth justice and keeping young people out of criminality. We should remember that their local authority spending cuts led to a huge fall in council services for young people—about 70% in real terms. While they were in power, £1 billion was lost, leading to the closure of many youth clubs, a reduction in the outreach work that is vital to keeping young people on the right track, and youth workers being completely undermined. All that early intervention work was stopped—an entire generation sacrificed at the altar of austerity.
As the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) will know—he was at the driving wheel—the Tories also cut 20,000 police officers and 7,000 police community support officers, leading to a collapse in visible neighbourhood policing. On their watch—[Interruption.] Conservative Members really should listen to this. On their watch, more than 1,000 Sure Start centres closed. Early intervention was demolished on their watch.
I said it was a mixed record because there was a fall in the number of first-time entrants into the youth justice system. Figures peaked at around 110,000 back in 2007, but fell to just 7,500 while the Tories were in office in 2023. When they entered government, there were around 2,000 children in youth custody; by the end of their tenure, that had fallen to just over 1,000. Those were great achievements. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman does not want to celebrate those achievements, which began under David Cameron and Michael Gove.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the age of criminal responsibility. As he will know, the Bar Council is consulting on this issue, and I look forward to receiving the conclusions of its work. He also asks about foreign national offenders. We are absolutely clear in this consultation that we will look at the 16 and 17-year-olds who arrive in our country from somewhere else and commit a violent crime; if they do so, I am afraid that they will be deported. We are really clear about that. We have driven up deportation in our country.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether we are abolishing the youth court and the criminal standard. Of course we are not. However, we are consulting on youth intervention courts because, just as we have seen in our family drug and alcohol courts, problem-solving approaches —gripping the young person, their parents and those who work with them; looking at the addiction and mental health issues and giving them support; holding the multidisciplinary teams to account—can really make a difference. We stand by that.
The hon. Member asked about young people on remand. We want to recruit a new generation of specialist foster carers, because it is much better to have a responsible, loving adult—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We used to have them.
Mr Lammy
Exactly—we used to have them, and the Tories abolished them. We want to bring them back and grow their numbers so that we can support these young people.
There are a range of things we can do through this White Paper, and I encourage the hon. Member for West Suffolk to read it in detail. A lot of his predecessors would agree with it. It is good work, and we need to get on with it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the White Paper, which shines a welcome light on an often-neglected part of the criminal justice system. The remarkable drop in the number of young people in custody, from a high of 3,400 a day, is sometimes box-ticked as “job done”, but when half those young people are on remand and a majority do not go on to receive a custodial sentence, there is clearly more to be done.
The Justice Committee is conducting an inquiry into children and young adults in the secure estate. While the Government are right to look at early intervention and alternatives to custody, will the Lord Chancellor also look at the successes and failures of the current custodial system for young people and how it can better rehabilitate young people and reduce the risk of reoffending?
Mr Lammy
We will look at this and do the necessary inquiry, and I know that my hon. Friend’s Committee is doing that work at the moment. He is concerned, quite rightly, about the huge rates of both prolific crime and recidivism. Clearly, the system is not working. We have this group of young people present in the system, and sometimes over two thirds of them go on to reoffend. We can do better, and we must do better. We have put rehabilitation at the heart of this youth justice White Paper.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Government’s White Paper represents a truly critical opportunity to transform the youth justice system and, importantly, reduce lifetime offending. We know that most offenders in our prisons today are repeat offenders and that persistent offending often begins early in life, with eight in 10 prolific offenders in England and Wales committing their first crime as a child. We must stop this chain of escalation, and the earlier we intervene, the better.
Nowhere is that more applicable than for children in care, those from ethnic minorities and those with special educational needs, who are disproportionately represented in the justice system. Will the Secretary of State set out how this overhaul will ensure that these children, given their specific vulnerabilities, will receive the targeted support that they desperately need?
May I take this opportunity to highlight the great work of the organisation SHiFT and encourage the Justice Secretary to engage with it? I believe that SHiFT’s model could be rolled out across the country, helping young people before they even commit their first crime?
Education for young offenders can be a crucial step in diverting them from a path to reoffending. We are pleased that the Children’s Commissioner will undertake a review of education in young offender institutions, but can the Justice Secretary ensure that it will take into account the fact that 80% of young people who are sentenced have special educational needs and make sure that the support they are getting in those institutes is fit for purpose?
The Youth Justice Board provides vital independent oversight of the youth justice system, yet the Government have chosen not to act on the report they commissioned from Steve Crocker, instead bringing a number of the board’s functions more directly within the remit of the Ministry of Justice. What is the purpose of those reforms? What benefit will the Government gain from bringing those functions in-house, and will the Justice Secretary address the concerns from across the sector that these reforms risk reducing specialist experience and weakening independent accountability?
Finally, will the Secretary of State set out how the use of parenting orders will affect the recruitment of foster parents, those being asked to take on special guardianship orders or kinship arrangements, and those considering adoption? If parenting orders will not apply to those families, how will they be supported effectively to ensure that this measure does not lead to further family breakdowns and more children ending up in the care system?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the manner in which she made her remarks. She understands that we have seen this revolving door, where two thirds of children and young people released from custody go on to reoffend, and many of those young people are extremely vulnerable. We have to do something about it.
