Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Day Allocations

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court Modernisation

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

IRCC part 2 interim response

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

Listing and AI-assisted listing tool:

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

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

Case progression:

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

Blitz courts:

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

Remote participation:

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

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

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

Prisoner escort and custody services:

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

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

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

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

Vision:

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

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

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

Broader modernisation measures

Transparency:

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

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

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

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

Digitising the civil courts:

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

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

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

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

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

Lawtech:

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

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

[HCWS1356]

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Day Allocations

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS1357]

Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 2

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Sir Brian makes clear in his report,

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

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

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

[HCWS1301]

Separation Centres Review

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Mr Hall has said that in prisons,

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

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

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

and governors believe that they

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

He has revealed that

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anneliese Dodds]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Sir John Hayes]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Steve Darling]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Brash]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—

[Karl Turner]

We used to be friends, David!

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Nick Timothy]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Mr Snowden]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

Last month the Justice Secretary announced that he had

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Martin Vickers]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Dr Mullan]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

Separation Centres Review

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS1298]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 January.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr David Lammy)]

Mr Speaker, I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is visiting China and Japan.

Yesterday was Holocaust Memorial Day. For the first time, a Holocaust survivor, Mala Tribich, addressed Cabinet. I found her testimony profoundly moving, especially having recently visited the Majdanek concentration camp in Poland. We owe it to every survivor, and to the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust, to never forget. We will build a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre next to this Parliament, so that the voices of survivors are never forgotten and their courage inspires future generations.

I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the family and loved ones of Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney of the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, who died on Sunday. We will never forget the courage, bravery and sacrifice made for our country by British servicemen and women.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Anneliese Midgley]

I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister about Holocaust Memorial Day and that British serviceman.

This week, the BBC and “Good Morning Britain” have reported on the national disgrace of out-of-control waste dumps. For years, my constituents in Kirkby have lived with such a dump. People struggle to breathe, they are sick, they have to live with their windows shut and schools sometimes shut down for days. I have been campaigning on the issue with our Labour councillors, but the response from the Environment Agency has been slow and ineffective. Will the Government work with me to sort this nightmare and to stop the Simonswood stink?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The Government will work with my hon. Friend. The situation she describes is unacceptable and people are right to be furious. The Environment Agency is taking action to prevent further dumping, and we are giving it more powers and resources to crack down on fly-tipping. I will ensure that Ministers keep her updated with their efforts.

Speaking of garbage, I note that Reform UK’s spring-cleaning of the Conservative party is continuing this week. The Leader of the Opposition says that the Conservative party is full of unwanted rubbish, but the public worked that out long ago and got rid of them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

May I start by echoing the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments about Holocaust Memorial Day? We must never forget. May I also associate the Opposition with the condolences expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister to the family of Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney. I also offer the condolences of the House to the family of Lord Flight, one of my predecessors in Arundel and South Downs, who served in Parliament with distinction for more than two decades.

After the Chancellor’s U-turn yesterday, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that over 90% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will get nothing?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I welcome the shadow Business Secretary to the Dispatch Box and join him in his condolences—I remember Lord Flight well from when I arrived in this House. It is always a pleasure to hear from the co-author of the mini-Budget and the man who said that Liz Truss had

“the best plan to deliver for the voters.”

Do you remember that?

Of course, all of us want to see our pubs in good health and to support hospitality. That is why the Chancellor announced a £4 billion package of support. Yesterday, in addition, it was announced that business rates for pubs and music venues will be cut by 15% this year and frozen for the next two years, and we will review the methodology for valuing pubs in the future. I must say that contrasts with the Conservatives, who saw 7,000 pubs close under their watch.

[Andrew Griffith]

The Deputy Prime Minister wants to talk about experience. I spent 25 years building businesses and creating jobs; he spent 25 years manufacturing grievance. If the Labour party knew anything about business, it would know that this is too little, too late. Our high streets—their high streets—are bleeding out, and the Chancellor is handing out—[Interruption.] Government Members do not want to hear this. Our high streets are bleeding out, and the Chancellor is handing out a box of sticking plasters. They cannot even U-turn properly. A senior adviser to Andy Burnham said yesterday:

“The Chancellor just wants a cheap headline”.

