Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to ensure adequate provision of legal aid.

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

We are making significant investments in legal aid: we have announced additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates and an additional £92 million a year for criminal legal aid solicitors. We are also uplifting housing and immigration legal fees by £20 million a year—the first major increase since 1996.

[John Milne]

My constituent Steve is currently being denied access to justice because he cannot afford to take action against a publicly funded body under Competition and Markets Authority legislation. His only other option is to proceed on a no win, no fee basis. Will the relevant Minister agree to meet me and Steve to discuss possible solutions?

[Mr Lammy]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to write to me first, as it sounds like there is some technical detail in that case. If necessary, I will then ask the relevant Minister to meet him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

The Select Committee has just begun an inquiry into access to justice. The evidence we are getting suggests that civil and family legal aid in particular are in a dire position, with fees now approximately half what they were 28 years ago. There have been welcome increases in housing and immigration fees, but what wider plans does the Secretary of State have to review legal aid fees, particularly in the area of civil and family law?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will recognise that the uplift of £20 million in housing and immigration is significant; it is actually the first major uplift in his and my time here in Parliament. He is right that we should look across the piece at civil legal aid, combined with what is happening in our courts, and I will continue to do that over this next period.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

My question follows on from that of the Chair of the Select Committee. In 2024, 39% of family court proceedings involved neither party being legally represented; in cases of domestic abuse, this forces victims to relive their experiences and confront their trauma repeatedly. The provision of legal aid in such cases is wholly inadequate, which presents an unacceptable barrier to many victims accessing fair and effective legal representation. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner that legal aid should be provided in all domestic abuse cases to end self-representation and protect victims from retraumatisation?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady is right that legal aid is important, but, in some cases, so is mediation. I would refer her to the pathfinder pilot, which is hugely important in relation to private family law. We are looking closely at provision, but we are also looking closely at the workforce, because as with criminal legal aid, we have seen lawyers—particularly younger lawyers—leaving that area of practice.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking with the Secretary of State for the Home Department to deport foreign national offenders.

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

We said that we are determined to remove foreign national offenders from our prisons sooner, and we have. I am pleased to say that the number of foreign criminals removed from the country early has rocketed by 75% under this Labour Government, with more than 2,700 foreign national offenders deported under the early removal scheme in the past year—up from just 1,560 in the last year the Tories were in charge.

[Steve Yemm]

I wonder what reassurance the Secretary of State could give my constituents that foreign national offenders who commit serious crimes will be removed promptly after sentencing, rather than allowing their appeal process to drag on. Does he agree that a deport first, appeal later approach would be most appropriate?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right. That is what we are doing in the Sentencing Bill, which is going through Parliament, which will enable us to remove foreign nationals earlier—a key component of the Bill. We are absolutely clear: if someone comes to our country and commits a crime, they no longer have any right to be here.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Last week in Northern Ireland, a 26-year-old Palestinian migrant was found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy. The police refused to publish an image of this man, meaning that people do not know who he is or if he is showing concerning behaviour. Can the Minister assure us that whether in GB or in Northern Ireland, any migrant found guilty of sexual offences will not only have their picture published, but be deported?

[Mr Lammy]

We are deporting foreign nationals, as I have explained. This is a devolved issue, and it would be wrong for me to comment on individual cases. If she writes to us about it, she will get a ministerial response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

23. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposal to restrict the right to a jury trial for certain offences on the rule of law.

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

Everyone has a right to a fair trial, and the essence of a fair trial is a timely trial. Only 3% of all criminal cases are heard by a judge and jury under the current regime. Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of the British justice system. Delayed justice is justice denied.

[Mr Bedford]

The Justice Secretary may have complete faith in the independence of the judiciary; sadly, I do not. We have seen a plethora of cases, particularly involving freedom of speech, where the judiciary has arguably been influenced by political correctness and the virtue signalling of bodies such as the Sentencing Council. If his proposals are designed to reduce the backlog, why do they not include a sunset clause?