I thank her for mentioning the cohort of young people —way too many—who are within the care system. I am very grateful that the Minister responsible for children in care, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), is on the Front Bench today alongside me. He takes a huge interest in the work that our Departments do together to deal with this area.
The hon. Lady mentioned young people who are adopted. She knows that I am a parent of an adopted child, and I take these issues extremely seriously. She is right, and we are looking in totality at the way in which parenting orders have worked. There must be something going wrong if the number of parenting orders issued has fallen over the last decade from more than 1,000 to just 33 last year. We have to look at it in the round and ensure that judges have the right tools to support parents and guardians over this next period.
The hon. Lady raises the reforms we are making to the Youth Justice Board. It is still the case, if we look across the country, that there is a postcode lottery. We have to eliminate that postcode lottery, which also exists because of online harms, because of grooming, because of mental health and because of neurodiversity. I was in Feltham recently and I saw the good work that it is doing with young people who are neurodiverse. It is important that the Department, working with our colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, bring some of these powers back to the centre so that we can get coherence across the country and end that postcode lottery.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome this statement and the White Paper. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that programmes such as turnaround are felt in constituencies such as mine in Colchester and beyond?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentoring turnaround, which is an important scheme that began under the last Government and has continued under us. It is making a big difference by diverting these young people. I will look closely at its use in her constituency, but we are absolutely clear that it is about not just diverting them but ensuring that we are diverting them to quality. We can see from the recidivism rate of 7% that turnaround is an exceptional programme.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Can I ask the Secretary of State about two things? The first is education, which he has mentioned. It is, of course, important to look at education for young people in a custodial setting, but does he agree that it is also important to consider the link between attendance at education and rehabilitation for those who have received non-custodial disposals, and will he ensure that his proposals make that link clear?
Secondly, in relation to advocacy on behalf of young people within the youth justice system, the Secretary of State will recognise that, with a smaller number of young people going through the system, it is more and more difficult to maintain a specialist advocacy profession and to ensure that advocates are properly rewarded for the very specific skills they need to develop. Will he look at the fee structure for advocates and ensure that we continue to encourage the right balance of skills, attention to conferences and that they get to know the client, which is particularly important for young people in the youth justice system?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his expertise in this area. He is right to mention the role that the education system plays, and not just for those in custody. There is more to do in respect of education for young people in custody. Too many of them spent time in their cells during the pandemic, and not outside their cells getting skills. We are looking at reforming referral orders and, whereas we previously had just volunteer panels keeping up to date with these young people in communities, we are looking a bit closer at the role of the judge and professionals in those referrals to ensure that education is taking place and that we have a more multidisciplinary approach in respect of the outcomes for those young people. I thank him for mentioning special advocacy and I assure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, is looking closely at this and chairing a group to look at the issues.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the White Paper. My right hon. Friend has acknowledged that 80% of prolific offenders first offend as children and that two thirds of children reoffend within a year after being released from custody, so does he agree that early and fast intervention is crucial to cut crime? Can he please also outline what specific youth provision, including mental health help, is available to young people in my constituency of Wolverhampton West to deal with this issue?
Mr Lammy
I will look specifically at my hon. Friend’s constituency. It should be the case that turnaround and diversion work can make a difference, and I hope it is making a difference in his patch. I met the previous Health Secretary to discuss these issues, and I look forward to taking them up with the new Health Secretary in the coming days.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. The Justice Committee heard that, as of February 2026, there were only 412 young people in custody, of whom about 44% were on remand, so when he says, with a great flourish, that he intends to reduce the number by 25%, he is talking about reducing a very small number—about 185—down to about 135. That is a very small number of individuals. Rather than making a huge effort, as he appears to be doing, to bring about this very small reduction, his efforts would be better spent on improving education and training in the youth custody system.
Mr Lammy
I say very gently to the hon. Gentleman that we can do both. We can improve education in our youth custody system—I entirely accept that there is more to do, particularly coming out of covid and particularly because of chronic under-investment by his party—but I encourage him to think a bit harder about the remand population. There is, of course, tremendous churn among the 400 young people who are currently in custody, and therefore we are not talking about a sliver of 25%, adding up to 135. That is not the case. It is significantly more than that, because over the course of a year, it gets into the thousands of young people. [Interruption.] He shakes his head, but that is basic maths.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the White Paper and put on record my thanks both to my right hon. Friend and to the Minister for youth justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), for their work on this issue. One of the most heartbreaking things I have to do as a Member of Parliament is meet families and young people who have been failed by the system after those young people have taken actions that have caused disturbance for their families and the wider community. Accountability matters, but one of the crushing realities I have learned as an MP is that state failure plays a large part in criminality and the lack of options for young people. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that youth intervention courts and other measures will begin to address not just criminality and the lack of accountability, but the lack of opportunity in training, caring, support, education and—particularly in my patch—apprenticeships, so that we divert people from prison in the first place and those in custody have opportunities when they come out?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and of course I know his city of Peterborough very well. Peterborough has a vibrant third sector, and we have to get it involved in offering opportunities to young people in the community. There is no doubt that there are lots of skills and training opportunities in Peterborough and the whole of East Anglia, and we want young people to take them up.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The White Paper contains many announcements that we, as Liberal Democrats, can support, so I gently ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evidence the Government have that the potential threat of a prison sentence will be an effective mechanism for compliance with a parenting order. Have the Government done an impact assessment, and how can he guarantee that the use of stricter punishment will not adversely affect the outcomes for the child involved?