Meanwhile, our high streets are being decimated. He is right, isn’t he?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman talks about business. We know what his plan for business is. This is the man who opposed the minimum wage and said that it was

“simply something that legislators pass to make themselves feel good.”

Let me tell him that raising the minimum wage does not make us feel good; it changes lives. Labour is proud of how we are supporting small business. On small business, we are creating hospitality zones to cut red tape, creating greater licensing freedoms, which are very important, and tackling late payments. All of that is supporting business. That is a far cry from what small business saw before.

[Andrew Griffith]

You do not make young people better off by putting them out of work. The Deputy Prime Minister’s MPs are already banned from pubs. Where next? Shops, restaurants, hair salons—that might not make a difference to him or to me, but it would for many of them. They should back our plan to scrap business rates, but they have not got the backbone to cut welfare to pay for it. It is not just business rates; under Labour, the cost of hiring is up. Can he tell the House how much more it costs to hire a 21-year-old under Labour?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman talks about young people. The Conservatives left a shameful legacy: one in eight young people were not earning or learning when they left office. We are investing a record amount in apprenticeships, which the Conservatives had on their knees. We are creating technical excellence colleges for our young people, and Alan Milburn is doing a review on young people who are currently out of work. By contrast, the Conservatives would freeze the minimum wage and oppose giving young people an increase. They have nothing to say for the next generation.

[Andrew Griffith]

Mr Speaker, you can feel the Deputy Prime Minister’s frustration. The Prime Minister is away, the Business Secretary is away, and here he is—left-behind Lammy, the designated survivor, having to defend the indefensible. It is very clear that he does not know the answer, so let me tell him. The cost will be up by £3,600 a year. Under Labour, businesses cannot afford to hire, and one in six young people cannot find a job. This Government are blocking people who just want to get on in life—ambitious people like Andy from Manchester, having his dreams crushed by Labour. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why unemployment has gone up almost every month that the Government have been in office?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The shadow Business Secretary should check his facts—500,000 more people are in work than a year ago under us. He is in no position to lecture anyone about U-turns, by the way; this man was Boris Johnson’s net zero business champion, and now he opposes the renewable investment that is creating jobs and opportunities right across the country.

[Andrew Griffith]

The thing that the Deputy Prime Minister did not want to say is that every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they arrived. There is a reason for that: they do not understand what it takes to be an employer. They do not understand business. The Government are strangling business with their red tape, and they are about to make things infinitely worse. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us his Government’s own estimate of the cost to business of the unemployment Act?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I will take no lectures from the hon. Member on business. My father was run out of business under the Thatcher Government—I know what it is like to grow up under a Tory Government. While we are talking about it, 26 Tory MPs and counting have already defected to Reform. Now they are all counting down, because today is 100 days until the Tory transfer window slams shut. It is going to be the longest and most disloyal transfer saga since Sol Campbell left Spurs, and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I do not know where he is—has signed three right wingers in the past fortnight.

[Andrew Griffith]

I do not know what is in the Deputy Prime Minister’s head; it is our party that is getting stronger. Overnight we learned that the former Deputy Prime Minister has got 80 names. On Sunday we learned that the Health Secretary’s allies claim he has got 200 names. Oddly, 50 Labour Members want the Mayor of Greater Manchester, who is not even an MP. They are supposed to be running the country.

Once again, small businesses across this country will see that the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer the question, so I will tell him. The burden to businesses of the Government’s Bill is £1 billion a year. There we have it: they have no answers for small business, and there is no relief coming. They do not care about high streets, hotels, restaurants, farmers or young people. Will the Deputy Prime Minister not admit what the Members behind him are thinking: that it is not the Prime Minister going to China that is the problem; it is the fear that he might come back?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Let us face it, the shadow Business Secretary is not going to get this gig again, is he?