[Mr Lammy]

I completely reject what the hon. Gentleman said. It is an absolute essential foundation of our democracy that all of us in this House and in government respect the independence of the judiciary. I remind him that it is precisely because of the judiciary’s independence that it is not able to answer for itself. The Lord Chancellor has that responsibility, and I will do it robustly.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

When the Lord Chancellor made his statement on jury trials last week, he said that an impact assessment would be published with the legislation. Given how powerful a defender of jury trials he has been in the past, will he publish the evidence and the modelling that he has seen since coming to office that caused him to change his mind?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Whenever a Government propose legislation, there must be an impact assessment—both an economic impact assessment and an equality impact assessment—and of course we will publish it in the usual way.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Victims must be at the forefront of our minds when thinking about reforms to our justice system. Many of them wait years and are often retraumatised by going through the process of a criminal court trial. Can the Secretary of State tell me how these changes will ensure that we bring criminals properly and promptly to justice, to bring matters to a close for victims?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A third of all sex victims in the backlog have now been waiting a year or more, and she knows that in many of those cases, there are also defendants playing the system, pleading late with pre-hearing after pre-hearing, with the result that witnesses fall away and cases collapse. It is for that reason that it is absolutely right that we change the threshold and introduce the measures that Brian Leveson has properly looked at, to speed up the process and get those victims justice.

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

The Justice Secretary wants to do away with some jury trials. He wants to extend the powers of magistrates to sentence up to 24 months without the right to appeal a conviction or sentence. I think I am right in saying that the capacity in prisons is at 88,000 as we speak today. Where are all those apparently guilty people going to be put?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend and I have been friends for a very long time and I recognise his experience in matters related to criminal trials. May I just remind him that we have the Sentencing Bill passing through the House? That will give us greater capacity in the prison system. He will also know that the Government are on track to provide 40,000 extra prison places by the early 2030s—under the last Government, there were only 500. All of that increases capacity, and of course we hope that jury trials will also make a difference for victims.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary quite rightly says that justice delayed is justice denied, but summary justice is no justice at all. He based much of his argument on the views of the eminent Lord Leveson, but has he read the analysis of that review by Geoffrey Rivlin KC, who went through the report in expert detail and described much of it as unfounded and misguided because it was based on poor data. If the Justice Secretary has not read it, will he please do so before he comes back to the House?

[Mr Lammy]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it was a serious independent panel and I do not think he can reject Sir Brian Leveson out of hand in that way. I remind him that David Ormerod was also on the panel. The analysis was based on data and on evidence internationally, and that is why it is important that we implement it. There is no silver bullet. To affect change, we have to do it all; otherwise, at the next general election, the backlog will have soared to over 100,000.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I have heard heartbreaking stories of women from my constituency who have waited years for their abuser to be brought to trial. The crisis that has developed in our courts is having a devastating impact on victims. Given that many of the previous reforms to judge, jury and magistrate trials over the past 50 years were also intended to speed up the system, will the Secretary of State outline how these proposed changes will fix the broken system and deliver swift justice for victims?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, we need investment and more sitting days. We did not get that under the last Government—we are getting that now. Secondly, we need reform. We asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at this in great detail. He did that, and we must now respond and not shirk from the reform that is necessary. Thirdly, we need modernisation. That is why, for example, being able to get a transcript and a recording at magistrates is so important.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Under the Justice Secretary’s plans to slash jury trials, he is giving magistrates more serious cases. However, he also plans to scrap the automatic right to appeal—a vital safety valve in courtrooms where justice is delivered at pace by volunteers. Last year, 5,000 cases from magistrates courts were appealed, of which more than 40% were upheld. Given that very high rate of successful appeals, will the Secretary of State be honest with the public and concede that curtailing appeals will unquestionably lead to miscarriages of justice?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on the Conservative Back Benches has just said that summary justice is no justice—either they believe in our magistrates or they do not. I believe in our magistrates. Sir Brian recommended a permission stage, and we accept his recommendation for creating a permission stage on appeal. That is the right thing to do, particularly because many appeals have no merits, and that is why victims fall away.

[Robert Jenrick]

If the Secretary of State maintains that this change will not lead to miscarriages of justice, he must be expecting the same number of cases to be appealed. In which case, there is no point doing it in the first place. The truth, deep down, is that the Government are willing to tolerate some miscarriages of justice to save a paltry sum of money, yet all the while the solution is staring us in the face. Since the Justice Secretary announced his plan on 2 December, 640 sitting days have been missed.

It is the end of term. The Justice Secretary’s report card is marked “improvement required”. Will he reflect over Christmas and make scrapping his plan to slash jury trials a new year’s resolution that we can all support?

[Mr Lammy]

I know the right hon. Gentleman has more front than Blackpool pier, but let us be clear: we are accepting a permission stage that was recommended by Brian Leveson. What we need are more sitting days and more investment, and we are doing that. We cannot shirk reform, he knows that jury trials will continue to be a cornerstone of the Crown court system, and we need modernisation. All of that was not done by the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to provide adequate funding for victim support services.

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

Last week I announced record funding for victim support services: £550 million over the next three years—the biggest investment in victim support services to date. This Labour Government are putting victims at the heart of the justice system.