Mr Lammy
I recognise why the hon. Gentleman has raised the extremely rare circumstance in which we would expect a judge to remand a parent in custody, but I think he will agree that the judge’s effectively having only a fine does need reform. That is why we have seen the number of parenting orders come down. It is important that we are there to support and encourage parents. I was hugely shocked when I sat recently in Highbury magistrates court, with a lot of young people facing quite serious offences, and there was no parent in sight.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome the publication of the White Paper. Education has a vital role to play in reducing youth offending. There is a strong link between the offences committed by young people and educational disengagement earlier in their lives. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the Department for Education’s work on persistent absence, exclusions, special educational needs and disabilities, and support for care-experienced young people is properly joined up to ensure that the Government have a focus on removing disengagement from education and reducing youth offending?
I welcome the work that the Secretary of State has asked the Children’s Commissioner to do on the quality of education in young offender institutions, but we already know that the quality of that education is abysmally poor and that action is urgently needed. Will he set a timescale for that work, so that we know when we will see the positive change that is so urgently needed?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing these issues. I hope that she sees an indication of what she seeks from the fact that two Ministers are working hand in hand and sitting on the interministerial group to direct this activity. There is more to do on education in the youth custody context and more to do on neurodiversity and its prevalence among this cohort of young people. We have to extend that work into communities and join up better with local child and adolescent mental health services as well.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I ask the Justice Secretary to explain a bit more about the intensive community placements to which he made brief reference? Can I put to him a particularly challenging scenario? Imagine that we have, say, a single parent—a single mum—who is very much afraid of her own adolescent child. She is aware that that child has been getting machetes and other violent accessories through internet-related delivery services. Let us imagine that she does what she is supposed to do, and what we would all think she ought to do, which is to report the child. Given that no offence has yet been committed by the child, what protection will be offered to her against potentially lethal violence from her own adolescent son?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Member raises a very serious issue, and it lies at the heart of what we are discussing, because we are seeing young people, particularly this prolific cohort, becoming addicted—often addicted online and often groomed—and this is where the knives and, sadly, the terrorism come in. This is not a stand-alone policy; the work of Prevent, the police and social services matters. Here we have to do better to join up that work, and that is the signal we got following the Fulford inquiry into what happened in Southport. This is an attempt to move directly in that direction, recognising that we are seeing that addictive behaviour in a cohort of young people, and that they are often neurodiverse. We need to support parents to get this right, and an intensive supervision court can make a real difference and put a judge right at the centre of that ring.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I truly welcome the statement and the White Paper. I am pleased to see in the statement a consultation to end lifelong disclosure to ensure that a child or young person’s poor choices in their early life do not define their future prospects as an adult. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the work I have done with FairChecks and Penelope Gibbs. I suggest that he considers how tougher accountability for parents or carers could go on to further affect the stability of families, especially when they feel they have been failed by earlier interventions or intervention services. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss this matter further?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not just for championing these issues from the Back Benches, but for the tremendous work she did while she was Children’s Minister. She will be pleased to hear that I met Penelope Gibbs just last week to discuss these very issues, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to look at what more we can do. This is an important consultation. A third of people on jobseeker’s allowance have an offence on their record. We have to do something to ensure that these things do not follow young people for the rest of their lives.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Devolving youth justice powers is hardly a novel argument, and the White Paper itself acknowledges Wales’s action on the prevention of youth offending. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether Labour will finally listen to the people of Wales, who have elected a Government clear in their stance on devolution, and allow Wales full powers over justice?