I have set out our position very clearly. This was the week when the Leader of the Opposition told “Desert Island Discs” that Britain needs to learn to queue again, and Tory MPs have taken her quite literally—they are lining up outside the office of the Member for Clacton while they squabble about the damage that they did to our country. Labour this week is capping ground rents, cutting the cost of living and rebuilding our public services. That is the difference a Labour Government make, and there is much more to come.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Q2. Elemore Hall school is a fantastic multi-site provision, supporting more than 200 of County Durham’s vulnerable young people with social, emotional and mental health difficulties. Its personalised alternative curriculum centre in Durham caters for 20 key stage 4 pupils, but special educational needs provision in Durham is at crisis point. With an extra school site and PACC extension, Elemore could offer more young people opportunities to thrive locally, saving thousands in costs for alternative provision and taxis. Will the Deputy Prime Minister arrange for a Department for Education Minister to visit the PACC site, and will the Government work with me to support the urgent need for additional school facilities and PACC accommodation, so that young people in Durham can access the education they deserve closer to home?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We are focused on fixing the SEN system so that every child, wherever they live, has the support they need to thrive. We will continue our national conversation on reforms. We are also boosting investment into SEN. That includes £200 million to roll out more training for teachers and over £100 million for Durham county council. I am sure that a Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and visit the site at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

On behalf of my party, may I join the Deputy Prime Minister in marking Holocaust Memorial Day? We will not forget. We also honour the service of Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney, who died on Sunday.

While the Chinese regime still holds British citizen Jimmy Lai captive in prison, and while the Chinese regime continues to hunt down pro-democracy protesters on the streets of Britain with bounties on their heads, the British Prime Minister has gone cap in hand to China to ask for a trade deal, on the promise of a super-embassy from which the Chinese regime will continue to spy on us. The Chinese regime remains undeterred in its illegal actions against the UK and our citizens, so can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to name one single consequence that the Chinese regime will face if they do not stop their campaign of espionage and repression?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

China matters, and ignoring it would be a dereliction of duty. We will build a consistent, long-term and strategic approach that is grounded in reality. I set that out in the China audit statement I made a few months ago, and it is what our allies do. President Trump, President Macron, Chancellor Merz, Prime Minister Carney are all visiting and engaging. We will co-operate where we can—I am sure that, in areas like climate, the hon. Lady would expect us to co-operate—and we will challenge in areas where we disagree. That is the way that we deliver for the public of this country.

[Daisy Cooper]

I note that the Deputy Prime Minister could not name one single consequence if the Chinese do not stop their espionage and repression. The Deputy Prime Minister has responded as if the world has not changed, but with Russia waging war in Europe, with the Chinese hunting pro-democracy protesters on our streets, and with President Trump undermining NATO and the rules-based order that keeps us safe, we have got to act with urgency to strengthen our alliances with trusted allies in Europe and the Commonwealth, and we have got to ramp up defence spending now. Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider as a first step the Liberal Democrat plan to issue defence bonds to raise £20 billion in the next two years, so that we can rebuild our armed forces and give British savers the opportunity to invest in the defence of our nation?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have been here long enough to remember when Labour left office. We were spending 2.5% on defence. When the Liberal Democrats were in government with the Conservatives, they cut it.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Q3.   Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the good work of this Labour Government to get the NHS back on its feet, with waiting lists down—they are down by 2,400 in my constituency—as well as ambulance waits down and prescription charges frozen, could be put at risk by Reform UK, as was confirmed at the weekend, when the last-but-one defector, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), was asked about a private health insurance system and replied, “I don’t object to that”?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right—waiting lists are down by 3,200 in his local area—and he is also right to highlight the progress with our plan to get the NHS back on its feet. Thanks to this Labour Government’s decisions, waiting lists have fallen by over 300,000 since the election, and we have delivered 5.2 million extra appointments, slashed ambulance response times and recruited 3,000 more GPs. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) confirmed at the weekend that Reform would support privatisation of the national health service. Labour will never let it happen. Reform cannot be trusted with our national health service.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