[Tim Roca]

I welcome the increased funding. Victim support and the commissioning of those services is incredibly important, and the operational independence of police and crime commissioners has been invaluable in that regard. What assurances can Ministers provide that, with the abolition of PCCs, victim support will not be led by forces themselves and that we will keep the important progress we have made over recent years?

[Mr Lammy]

We have committed to providing PCCs with £131.8 million for 2026-27 and £134 million for 2027-28 for their work on sexual violence and domestic abuse. It is really important that we ringfence that funding.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Building on the question from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), police and crime commissioners were able to act as a strong independent voice for commissioners. In what has been outlined so far, there is not really a voice for victims in local areas. What will the Secretary of State do to make sure that is remedied?

[Mr Lammy]

We have up to May 2028. It is important that we get the money in and that that money particularly goes to the frontline. When I meet organisations on the ground such as Rape Crisis, they are the voice of women on the frontline, but of course we are looking very closely at how this interaction will work after we no longer have PCCs.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

11. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the implementation of the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction in cases involving domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

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

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

I pay tribute to Lenny Scott, who was a dedicated prison officer and much-loved family man. In 2020, he seized an illicit mobile phone from a prisoner, who took revenge four years later by taking his life in broad daylight. Perpetrators of heinous killings like that must feel the full force of the law. I can announce today that we will broaden the starting point for whole-life orders to include murders connected to the current or former duties of a police, prison or probation officer. That means that offenders can expect to spend the rest of their life behind bars. That is the latest step that this Government have taken to keep our hard-working prison and probation staff safe.

[Uma Kumaran]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that clarification. By the time my constituent gets her day in court, she will have waited nearly a decade for justice. That is the cost of the Tories’ broken court system—unacceptable waits, contributing to a tragically high number of victims not proceeding to trial. The result is near-total impunity for the men who commit serious offences of sexual assault and domestic abuse. My right hon. Friend is working tirelessly to reduce the courts backlog. What is he doing to ensure that victims are put first, so that they do not have to face waiting a decade for justice?

[Mr Lammy]

I am truly grateful to my hon. Friend for once again raising the voice of victims in this House. I hope that over the coming months, as we debate our courts Bill, hon. Members will keep in mind those victims, and the voices that we often hear, via female Members of Parliament. The £550 million of multi-year funding that I have found for victims to give them certainty was essential, and we will continue to keep victims front of mind.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

T2. The Justice Secretary’s plan to slash jury trials without any guarantee that the backlog of cases will fall has not survived first contact with Labour Back Benchers. The backlash has forced No. 10 to reassure Labour Members that legislation will not be introduced until October next year, but the Justice Secretary’s team insist that it will come in February. They cannot both be right. Can the Justice Secretary confirm at the Dispatch Box when the legislation is coming forward?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman can do better than that. That is not true. We are serious about bringing down the backlog, and that means that we of course want to introduce our courts Bill in the early part of next year.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

T5.   Following a string of shocking cases in which funeral directors did not treat the bodies of the deceased with the care and respect that they deserved, will the Minister update the House on the cross-departmental work being done to regulate the funeral industry?

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

T7. My constituent is a female probation officer in the early stages of her career. She came to my surgery last week because she is scared for her safety at work. Three weeks ago, her colleague in the Oxford probation office, who was following guidelines put in place following a similar attack in Preston in July, was stabbed multiple times by somebody on probation. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to discuss extending the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which already covers prison and custody officers, to probation officers?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman will have seen the announcement that I just made on whole-life orders. I will of course ensure that the Prisons Minister meets him. We will do everything we can to keep our probation officers safe.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

T6. With some victims of sexual assault being told that their trials might not be heard until 2029, what can we do to reduce delays and tackle the backlogs so that victims can be confident that they will get justice and will not have to face the trauma associated with these delays?

[Mr Lammy]

The £550 million for victims was essential, as is passing the Victims and Courts Bill, implementing Sir Brian Leveson’s review, modernisation and all the work and money we are putting into our courts system.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

T9.   Whatever changes the Secretary of State is seeking to make to juries, they will make not one bit of difference in my constituency if people cannot get the legal advice they need. Can he assure me that the recent funding announcement will be targeted at legal aid deserts such as North Norfolk? At the third time of asking, will a Minister please meet me and legal aid professionals to discuss their challenges?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, we will ensure that that money reaches the hon. Member’s constituency, and I will ensure that the Minister responsible meets him.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. Home Office changes to skilled worker visa thresholds will impact large numbers of prison officers who have migrated from countries such as Nigeria. The Prison Officers Association has made it clear that the prison system could collapse if this policy is applied. Will Ministers please update the House on what conversations are ongoing with the Home Office and whether there will be any exceptions?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right to put on record the huge support that we have had, particularly from west Africans, in our prison system, for which I am grateful. I am in discussions with the Home Secretary and hope to update the House on that shortly, but I do see a way through.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