Mr Lammy
I look forward to meeting the new team in Wales soon to discuss what more we can do together.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I am so pleased that early intervention and working with families is at the heart of this Government’s approach. As a former cabinet member for children’s services in Denbighshire, I know how important that is. Will my right hon. Friend set out how increased investment in programmes such as Turnaround will help children in Clwyd North before they enter the justice system?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and she knows from her experience how vital this is. It goes back to the point that I was making about the postcode lottery that we see across the country. We must even up standards and ensure a universal element to this, so that it is not just a pick and mix from local authority to local authority. That is why I am bringing powers back to the centre from the Youth Justice Board, as well as empowering it to drive change and innovation in local communities. That is why we must continue with that £46 million funding for Turnaround over the next three years.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Let us be honest: tens of thousands of young people have been let down in this country by successive Governments. The right hon. Gentleman said that those in care are drawn “disproportionately” into the justice system, and all that talent—in my view, forgive me, God-given talent—is wasted. We talk about productivity in this country, but what about social productivity? What about social justice for those young people in care homes? It is completely wasted talent. People go from children’s homes, paid by the state, into prison, also paid by the state. Although I welcome some of what the Secretary of State has said, the fact is that the Government, and previous Governments, have lectured parents on how to parent, but the worst parents of all—look at the evidence; look at the data—are the Government themselves. Will the right hon. Gentleman work with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that social workers in whatever part of this country keep an eye on what young people are doing at school, follow up when they are failing in their exams, and ensure that they leave school with qualifications, so that fewer of them end up in the criminal justice system?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman and I have been friends for many years. I know that, like me, he has a deep Christian faith; one heard the power of redemption in his voice. I have long believed that the phrase “looked after” is one of the biggest oxymorons in the English language. Those kids are not sufficiently looked after, which is why I am so grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for Education is sitting beside me and doing such considerable work to turn this system around.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My constituents want and deserve a justice system that is fit for purpose, delivers justice for victims, and tackles crime properly and effectively. That said, poverty and deprivation play an important role, so will the Secretary of State assure me that there is a proper and effective cross-Government approach? He mentioned the Department for Education, but the heart of this strategy goes further than that. We need a carrot and stick approach, not just words.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right, and he knows from his long experience that the role local government plays, alongside mental health services and education, is vital, and we must do much better to join this up. Whenever something goes badly wrong, it is usually because services have not been sufficiently joined up. That is why the new intensive supervision course in this area can make a real difference for young people.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
In my 20 years’ experience in the courts, I have watched young people’s attitude change: there is no respect for the courts when they walk into the courtroom, and no fear of the police. Prison—or young offenders institution—sentences are no longer a deterrent, because they are simply not given out. We rarely see parents in court in support, for lots of different reasons: these children are neglected because their parents are battling alcohol or drugs, have financial issues or are out of work; or they are in a care system that is letting them down. I have visited care homes that I know let under-age youngsters go out at night and prostitute themselves, because nobody can keep an eye on them or control them. The care system fails those kids too. In places such as my constituency, I witness kids going out in gangs, subject to organised crime gangs. They need opportunities, they need apprenticeships—
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is going to give way and it is not going to be me. [Interruption.] Please, sit down immediately. I need to get everyone’s questions in. If you want to make a statement, you can apply for an Adjournment debate. I am sure there are many other ways to do that, but you cannot just hog the whole of this debate.
Mr Lammy
This is one of the few occasions—the first ever, I think—when I have agreed with the hon. Lady, specifically about the context for these young people. She brings tremendous experience to the Chamber as a magistrate working in this area, and we can agree about children in care, the adult grooming that we are seeing and parents often not being present in the criminal justice system—we have to do more to support them. She will find a lot in the White Paper that perhaps Reform can adopt as its policy for the next election.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for recognising the disproportionality that still exists within the criminal justice system for our black communities. Education and diversionary activities are absolutely essential to early intervention. After the anti-Muslim hate marches and anti-Muslim rhetoric that we saw at the so-called “Unite the Kingdom” march last weekend, how will the Government ensure that this White Paper provides our schools and youth services with the tools they need to prevent young people being radicalised and exploited by hateful, violent ideologies?
Mr Lammy
I know that my hon. Friend has a tremendous track record in championing issues of disproportionality in this House and beyond this place, and we are grateful for all the work that she does in that area. She is absolutely right that in this White Paper we are getting up to date and gripping the online harms facing our most vulnerable young people, who, in a care context, are living without sufficient parenting and are often groomed into terrorism and vile hate. We must do something about that. There are adults who we can gather together to make a difference in the lives of those young people.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I appreciate what the Justice Secretary wants to achieve on reducing the rate of recidivism. He said in his statement that
“custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences”,
but went on to say that there will be
“an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences.”
Will he add some more detail around the length of sentence that he considers to be a “short” custodial sentence? In relation to knife crime, he will know that the minimum sentence for threatening with a knife can be as little as six months. Young people already do not have much fear about being searched for a knife or facing the criminal justice system. If they know that they will not receive a custodial sentence at the end of the process, what deterrent will there be to their carrying or using a knife?
Mr Lammy
Behind the hon. Gentleman’s question is a serious issue. The evidence suggests that short custodial sentences have poor outcomes, with recidivism of almost two thirds, whereas good community support has far better outcomes, with recidivism down by about a third. This is not about just leaving these young people to their own devices in the community. With tagging, specialist foster care and secure accommodation in communities, one can make a real difference and ensure that young people are monitored, which sometimes does not happen in big institutions.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It seems clear that the lack of early-years intervention, the lack of SEND support and the cuts to youth services in the past 14 years have let down a generation of our children. How will the youth intervention courts bring together those agencies to tackle the entrenched root causes, including poor mental health and disengagement with schools?