This week marks two years from the attempted great deception on the part of the former Government and the Democratic Unionist party that the Irish sea border was gone. “No checks, no paperwork” was the strapline. Yet within the first few months of this new year alone, we have seen the imposition of a veterinary medicine border and a ban on new GB cars being sold in Northern Ireland. Now the European Union says that it plans to impose a €3 charge on small parcels coming into Northern Ireland from July onwards. What sort of Government allows a foreign power to impose a tax on parcels coming into its own territory?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I looked at this specifically when I was Foreign Secretary. We have provided a wide range of guidance and support for businesses and we have not seen evidence of significant disruption to the flow of parcels, but of course His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs stands ready to provide support wherever businesses have difficulties.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q4. When the Prime Minister visited Ely in my constituency recently to launch the UK child poverty strategy, I took the opportunity to discuss with him the much-needed Pride in Place funding that we want in Ely and Caerau. My constituents are telling me that they want important things such as a youth zone and provision for recreational sports activities. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss securing this vital funding for my constituents in Ely and Caerau?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the appropriate Minister. Look at the difference that Labour is making in Wales: NHS waiting lists have fallen six months in a row thanks to the largest ever devolution settlement; £445 million has gone into Welsh rail; and we have new offshore wind projects, AI growth zones and the UK’s small modular reactor in Anglesey. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Q5.   The Met Office reports that climate change is driving wetter winters, but the United States withdrew from the Paris climate agreement yesterday, on the same day that much of the west country disappeared under floodwater. My part of Devon is submerged, and needs better flood defences. Would the Deputy Prime Minister like to invite his US counterpart on a fishing trip to the south-west?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Well, I will get a licence if I do!

My sympathies are with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who have been affected by the recent floods. We are investing a record £10.5 billion in flood defences to protect 890,000 homes. The flood defences are of course inherited from the Conservative party, which was shameful, but we have committed to net zero and to the Paris agreement; it is good for lowering bills, and good for jobs and investment in the UK.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

Q6. In my borough, the social housing waiting list exceeds 7,000 live applications. Council housing offers my constituents the safety and security they deserve. What further steps can the Government take to speed up the delivery of the social and affordable homes programme, and build the high-quality social housing that my constituents deserve?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We on this side of the House believe in council housing. We are investing £39 billion to deliver the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation. That will deliver 300,000 social and affordable homes, with at least 60% for social rent, and we will bring forward legislation to strengthen councils’ ability to buy back homes sold under the right-to-buy scheme.

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

Q7. The Scottish press is full of stories about the plot by Scottish Labour MPs to bring down the Prime Minister. One Scottish Labour MP said he is terrible, another Scottish Labour MP said the handling of the Budget had been incompetent, and yet another Scottish Labour MP predicted that Scottish Labour will be slaughtered in May’s election. They are not wrong, are they?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The people of Scotland have a big decision to make later on this year—certainly not to vote Conservative, but to get rid of the SNP and vote Labour. I and my colleagues will be campaigning every single day to bring that about.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)]

Q11. As the UK’s first borough of sanctuary, Lewisham has a proud history of welcoming people fleeing conflict, persecution and instability. Our council works closely with support organisations to help those people integrate and contribute to our community. How will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that the proposed reforms to the asylum system support, rather than undermine, the positive outcomes already being achieved in boroughs like mine?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Britain has always been a fair, tolerant and compassionate country that has offered safe haven to those fleeing peril, and this Government will always defend those values. We are introducing the largest overhaul of asylum policy in modern times to restore control, contribution and fairness. That includes creating new, capped safe and legal routes for refugees. Asylum claims are falling across Europe, but in Britain they are rising, so we must make it less attractive for those who are coming here illegally to come to Britain, and easier to remove them, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Q8. Six in 10 families say their pay is going backwards, with the lowest earners £73 a week worse off and middle earners worse off too. Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that his Government have broken their promise to improve living standards?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Real wages have risen in nearly every single month since we came into office.