To build on the excellent questioning by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), how many prisoners have been mistakenly released, and how many will it take before the Justice Secretary considers his position?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, a man was convicted by a jury of sexual assault of a child under the age of 13. This vile perpetrator was given a suspended sentence, with his mental health cited as the reason. He was spared prison and, crucially, his mental health had no impact on his culpability for this horrible crime. My constituents have sought justice, and I agree with them that the sentence is outrageously lenient. Will the Secretary of State please write to the Sentencing Council to stress that this Government believe that those found guilty of sexual crimes against children should go to prison, and that suspended sentences must only be granted in the rarest and most extreme mitigating circumstances?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. She knows that I cannot comment on the individual case, which was subject to a review, but the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), is meeting the chair of the Sentencing Council and will take forward her recommendations.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Both this Government and the previous Government tried to get to grips with the increasing problem of the smuggling of illegal drugs into prisons. Can the Secretary of State indicate that, this time, this Government will get to grips with the problem so that people can be reassured that it is not a continuing and escalating issue?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why the £40 million that we are investing in drone technology in particular is important, but we are also investing in new X-ray machines across our prisons to drive down drug use.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Forests With Impact is delivering innovative prisoner rehabilitation through horticulture, paid work and accredited training at HMP Haverigg, helping people to gain skills for employment on release while also contributing to environmental recovery. Would the Minister be willing to pay a visit and observe this work at first hand, and will he meet me to discuss how similar schemes could be supported more widely?

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

One in three rape trials end up being postponed, in some cases more than six times, and 73% of rape survivors say that police treatment worsened their mental health during the process. What improvements will be made in how the police treat rape survivors?

[Mr Lammy]

The Criminal Justice Board, which brings all the justice partners together, met recently, and of course the police are represented on that board. However, I urge the hon. Lady to look closely at the Victims and Courts Bill, which provides for the reform that we need to reduce the backlog.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I welcome the news that the Deputy Prime Minister has been appointed to lead a national summit to discuss the issues affecting men and boys, but given that those in politics—including, let us face it, progressive politics—all too often fail to see and speak about some of the specific challenges faced by men and young boys growing up in Britain today, how can we make the most of the summit, which could be a truly catalysing moment to start to put that right?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing this issue. As part of our mission to deal with violence against women and girls, we must build a positive agenda that promotes opportunities for men and boys but is in no way at the expense of opportunities for women and girls. The Prime Minister has announced a new programme of work to be led by me and by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), which will include a national summit for men and boys next year.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Survivors’ Network supports all victims of sexual assault and abuse in Sussex. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and I met representatives of the network at the start of the month, they told us that, owing to the rising costs of national insurance contributions and inflation, £40,000 of its costs are now unfunded. Given the Government’s emphasis on driving down sexual violence, is this the right decision?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a crisis in family mediation, with no confirmation of mediation vouchers going beyond next April and over half of legal aid providers having been forced to give up in the last eight years? Does he agree that this is short-sighted, as mediation saves time, money and families, and will the Government work with the Family Mediation Council to rescue the sector?

[Mr Lammy]

Mediation is hugely successful, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to talk to the sector about this issue. I will update him in the coming weeks.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I served on the Bill Committee for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—better known as the Hillsborough law—and was very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and me to discuss 11 amendments, two new clauses and general points that came up in the line-by-line scrutiny. The Minister was very clear that she is a woman on a mission and that she wants the Bill to be on the statute book as soon as possible. May I seek an assurance that she will meet my colleague and me before the Bill is considered on Report?

Prison Capacity Review: Government Response

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Written Statements

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

On Tuesday 5 August, Dame Anne Owers published the findings of her independent review into the handling of prison capacity. The review was commissioned in February 2025 by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), to examine the decisions that led to the prison capacity crisis between 2022 and 2024, and to make recommendations to help future Governments avoid repeated crises. I am grateful to Dame Anne for her thorough and candid analysis, and I will ensure a copy of the review is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

This statement sets out the Government’s response, but first it is important to place this review in its proper context.

This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. Aside from a two-week period at the start of covid, the last time the total prison estate occupancy was under 95% was more than 12 years ago. At one point in 2024, there were fewer than 100 spaces in adult male prisons. If our prisons reach capacity, courts would be forced to suspend trials, and the police would be forced to stop making arrests. The consequences would be dire, and we would face a breakdown of law and order in this country.