Mr Lammy
I should call to mind not just the work of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, but the youth guarantee introduced by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and all her work to ensure that young people have opportunities wherever they live in the country. Turnaround is making a difference in bringing those services together. We are remodelling the Youth Justice Board, bringing more back to the centre so that we can ensure consistency across the country. At this time, expertise in these areas, particularly in online harm, does not always exist in communities, so we need to do better.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
On Friday, I was at Leeds Trinity University and met with a group of future teachers. They were talking about the exclusion-to-offending pipeline in our schools, and the challenges in meeting the needs of SEND children. Will the Secretary of State elaborate further on what tangible steps his Department will take with the DFE to get this right?
Mr Lammy
I am pleased that under the new Government, we have gripped the pupil referral unit scandal that was happening up and down the country. Too many young people were not even attending the pupil referral unit; they were effectively on the streets. When they did attend the pupil referral unit, they were not really being supported either therapeutically or educationally. That lottery is coming to an end under this Government. There is absolutely a pipeline into crime, and we have to be joined up for not just those young people in custody in the criminal justice system, but those young people who are often in a pipeline into custody if the pupil referral unit is not working as successfully as it should.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I recently hosted a screening of a short film called “The Orphan”, a dramatisation of a boy being caught up in county lines activity. It was directed by Leo Powell and supported by Stevenage borough council and across our local schools. I welcome the White Paper, particularly the new offence of child criminal exploitation and other early intervention measures, including the Turnaround programme. Will the Secretary of State say more about how that programme can help to tackle the disgrace of county lines?
Mr Lammy
At this point, it is important to mention the county lines programme, which sits with the Home Office. We in the Ministry of Justice work very closely with it, and it is making a difference. It is an absolute scandal that young people—as young as 10 or 11—have been travelling up and down the country ferrying drugs. No one knew where they were or what school they went to, and they had no support, but we are bringing that to an end. For the first time in a long time, we are seeing knife crime falling, and the number of young people falling into county lines is coming down.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Is he concerned that by reducing the relative punishment for youth offending relative to adult offending, he may inadvertently be making the young people of Spelthorne and across the country more attractive to be recruited by county lines gangs? That would clearly be an unintended consequence of his actions, but will he think again if it turns out that that is the case?
Mr Lammy
I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not be the case. The 412 young people in custody at the moment are there for public protection; they have to be there. Many of those young people are there because of very violent crimes, and some of them are serving very long sentences. Public protection must always come first, but this White Paper recognises the modern world—the world that we live in. It also recognises the vulnerability of the particular cohort we are talking about, which has changed vastly from 20 years ago. There is more that we can do with agencies to support these young people, particularly in communities, so that they are not criminalised, mixing and going on to the adult prison, and to reduce the overall numbers.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am the Member for Harlow, if people were wondering.
May I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his really important statement and the non-partisan way in which he gave it? I welcome the fact that he is sitting next to the Minister responsible for children, families and wellbeing, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). I have listened to Members across the Chamber, and it strikes me that to really make a difference to young people in my constituency and across the UK, we have to ensure that Government Departments do not work in silos. What work is the Secretary of State doing with the DFE, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we do not let any young people in my constituency and beyond be left behind?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does in Harlow. He knows that I know Harlow very well, because it happens to be the second home of Spurs supporters in the country. He will be pleased that just two weeks ago, I was sat discussing these issues with the Secretary of State for Education and my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington on the interministerial board that we have, which looks particularly at children in care and their outcomes, what more we can do, what more we can join up and how we can continue to make a difference for them. Over the five years that we have in this term in government, and it is five years—there has been some speculation in recent days that it might be less—I am determined that we are going to make a difference for looked-after children.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome these fairly comprehensive proposals, which I hope will seek to help young people who are either in the criminal fraternity or on the cusp of entering it. We all know that prevention is better than a cure—the old adage, “idle hands become a devil’s workshop” comes to mind. In Birmingham, where a third of our population are under the age of 20, we have lost a significant number of youth centres. In 2011, there were 59; that number has reduced to 16. What will the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State do to address this, and will he join me in commending voluntary organisations such as Real Aston football club and the parents who are coming together to fill that vacuum and support our young children?
Mr Lammy
I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise the work that Turnaround is doing in Birmingham to make a difference and create effective diversionary activity for these young people, so that they do not continue in a life of crime. He is absolutely right about the devastating cuts to youth centres that we saw across the country. It will take some time to rebuild them, but I know that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has a strategy. It has set about that strategy, alongside the youth guarantee that also exists for the young people of Birmingham.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement—it would be churlish of anyone in this Chamber not to welcome the White Paper’s proposals, which have been put forward in a positive fashion. Can I perhaps help the Secretary of State in a gentle way? The Youth Justice Agency in Newtownards in my constituency is doing a phenomenal job of liaising with young offenders to help them understand the impact of crime on victims. The reoffending rates of those who have been attending the Youth Justice Agency in Newtownards are significantly reduced, so could the Secretary of State share what he intends to do with so much understanding and development, which is something that the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit from? Newtownards is doing it; let us do it here as well.
Mr Lammy
On the issue of restorative justice, we are working with Jacob Dunne in particular to make a difference—he was involved in that punch situation. I hope to get to Northern Ireland particularly over the coming months, because I know that very good work in this area goes on there.