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

Q12.   Sergeant Matthew Telford, Trooper Robert Pearson and Guardsman James “Jimmy” Major, who was aged just 18, were three heroic servicemen from Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes who made the ultimate sacrifice on their tours of Afghanistan. I want to put on the record my condemnation of President Trump’s plain wrong comments that so undermine the commitment of our brave British servicemen and women at home and abroad, which the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly recognised. This Government have launched the Valour system to ensure that our veterans’ support offer on housing, health, welfare and work is fit for purpose—fully backing our forces. That is in stark contrast to the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who happily takes cash to champion the IRA. My local armed forces charities want to know if the Deputy Prime Minister can set out what urgent action is being taken by this Government to house homeless veterans under Valour.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

One of the greatest privileges of my life is visiting our servicemen and women who are stationed abroad. We are renewing the contract with our veterans, providing millions to eradicate veteran homelessness, and investing £50 million into a nationwide network of support centres.

I want to take this opportunity to pay my respects to Private Jonathan Kitulagoda. He was the first British soldier killed by enemy action in Afghanistan, on this day in 2004. He was just 23. The valour and heroism of those who have served our country to keep us safe must never be forgotten.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Q9.  A month ago today, protests erupted across Iran. In response, the Iranian Government launched a deadly crackdown. They fired indiscriminately on protesters, and they shut off internet access to hide what they were doing from the outside world. In April 2024, the then shadow Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary, asked the Conservative Government if they would finally proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. Just two weeks ago, she described the Iranian regime as a “consistent threat” to the UK’s“stability, security and freedom and to the UK national interest.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 789.]The world order that we thought we knew is being shaken up. The US is no longer able to show moral leadership to Governments who kill their own citizens. Can this Government step up and take the lead, and will they now proscribe the IRGC?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I utterly condemn the Iranian regime’s brutal repression of peaceful protesters. It is a long-standing position under successive Governments not to comment on whether a specific organisation is being considered for proscription. We have long criticised Iran’s authoritarian regime and taken robust action to protect UK interests from Iranian state threats, and that includes over 220 sanctions on Iran and placing the entirety of the Iranian state on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. We are working at pace, of course, to explore what further measures can be taken to respond to these horrific events.

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)]

Violence is again escalating in north-east Syria—Rojava. A humanitarian crisis is unfolding and the city of Kobane is under siege yet again. The Kurdish communities who fought and helped defeat ISIS feel abandoned by their western allies. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to working with our allies to hold the Syrian regime to the March 2025 agreement by securing protection for Kurdish civilians, pushing for a meaningful and immediate ceasefire, opening humanitarian corridors into Kobane and supporting constitutional recognition for Kurdish regions?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Recent events in Syria have been deeply concerning. This is a significant moment for Syria’s future, and we are using every diplomatic lever to urge all parties to stop the violence, protect civilians and ensure humanitarian support can be accessed. The Foreign Secretary has highlighted to Syria’s Foreign Minister this week the importance of protecting the rights of the Kurdish community, and we have consistently advocated for an inclusive political transition. We remain committed to standing with the Syrian people as they seek to build a more stable, free and prosperous future.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Q10. It was reported on the TV yesterday that the Labour Back Benchers are revolting. Now, that is a matter of opinion, but unlike the Labour Back Benchers and the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Unlike the Labour Back Benchers and the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

[Lee Anderson]

Unlike the Prime Minister of our country, I have never been thrown out of or barred from a pub, and after yesterday’s disastrous announcement to save our pubs, it is no wonder he has cleared off to China, but I have one question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he come with me to Ashfield to visit some pubs, speak to some landlords and explain to them why over 500 pubs have closed since this Labour Government came into power and why another 500 pubs will close in the next year? Come on, be a man!

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think I once campaigned with the hon. Gentleman when he was a member of the Labour party. It has been said of him that, when he left, he enhanced the IQ of the Labour party and the IQ of the party he went to. I wonder what job he is pitching for in Reform’s shadow Cabinet. They have Nadhim Zahawi to advise on tax and the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to open up the borders, and now they need Liz Truss to crash the economy!