The causes were clear—the last Government added just 500 net places to our prison estate in 14 years, while at the same time sentence lengths rose.

That is why this Government have acted decisively. We have committed to the largest expansion of the estate since the Victorians, committing £7 billion to building prison places between 2024-25 and 2029-30. We are delivering 14,000 new prison places, including four new prisons, and are on track to do so by 2031. We have already opened HMP Millsike, a 1,500-place prison, in March 2025, and broke ground on HMP Welland Oaks, a new 1,700-place prison in November 2025. We have delivered around 2,900 new places since taking office.

We have also recently introduced the Sentencing Bill to Parliament in order to implement many of the recommendations in the sentencing review as soon as possible and put prisons on a more sustainable footing.

We need to lift the prison system out of crisis and start improving it, raising standards to keep the public safe while tackling reoffending. Our actions will increase capacity and are the turning point for us to improve prisons’ performance.

We welcome the review’s findings, which shine a light on the flawed decision-making structures and missed opportunities. We acknowledge the need to address prison capacity within the context of wider criminal justice reform and have accepted in principle the majority of Dame Anne Owers’ recommendations. Work is already under way to address these.

For instance, we are increasing investment in probation services by up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review period. This enhanced funding will allow us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders, enabling close supervision in the community and reducing pressure on the prison estate. Alongside this, we are deepening our collaboration with the third sector—through the Our Future Probation Service stakeholder engagement forum and other established channels—to ensure that community services are designed and delivered in ways that reflect frontline expertise and meet the needs of those we support.

We are also committed to improving transparency across the criminal justice system. In December 2024, the Ministry of Justice published the first annual statement on prison capacity, which set out population projections, supply plans and information on probation capacity.

These steps, alongside other planned and ongoing activity, reflect our commitment to building a more resilient, transparent and forward-looking criminal justice system. Dame Anne’s review will help inform our strategic approach to prison capacity and ensure the mistakes of the past are never repeated and that prison places are always available for those who pose a risk to public safety.

[HCWS1139]

Criminal Court Reform

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker I will make a statement on criminal court reform.

As the House is aware, the first part of the independent review of criminal courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson—one of the foremost judges of his generation—and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Shaun McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once-in-a-generation court reform. That is desperately needed, because the Government inherited an emergency in our courts: a record and rising backlog currently at 78,000 cases, and victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case.

Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six-year wait for justice. During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated; it is systemic.

We are all proud of our justice system, rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to

“deny or delay right or justice.”

When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves. Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This Government have already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose, a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown courts—5,000 more than those funded last year by the previous Government.

Today, I can announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates, to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.

However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The case load is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse. To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian’s bold blueprint for change. First, I will create new “swift courts” within the Crown court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hardwire transparency into our new approach.

Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials—a practice not found widely in other common law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up. I will limit appeals from the magistrates courts, so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further.

Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.

These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences. Among others, that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.

I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill’s time, and today magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.

Conservative Members talk about the Crown court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971—the year before I was born—to replace a patchwork of part-time courts unable to cope with a rising caseload. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. We now face an emergency in the courts, and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve.

I am also clear that we must future-proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a second report, focused on efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.

We will also continue to support victims, to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announced this week that I will provide multi-year funding for victim support services, including specialist emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increase budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million—more than half a billion. I want those victims to stay the course.

Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation, which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the shadow Justice Secretary, although I am a little surprised that in his tirade, he never once mentioned victims—not once. Not once in his clip did he talk about the people waiting in the backlog.

The right hon. Gentleman has boasted that he is an armchair historian. May I give him a history lesson? In 2019, Crown court sitting days were cut by almost 15%. The Conservatives oversaw a 12% reduction in Crown court trials, and many of us remember, over those 14 years of austerity, the magistrates courts and Crown courts that closed in local communities under his watch. The senior presiding judge in England and Wales said:

“It was a political decision.”