Youth Justice Reform and Delivery Plan
David Lammy Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Today I am publishing the Government youth justice White Paper, “Cutting Youth Crime. Changing Young Lives”, which sets out our plan to reform the youth justice system in England and Wales so that it intervenes earlier, responds more consistently, and does more to protect the public.
Over the past two decades, sustained efforts across the system have led to very significant reductions in the number of children entering the formal youth justice system and the number of children in custody. As a result, the system is now working with a much smaller but far more complex cohort, including many children who face multiple and overlapping vulnerabilities including substance misuse, children who are victims of exploitation, and in some cases children who present a serious risk of harm to others. However, the systems and structures designed for an earlier era have not kept pace. This limits our ability to prevent escalation, reduce reoffending, and keep victims and communities safe.
This Government are clear about the balance we must strike. Children are still developing and have a strong capacity to change, and the system must respond accordingly. But avoiding unnecessary criminalisation must never come at the expense of public protection. Where children’s behaviour causes harm, or where risks escalate, the system must act decisively. Firm, timely and proportionate intervention is essential both to protect the public and to support children to change course.
We will strengthen early intervention to prevent risky behaviour or offending from escalating. This includes continuing to invest in the turnaround programme, improving alignment with wider services that support children at risk, and taking action against the adults who exploit children and draw them into crime. We will also publish a strengthened national protocol to reduce the unnecessary criminalisation of children in care and care leavers, while ensuring that risks are identified and managed effectively.
Where offending does occur, children must receive the right response at the right time. We will reform the youth out-of-court-resolution framework to improve public confidence and ensure interventions address the drivers of offending. We will take a fundamental look at the function and purpose of criminal courts for children, pilot new problem-solving youth intervention courts, and develop specialist training requirements for lawyers representing children. We will ensure custodial remand is used appropriately and fairly, and modernise the sentencing framework to support public protection and rehabilitation. Alongside this, we will deliver proportionate reform of the childhood criminal records regime, so that people who have turned away from offending do not face lifelong consequences for childhood mistakes.
We will strengthen local youth justice services so they are equipped to manage risk and deliver effective interventions for today’s cohort. We will reform youth justice service oversight and funding arrangements, and we are reforming the role of the youth justice board to sharpen its focus on continuous improvement, so that children receive consistently high-quality support wherever they live. We will back innovation and modernisation through a new youth justice innovation fund, new devolution arrangements and better use of technology.
This Government are clear that, in some cases, custody is a necessary and appropriate response to protect the public. But we must ensure that children come out better than they went in. We are taking action to improve safety, safeguarding and education across the youth custodial estate, while setting a clear long-term direction away from large, outdated institutions, towards smaller, more rehabilitative settings that better support children to turn their lives around. We will set out further detail in a youth custody transformation plan in the autumn.
Taken together, these reforms represent a decisive shift for youth justice. A system that intervenes early to prevent escalation, provides firm and decisive community responses, and uses custody where necessary, is a system that will cut youth crime and change young lives.
The White Paper is being laid before Parliament today.
[HCWS31]
Prison Releases
David Lammy Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
On 27 February 2026, Dame Lynne Owens submitted to me her independent review into releases in error. I want to place on the record my personal thanks to Dame Lynne for the thoroughness of her findings and recommendations. I will deposit a copy of Dame Lynne Owens’ independent review into releases in error in the Library of the House.
I made a commitment to this House that I would be transparent on this issue, and today I have fulfilled that promise through the publication of Dame Lynne’s review in full, our immediate Government response, and a further ad hoc data release on this issue.
While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, I have been clear that the number of errors is unacceptably high, and recent cases have exposed deep-rooted issues across the criminal justice system. I am grateful to the police for all their work returning those mistakenly released to custody, and also want to express my profound sympathies to the victims of those prisoners who were released in error, especially to Hadush Kebatu’s victim, whose family I met last December.
As Dame Lynne states in her review, releases in error are simply one
“symptom of a broken system”.
As a result of 14 years of austerity, staffing cuts, failure to build prison places, and under-investment in digital infrastructure, the system was pushed to breaking point. This Government do not cover up failure—they fix it. We took immediate action to bring our prisons back from the brink.
These errors are still unacceptably high, but the numbers are coming down. More must be done, so today we are accepting Dame Lynne’s recommendations for any changes covered by this spending review period, and making up to £82 million investment to do so. We will go further on several of them, and I am committed to all remaining recommendations, subject to future funding decisions. We will work to bring down the number of errors over the medium term, with a plan to reduce them to pre-capacity crisis levels, and we will drive down the numbers year on year until we get there.
This is why I announced on 11 November 2025 my national five-point action plan to bear down on these errors. As part of this, I commissioned Dame Lynne Owens, the former deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, to undertake an independent review and make recommendations to prevent similar mistakes in the future.
While the review was under way, this Government have made substantial progress against this five point plan:
My new Justice Performance Board first met in November and most recently on 4 March. Chaired by myself, it brings together Ministers and the most senior officials within the Ministry of Justice to ensure greater oversight of the system and drive improvements in prisons and criminal courts, laser-focused on addressing key metrics, including releases in error.