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

I hope you get well soon, Mr Speaker.

Lillia Jakeman is 19 years of age and has been given a devastating diagnosis of motor neurone disease. When she was told that she has a very rare form of the disease that can be treated with a groundbreaking new drug called tofersen, her family were given hope. They have since discovered that although the drug is being made available to the NHS free of charge, her local trust has declined to deliver it. This afternoon, her family will be arriving at Downing Street, having walked from Southampton, to highlight this injustice. Will the Deputy Prime Minister work with me, MPs from across the House, Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS bosses to deliver fair access to tofersen for all living with this rare form of motor neurone disease?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am sorry to hear about those who are waiting for this treatment. Of course, I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets the appropriate meeting with the relevant Minister.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

Q13. G R Carr is a business in Burnt Mills in my constituency with more than half a century of experience in steel manufacturing and fabrication. It is exactly the kind of medium-sized business that builds this country and that we should be championing. Following my visit to the business last week, I was disturbed to find out that many of our contracts, from our flagship deals in Teesside to our nuclear programmes, go offshore, such as the 7,000-tonne order for steel from China and the more than 200 km of fabricated pipework from Germany. That is exactly the kind of investment that should be made in the UK. How does sending it offshore play into the Government’s growth plans?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman will remember that we stepped in to save British Steel, and we committed up to £2.5 billion to rebuild the sector. We will publish a steel strategy setting out how we are going to achieve that shortly. The British industry supercharger will also bring down energy costs for strategically important UK industries.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

At a time when the Government are promoting a duty of candour to ensure that all public servants, including Ministers, have a legal duty to act with transparency and frankness, and when the Scottish Government have indicated that they hope that that legislation will apply in Scotland too, does the Deputy Prime Minister support calls for the current First Minister, a former First Minister and a former Health Minister to appear before the inquiry into the deaths of adults and children as a result of contaminated water at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow, a scandal widely thought to be the worst since devolution began?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that serious matter. It is a scandal—one of the worst failures in modern Scottish public life. The SNP Government must acknowledge the grave failures at Queen Elizabeth hospital. When whistleblowers raised serious failings, SNP Ministers sided with the health board and dismissed families who went through tragic circumstances. That should be condemned as wholly unacceptable, and there is no clearer example of why Scotland needs change with Anas Sarwar.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Q14. The UK’s nuclear deterrent has kept this country safe for over five decades. As the Deputy Prime Minister will know, it is operationally independent, but it still relies on US defence supply chains. Given the shaking of traditional alliances, could the Deputy Prime Minister reassure the House and the country that the UK has sufficient stockpiles of the component parts of the Trident II D5 missiles in our nuclear submarines, and ensure that the supply chain remains resilient and able to cope with any change in the White House, whether positive or negative?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. It is why I was pleased to work with the Defence Secretary on the strategic defence review and why we are investing £270 billion over this Parliament in defence.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know that the Deputy Prime Minister takes a deep interest in Uganda. Two weeks ago, there was a sham election in which people were prevented from voting and Government officials stuffed ballot boxes. Now, the military is pursuing Bobi Wine, the leader of the opposition, with deadly intent. I am gravely concerned about Bobi, opposition activists and British citizens in Uganda. What can we do to safeguard those people and ensure that we do not see violence and bloodshed on the streets of Uganda?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I was very grateful to meet Bobi Wine with my hon. Friend when I was shadow Foreign Secretary. We call for peaceful and credible elections. This dispute must be resolved peacefully and legally. Opposition candidates must be able to campaign freely. We will, of course, continue to make representations forcefully.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Q15.  I join the Deputy Prime Minister in commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day. Unbelievably, the organisation Palestine Pulse planned a protest outside Parliament today entitled, “Confront Power at Parliament: Anti-Zionist Rally”. The Jewish population of our country have had to put up with weekly protests in our towns and cities since 7 October 2023. Now we have protests outside Jewish businesses and restaurants, trying to close them down. The chants are antisemitic, the meaning behind them is antisemitic and we see where it leads: the massacre on Bondi Beach, what happened in the United States, and, unbelievably, two of our Jewish population murdered in Manchester. Lord Macdonald’s review will look at the issue, but the Jewish population of this country do not have two years to wait before this hatred is extinguished. Will the Deputy Prime Minister take concrete steps to ensure that antisemitism is driven out of our country?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have worked cross-party on these issues over many years, particularly as I represent Stamford Hill, one of the historic homes of the Jewish community. He is quite right: the rising antisemitism we see and the nature of some forms of protest is intolerable and unacceptable. That is why the Home Secretary has set out her plans. I will continue to work with her closely to drive antisemitism out of this country.