I wonder if the shadow Justice Secretary will try to blame the pandemic for that decision.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about what I tweeted in 2020. We are saving and protecting jury trials. Jury trials will continue. He talks about trial by jury as if we lived in the United States, but 90% of criminal trials—1.3 million—are done by our magistracy, which has existed for 650 years. We are going to grow our magistrates, who we believe could do more.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about Magna Carta. Yes, clause 39 establishes the jury trial and a fair trial—we are proud of that—but he knows, too, that clause 40 asks us not to delay justice. That is the substance of this debate, and that is why we need reform. He knows that the Conservatives took juries away from defamation cases in 2013. Back in 1933, we had juries sitting in civil cases. Of course we reform; we do so to meet the needs of the system. He also knows that because of DNA evidence, CCTV and a whole raft of reasons, including that the police now arrest 10% more people, we have a demand issue. We must meet that challenge, and we must ensure that we put victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. That is who it is there for, and it is why he should have mentioned them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

May I recognise the commitment of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State in grasping the issue of the Crown court backlog, which, as Sir Brian Leveson says, is a threat to our whole system of criminal justice? The criticism of these proposals from those on the Opposition Benches comes with no solution whatsoever. I also acknowledge the Lord Chancellor’s decision to stay within the limits proposed by Sir Brian for cases that will be tried without a jury in the future.

None the less, these are profound changes to the criminal justice system that not only restrict the role of juries, but substantially extend the powers of magistrates and judges sitting alone. Will the Lord Chancellor therefore evaluate the effects of these changes to see whether they, along with other measures such as increased investment, bring down the backlog and whether they do so fairly, without bias and without increasing conviction rates or sentence length? If they do not deliver on all these points, will he think again?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work in these areas. Yes, I can commit to that evaluation, which is very important indeed. In his report, Sir Brian estimated that the system would be 20% faster: it takes time for juries to deliberate, and without the conveyance of information between barristers, the judge and the jury being necessary, he expects that a judge-led or magistrate-led system will be speedier. As my hon. Friend will know, the magistrates courts do not currently have a backlog and with an increase in the number of magistrates, they can do a little more.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Government’s plan, announced today, to reduce the use of trial by jury would be an historic upheaval of our court system, with profound consequences. The Justice Secretary has not argued in favour of judge-only trials on their own terms; instead, he has argued that there is no alternative, which is simply not true. Many within the legal profession have argued that removing trial by jury is a misdirection from the multitude of problems that underlie the backlog.

Those problems, caused by years of Conservative mismanagement, have resulted in countless wasted hours of sitting time and in victims failed time and again. Perhaps the defendant does not arrive in court because of the broken private contract, there is no interpreter, the witness care unit forgets to tell witnesses to attend, key evidence is not served until the day of trial so the defence has no time to consider it, or there are not enough court staff to manage security on the door, so the trial runs late. Maybe our crumbling court infrastructure means there is no running water, a broken lift or even a flooded courtroom. We need a real solution to tackle these issues that plague our justice system, but instead the Justice Secretary intends to remove a huge number of jury trials, despite his previous opposition to that, all while the Ministry of Justice capital budget is being cut by 3% in real terms every year.

While I welcome the £500 million investment in victims and witness support over three years, the total courts maintenance backlog is estimated at £1.3 billion. Where is the investment to fix the collapsing infrastructure in the justice system? Will the Justice Secretary consider reopening many of the Crown courts closed under the Conservatives, including mine in Chichester? As he confirmed to the media today, an entire jury’s worth of prisoners have been released in error in recent weeks. Does the Secretary of State have confidence in his Department to oversee such an extreme and radical reform when it is not even getting the basics right?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady mentions a range of issues that are important in ensuring that our 80 or so courts and 500 courtrooms are working effectively. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at efficiency as part 2 of his review. We need not just our courts but the Crown Prosecution Service and our police to work together at a reasonable level to deliver that improvement.

When we think about either-way cases, I think that it is legitimate for the Government to take a view on whether, for example, a driving licence fraud, fly-tipping or the theft of a bike requires a jury trial that will last for about two days, or whether those cases can be dealt with by a magistrate or a judge. I know that the hon. Lady is committed, like us, to bearing down on violence against women and girls. It cannot be right that if someone is charged with an offence such as theft of a bicycle, theft from a vehicle or employee theft, they can opt for a trial that, by necessity, goes into the system and will delay a rape trial, a murder trial or something like that. That is the balance of the decision that I have sought to make. I think that the Government have made the right decision in implementing Sir Brian’s review.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Mother of the House.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

The entire House is concerned about victims, including the victims of attacks on women and girls. However, the entire House is also concerned about the men and women who will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages of justice if the right to trial by jury is curtailed. To quote from a lawyer:

“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”

That lawyer is our current Prime Minister. He wrote that in 1992—it was as true then as it is today. How can the Lord Chancellor propose a limitation of the right to trial by jury when he knows perfectly well the category of defendant who will suffer the ill effects?