To improve human processes and checks, an urgent query process with a dedicated unit and court experts was introduced, allowing prisons to quickly escalate warrant-related queries and reduce release errors. Since 2 December 2025, this unit has supported prisons with over 1,000 warrant matters. In March, we introduced new hourly checks in the Crown court to flag all cases where custodial status has changed. As of 13 April, this has already prevented 10 releases in error since 13 March.
I announced up to £10 million to deliver artificial intelligence-based solutions. The Digital Rapid Response Unit has been established and is developing digital and AI products to reduce the main causes of releases in error. Following successful prototyping and testing in selected prisons, we have begun deploying new tools across the estate. This includes using AI-enabled tools to automatically extract key information and ensure it reaches the right prison promptly, as well as linking data to prevent offenders from concealing information by using multiple aliases. These tools have been built by forward-deployed engineers at an unprecedented pace.
My Department is working closely with partners to simplify the release process to reduce the scope for errors through the implementation of the Sentencing Act, which secured Royal Assent on 22 January.
Dame Lynne Owen’s independent review was commissioned to examine the mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu from HMP Chelmsford, to consider the wider causes of releases in error, to identify any systemic factors, to assess whether current discharge protocols are robust, and to consider whether the data collected and published is adequate.
Dame Lynne proposes 33 recommendations to reduce the number of releases in error. These recommendations span data and digital; governance; system and process improvements; policy and procedure; and training and culture.
These fixes of systemic problems cannot happen overnight, and as Dame Lynne rightly warns,
“it would be foolhardy to suggest that all risk in a highly challenging operational environment can be mitigated or negated”.
But our ambition is clear: to drive down the number of errors.
Today, I am setting out a clear and comprehensive plan to address Dame Lynne’s recommendations, and to go further to bring releases in error back down to pre-prison capacity crisis levels. I will now set out how we will deliver this work in the immediate, short and medium-to-long term, guided by the key themes underpinning these recommendations.
Immediate term
Immediately we will simplify complex process across the system. We are spending £8 million to bolster manual checks across both Crown and magistrate courts. This will involve the recruitment and training of 90 additional Crown court clerks and 75 extra administrative staff in magistrates’ courts. This is alongside the joint His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and Ministry of Justice digital delivery team, established in November to improve information sharing between HMCTS and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service systems. This has enabled early progress against Dame Lynne’s recommendations, with the team on track to begin transmitting court documents directly to the appropriate prison record this month.
We have already revised the early removal scheme operational guidance to improve clarity for staff, and this updated guidance has been published. In addition, in line with recommendation 1 of Dame Lynne’s review, we are extending the use of body-worn cameras to all uniformed prison personnel working with prisoners and in the discharge process, and have invested heavily in increased training. Since the beginning of this year, over 6,000 key staff have received foreign national offender training, including instruction on Home Office protocols.
Short term
In line with recommendation 11 of Dame Lynne’s review, we are improving communication with victims in the event of a mistaken release, alongside increased digitalisation, and strengthening system-wide data collection and information-sharing.
We recognise the distress that is caused to victims who learn that the person who harmed them is free when they should be behind bars. I give an unequivocal apology to all who have faced worry or worse as a result of releases in error.
Ensuring victims of crime have the information and support they need remains a Government priority. We continue to invest in vital victim and witness support services, providing a record £550 million over the next three years to help these specialist services meet the rising cost pressures of delivery-facing services.
Last year, we introduced the Victims and Courts Bill to Parliament. The measures in this Bill will help victims get the justice they deserve and ensure victims are better protected than ever. They will also give victims greater confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release.
We also fully recognise and share the emphasis Dame Lynne placed on the importance of victim notification. To reflect this shared priority, we will accelerate our work to talk with the victims sector and ensure that victims’ views are heard as we clarify our policies on victim contact.
Our digital transformation programme is already delivering substantial progress. Several of Dame Lynne’s recommendations build on this and recognise that “technology is essential”, not only to reducing releases in error, but to the effective functioning of a modern criminal justice system. In total, we have already allocated up to £20 million for the financial year 2026-27 for the digitalisation of processes that underpin manual sentence calculations. This includes accelerating staff-facing tools and increasing digital and AI investment in prisons.
We are investing up to an additional £4 million towards accelerating the expansion of the calculate release dates service, automating sentence calculation to directly address releases in error. This service already covers 98.5% of sentence types with exceptional accuracy. Within two years, this acceleration will deliver a fully end-to-end system, with court data flowing straight into the correct prison record—even when there are aliases or spelling mistakes.
Medium to long term
In the medium to long term, we will build on the foundations created through increased digitalisation to drive reform across the criminal justice system, in line with recommendation 15 of Dame Lynne’s review. This will be driven forward by a new digital justice board, which will be established shortly. Dame Lynne’s recommendations underscore the need for a coherent, system-wide CJS strategy, including exploring how the use of biometrics could support tracking individuals across the whole system.
We are already working closely with the Home Office to develop Justice ID, which will provide a set of building blocks that together allow staff to consistently identify and track the same individual from arrest, through the courts and custody, and into the community. This will be supported by up to £50 million of investment in data foundations and in developing Justice ID, with initial uses to be rolled out this year. This represents a major transformation that goes far beyond simply issuing a new single identification number.