Bills Presented

Local Government Reorganisation (Requirement for Referendum) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bedford presented a Bill to provide that any reorganisation of local government in England involving changes to electoral boundaries, the establishment of combined authorities, or other specified changes may not be undertaken unless such reorganisation has been approved by a simple majority of residents of any affected local government area voting in a referendum; to make provision about the organisation of such referendums; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 374).

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Josh Babarinde, supported by James MacCleary, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of disregarding compensation received under the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme for the purpose of calculating entitlement to Pension Credit and to other means-tested benefits for which such payments are not disregarded in full; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 375).

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office: Annual Report 2024–25

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Written Statements

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

With the concurrence of the Lady Chief Justice, I will today publish the 18th annual report of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

The JCIO supports the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor in our joint statutory responsibility for judicial discipline.

The judiciary comprises approximately 20,000 individuals serving across a range of jurisdictions. Over the past year, the JCIO received 3,279 complaints against judicial office-holders. A total of 89 investigations resulted in disciplinary action.

I have placed copies of the report in the Library of each House. Copies are also available online at:

https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/reportsandpublications

[HCWS1243]

HMP Wandsworth Independent Investigation

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Written Statements

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

I wish to provide an update on the independent investigation into the escape of Daniel Khalife from HMP Wandsworth on 6 September 2023.

On 8 January 2024, the House was informed that the investigation, which was led by Keith Bristow QPM, had concluded. At that time, it was not appropriate to provide further detail, due to the ongoing criminal proceedings and the need to protect prison security. Those proceedings have since concluded. Mr Khalife was convicted for offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911 and the Terrorism Act 2000, as well as for escaping from lawful custody. He was sentenced to a total of 14 years and three months’ imprisonment for those crimes.

Following the criminal trial, various details about events that occurred are now in the public domain, including how Mr Khalife escaped while on kitchen duty by using a makeshift sling attached to the underside of a delivery lorry. However, in the spirit of transparency and accountability, I wish to provide a fuller account of the investigation’s findings and recommendations, while also maintaining caution that prison security is not compromised by doing so.

The investigation scrutinised five key operational themes: prisoner categorisation; security protocols and their application; assessment of escape risk; work allocation risk assessment; and operational capacity including staffing levels.

A prisoner’s categorisation determines the level of security required to manage them, based on both their risk to the public and of escape. The investigation found that the decision to hold Mr Khalife in a category B prison was consistent with categorisation policy and based on adequate information. It also noted that category B conditions should have been sufficient to prevent escape.

The investigation nonetheless recommended that HM Prison and Probation Service consider whether improvements are needed to support the sharing of sensitive intelligence between operational partners to better inform future categorisation decisions.

HMP Wandsworth has taken meaningful steps to enhance the systems that inform categorisation decisions. Improvements include streamlining processes relating to intelligence generated by HMPPS, addressing operational backlogs and delivering staff training aligned with national standards. These improvements, combined with wider processes in place with relevant partners, support robust HMPPS decision-making relating to categorisation and prison placement.

The investigation identified shortcomings in the application of several security protocols on the day of the escape, including prisoner and cell searches, vehicle escorting, vehicle search procedures at the prison’s main gate, prisoner counting protocols and the activation of contingency plans. It recommended strengthening local searching policies, enhancing local intelligence and recording practices and adopting a more rigorous approach to security risk assessment. While not found to be material to the escape, the investigation also recommended that the HMPPS policy framework for managing terrorist risk be updated to reflect current practice.