[Mr Lammy]

I am hugely grateful for my right hon. Friend’s expertise in these areas. She will know that for lots of reasons, particularly to do with poverty, many women are affected by criminal cases that do not command a sentence of much more than 12 months. Actually, the vast majority of crimes committed by women are dealt with by magistrates, and it is my judgment that those magistrates could do more. Keeping in mind the victims and centring them in our thinking, it cannot be right that we are asking women to wait. In a city like London, a woman who is raped tomorrow will not have her trial listed until 2028 or 2029. The Victims’ Commissioner supports these changes because they put those women first. I also remind my right hon. Friend of the £550 million that I am dedicating to victim support to support the very women she talks about.

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

The Government deserve credit for taking seriously a serious report into a serious problem, but is it the Justice Secretary’s preference that the changes he has outlined to jury trial will be permanent or that they will recede when the problem of backlogs recedes? In relation to judges alone deciding either-way cases, he knows that Sir Brian’s recommendation is that the presumption should be that there would be judge-only trials for cases where the sentence may be three years or less, but that presumption could be rebutted. Is it the Government’s intention that that should be a presumption and not a definitive rule? Finally, he knows that Sir Brian also recommended that plea hearings be pushed back to allow for advice on guilty pleas to be given more clearly and more fully, and that is likely to increase the number of guilty pleas preventing cracked trials. The Justice Secretary has talked about extra funding for the criminal Bar, but will he focus that funding so that people can be advised early and we can avoid those cracked trials?

[Mr Lammy]

We will consult on how we implement it so that we can deal with cracked trials. I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the importance of Sir Brian’s work and his deliberations with his panel. It is not my expectation that these rules will change. Sir Brian drew on his tremendous experience to reflect on the complexity and the demand that we are seeing in our criminal justice system. For example, DNA evidence, phenotyping, the range of new laws that this Parliament is introducing, and the increase in sexual crimes as a result of smartphones and other technology all require changes in the system, so I believe that the changes that we are making will be permanent.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I understand that my right hon. Friend has inherited a disastrous situation in the criminal justice system. A huge backlog was left by the austerity of the Conservatives, so I have no truck with them. However, does he fear, as I do, that restricting trial by jury will put a certain class of people in judgment over the rest of us, and that the check and balance on that is that a jury can be drawn from those I would describe as working-class people? Does he fear that we will create an “us” and “them” in the criminal justice system by taking away people’s right to go to trial by jury?

[Mr Lammy]

I understand my hon. Friend’s anxiety, but I remind him that the vast majority of these individuals will be tried by magistrates. The historical system we have is actually an aspect of the right in clause 39 of Magna Carta to be tried by one’s peers. Importantly, they are people who live in every neighbourhood in our country and who volunteer their efforts.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

When the Secretary of State took office, he swore an oath of office, which reads:

“I…do swear that…I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”.

That last bit matters. Governments of his party, my party and—before they get too sanctimonious—the Liberal Democrats all starved the courts, from Blair to now. The Secretary of State has to put that right, because if he does not get sufficient extra sitting days, this problem will not be solved. When I say “sufficient extra”, I do not mean 1,000 days, or even 5,000 days; we need an increase of an order of magnitude. Instead, he is undermining a bulwark of our constitution. In the words of Lord Denning:

“It has been the bulwark of our liberties too long for any of us to seek to alter it.”

Why will the Secretary of State not go and have his argument with the Treasury and solve this problem properly?

[Mr Lammy]

I understand the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman says. He is right that our courts have been starved of funds for too long, but he knows that, despite the extra investment we are putting in and the investment we got in the spending review for new courts in places such as Blackpool, this will take considerable time. We have asked Sir Brian to reflect, and he is one of our most eminent judges. Would it really be right to ask the victims to wait a decade until we have fixed the system? It cannot be. For all the reasons that Sir Brian reflects on in his report, we have to chuck everything at this. We need more investment, reform and modernisation, which we are doing.

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

Any of us who has supported a constituent in a rape trial will take no lectures from the Conservatives about how they managed our courts. There is clearly a challenge here. The worry for many of us is whether the Justice Secretary’s prescription is the solution; as he points out, juries are involved in less than 3% of all criminal cases. It is difficult to see how this measure, with all the challenges it may bring for justice and fairness, particularly for some of our minority communities, will address the backlog. Lord Leveson himself pointed out that increasing sitting days would not be a solution unless we had the barristers and solicitors. Can the Secretary of State give a guarantee that there will be funding for the legal aid required to ensure that every defendant has decent representation?