Justice ID will allow agencies to share trusted data that is complete, consistent and up to date. It will reduce duplicated data entries and minimise the risk of information being lost as cases progress through the system.
We are also actively exploring how biometrics, such as fingerprints and facial scans, could further strengthen Justice ID. This work builds on existing uses within policing to help verify and assure the identity of individuals subject to criminal proceedings as they move through the system. This transformation will also underpin work to develop a plan to phase out the use of paper records in prisons, as recommended by Dame Lynne, helping to reduce the risk of omissions, inconsistent record-keeping, and the need for staff to navigate both physical and digital records. We will begin rolling out biometric fingerprint and facial recognition trials within the next six months, and we expect full roll-out of biometrics across prisons before the end of this Parliament. We expect this to translate into a system where a single Justice ID allows us to reliably track individuals end to end, core data flows are automated, and there is measurable improvement in public protection, timeliness and productivity.
Dame Lynne’s review also highlights the shortcomings in recording releases in error under the last Government and since the general election, which led to under-reporting under successive Governments. We are working with the Office for National Statistics to ensure our statistics reflect the totality of releases in error, and will explore every tool available to ensure data shared with the public is robust and reliable.
In the meantime, I recognise that it is in the public interest to publish new ad hoc data, which is why we are publishing this today alongside Dame Lynne’s review and the Government response. These numbers show that from April 2025 to March 2026, there have been 179 recorded releases in error from prisons. Compared with last year, this represents a 32% decrease.
This Government have already accepted the blueprint set out in Sir Brian Leveson’s “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts” for bold, structural reform in our criminal courts. It is our intention to rebuild the system through investment, structural reform and modernisation.
Several of the broader recommendations in Dame Lynne’s review align with the cross-criminal justice system reform already under way following the reviews led by David Gauke and Sir Brian Leveson. My Department is driving this programme forward, and I am committed to ensuring that Dame Lynne’s recommendations are part of a coherent, phased approach to wider system transformation, recognising both current financial pressures and the need for alignment across the system.
To support this long-term programme, I have appointed a new second permanent secretary, specifically tasked with providing leadership across the whole criminal justice system. The Ministry of Justice will continue to work closely with other Government Departments and stakeholders to deliver these recommendations.
Public safety is the Government’s first duty, and I remain committed to bearing down on releases in error. The steps we have already taken and will take in response to Dame Lynne Owens’ review are leaving no stone unturned. We are backing this up with up to £82 million investment over this spending review period.
Through a combination of reform, improved technology and better practice, we will reduce the number of releases in error to pre-prison capacity crisis levels, and drive them down year on year.
[HCWS1518]
Prison Workforce
David Lammy Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I am today confirming the Government’s decision on the pay award for prison staff.
Prison service pay award 2026-27
Having carefully considered the 12 recommendations made by the Prison Service Pay Review Body for the 2026-27 pay award, I can announce that we are accepting in full the recommendations made by the PSPRB for all staff within its remit.
Prison service staff are some of our finest public servants. The role that prison staff play in keeping communities safe and supporting rehabilitation is crucial. Accepting these recommendations in full reflects our commitment to ensure that prison staff are able to continue delivering this essential frontline service. This also recognises the unwavering dedication of our prison staff, whose work is largely out of view of the public, but is vital for those under their care and to keep the public safe.
The award will deliver a pay rise of at least 3.5% of base pay for all eligible prison staff between operational support grade and governors—bands 2 to 11—with a targeted focus on the lowest paid.
The award delivers headline pay increases of:
3.5% for prison officer grades (bands 3 to 5)
3.5% for managerial and prison governor grades (bands 7 to 12)
3.5% increase for operational support grades (band 2), in addition to the national living wage increase that band 2 staff received from 1 April 2026. Operational support grades will continue to receive a temporary increase at 25% of base pay until publication of the 2027 report. This is while we finalise work to agree an appropriate permanent approach to unsocial hours working, noting however that the departmental and Government budgets and affordability position for the coming years are not yet known.
This pay award will be paid by the end of June, and will be backdated to 1 April 2026.
Against a backdrop of tight public finances, the Government have had to make tough choices across public spending. Within this context, the Ministry of Justice will fund this award from existing budgets and will require continued prioritisation across the Department’s spending plans.
This Government recognise the essential role played by the more than 6 million public sector workers across the UK, who provide the public services we all rely upon. Accepting the PSPRB’s recommendations is expected to further stabilise the recruitment and retention position in the prison service. This is vital to ensure that prisons have the staff they need to deal with an increasing population and ageing estate.
I would like to thank the PSPRB for their valuable advice and response to the Government’s evidence.
The report has been laid before Parliament today. I am grateful to the chair and members of the review body for their report.
[HCWS1463]
Oral Answers to Questions
David Lammy Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
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)
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
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.
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)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
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)
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
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.
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)
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
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)
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
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)
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?
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?
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(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 ExcerptsTuesday 10th March 2026
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 View all Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.