Since then, HMP Wandsworth has significantly strengthened its security framework. Search protocols have been revised, risk-based practices improved and the level of support from specialist search teams increased. Staff training has been prioritised to embed a more consistent and effective security culture. In addition, HMPPS has introduced an updated, internal policy framework for managing terrorist risk.

On the assessment of Mr Khalife’s escape risk, the investigation concluded that the relevant policy had been applied correctly in his case. It also noted that the low incidence of prison escapes suggests that the current approach to escape risk management is almost always sufficient. The investigation nonetheless recommended that HMPPS review whether the current policy relating to escape risk places sufficient emphasis on prisoner behaviour outside of closed conditions, particularly where past behaviour patterns may indicate a greater risk of escape.

HMP Wandsworth has since enhanced its processes for identifying and managing escape risk. This includes improved daily monitoring, updated risk assessments, and assurance checks to ensure operational practices reflect current vulnerabilities. Furthermore, HMPPS has reviewed the national escape list policy, specifically the requirement to consider risk information, such as escape risk, from other secure environments such as police or military custody.

With regard to work allocation, the investigation found that Mr Khalife should not have been assigned to work in the kitchen based on the local policy in place at the time. It also identified that an opportunity to remove him from this role was missed. The investigation recommended improvements to HMP Wandsworth’s work allocation process, including its risk assessment form.

HMP Wandsworth has since improved its approach to work allocation by strengthening risk assessment processes and enhancing the use of information held on HMPPS’s intelligence reporting system. A new system has been introduced to ensure decisions are applied consistently and reviewed regularly, supported by targeted staff training and oversight mechanisms.

The investigation found that while staffing levels at HMP Wandsworth were a broader challenge, they were not a significant factor on the day of the escape. However, the investigation noted that wider staffing pressures may have had an indirect effect. This includes reduced time for staff to carry out essential tasks, less assurance around the quality of processes being followed, and increased cross-deployment of staff across different activities within the prison. The investigation also highlighted the impact of staff churn on institutional knowledge and national pressure on centralised training capacity due to high volumes of new recruits. The investigation did not find evidence that staff corruption was a factor in the escape.

While the investigation made no specific recommendations on staffing, HMP Wandsworth has taken measures to strengthen staffing and institutional resilience, including increased security personnel, targeted training, and enhanced operational awareness.

The investigation also made several strategic recommendations to strengthen prison security more broadly. These included the need for HMP Wandsworth, supported by HMPPS, to develop a comprehensive and dynamic understanding of local security risks, implement a clear strategy to address them, and embed a stronger security culture underpinned by visible leadership. The investigation also recommended that HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice work collaboratively with scrutiny bodies to assess whether prison performance evaluations appropriately prioritise security and risk management, and recommended that HMPPS consider how the investigation’s findings might be applied across the wider prison estate.

The prison has undertaken a comprehensive review of its security arrangements, informed by internal assessments and external scrutiny. A revised local strategy now guides operational practices, supported by strengthened leadership, improved intelligence handling, and embedded assurance processes. HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice continue to work closely with HM Inspectorate of Prisons and other scrutiny bodies, including independent monitoring boards, to support improvement across the system. These measures reflect a sustained commitment to enhancing security governance and provide a model for wider application across the estate.

The Government have taken the findings of the independent investigation into Mr Khalife’s escape extremely seriously. HMP Wandsworth, HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice have acted swiftly and decisively to implement the investigation’s recommendations. Through strengthened leadership, a renewed focus on security culture, and rigorous assurance processes, the prison has addressed the vulnerabilities identified. These reforms are not only embedded, but they are also being independently tested and continuously improved.

I am confident that the actions taken have significantly strengthened prison security. We must not become complacent, however, and I have made clear the importance of maintaining this momentum, not only at HMP Wandsworth, but across the prison estate. I am resolute in ensuring that lessons are learned to help prevent incidents of this nature occurring again in the future.

[HCWS1245]