[Mr Lammy]

I remind my hon. Friend that we are increasing the uplift for barristers and their fees by £34 million. We have also increased legal aid, with £92 million for our solicitors. Because we need a pipeline of criminal lawyers, we have a match-funded scheme for pupillages so that we see the next generation of young people from all backgrounds becoming our criminal legal aid lawyers.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; if they were, we would not see similar extended delays in the magistrates courts, which have a record backlog of 361,000 cases. The cause is not just pupillages, but legal advisers in magistrates courts. Given that some of these cases with potentially longer sentences will move to the magistrates courts, what additional investment will go into them so that we do not just see the problem move from the Crown court to the magistrates court and see victims wait just as long there?

[Mr Lammy]

That is why we are putting money into legal advisers and why we are growing the magistracy. There is not anything like the backlog that exists in our Crown courts in our magistrates courts, so the question is: should we leave it as a year, or could our magistrates do more? I think 18 months is right in terms of the sentencing threshold.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I need to be honest: the prospect of citizens in our country being put away in jail for up to three years without the benefits of a trial by jury sends a chill through my heart. I gently say that no Government should ever govern as if they will be in power for ever. Those on the Front Bench denounce members of Reform as Putin’s pals—I think that is a fair description. Does the Justice Secretary want to think again? Imagine if Putin’s pals, as they are described, were in government in this country and people could get put away for three years without trial by jury. How would they use that? Is that not a frightening prospect? If we make these changes under pressure and hand them on to forces that would take things even further, would that not concern the Justice Secretary?

[Mr Lammy]

Clearly, my hon. Friend would accept that justice is not being served now. I simply would not equate either our magistrates or our independent judiciary with anything like what we see under Putin’s Russia.

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

Nobody would disagree with the Lord Chancellor’s diagnosis—the criminal courts are in crisis. It is the treatment that is in dispute. The question is whether the watering down of jury trials will be the solution, when in fact the problem is a lack of judges, court space and infrastructure, and inefficiencies in the system. Crucially, it is about a lack of appropriately trained defence and prosecution counsel who can deal with the complexities of these cases. Is this not a case of the Government choosing to prioritise other areas of spending, such as welfare, over our courts system?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman’s party did not come up with any solutions, and the backlog continued to rise. We commissioned an independent review, led by one of the country’s most eminent judges. Having reflected on that review, we are getting on with the business of recognising what he said: there is not a silver bullet, we have to do it all, and we are building on the reform that he asked us to do.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I welcome the additional money for the criminal legal aid advocates and for more pupillages? If we are to rely more on judges, often sitting alone, is there not a need for greater transparency with regard to the selection of those judges, even to the point of individual selection on individual cases? I wrote to the Secretary of State this morning on behalf of a number of our members about a particular instance of the disappearance of a judge. I would be grateful if he could read that letter and possibly meet a group of MPs concerned about that matter.

[Mr Lammy]

I will read that letter and commit to a meeting with my right hon. Friend and other MPs, either with me or with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services. He is absolutely right; transparency is core. When I looked at this issue in the Lammy review, I was very concerned that too often there was no transcript of what happened in our magistrates courts and Crown courts and that it was not easy. That is absolutely part of what we are now investing in, particularly with AI technology, and we will come forward with it.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Caernarfon justice centre is only 16 years old, but the roof leaks when it rains, and the heating does not work. Let me list some of the root causes for criminal courts processing fewer cases: high workloads, staff shortages and inexperience, poor administration, crumbling buildings. How does the Justice Secretary think that undermining one of the basic tenets of English and Welsh law will be a solution to those problems?

[Mr Lammy]

I refer the right hon. Lady to paragraph 9 of Sir Brian’s review, which says:

“it is important to underline that greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”

We are investing, but it will take time. It is not fair to ask victims to wait.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I spent two decades working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, and I can tell hon. Members that this crisis has been building for years and years and years. I spoke to one of my former colleagues today to ask him how things are. He said:

“Something has to be done. The backlog and delay is distorting the justice system as people need to wait so long for justice that defendants are pleading not guilty in the hope that the case ends up being considered not in the public interest. Meanwhile the public, victims and witnesses pay the price. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

Right now, my former colleague is working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, so let us support the people working in that system, and let us support our victims of crime so that they get justice quickly and fairly. My request to the Secretary of State is please to be bold.

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts her remarks so well. Let us be clear that there are defendants playing the system, and if we continue to allow them to do so, vulnerable victims of the most serious offences in our country will pay the price. That is why this is not just about financial investment; it has to be about reform, and I am determined to see this through.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

In his report, Sir Brian Leveson made a number of recommendations to reduce the Crown court backlog. Many of those recommendations are welcome, but curtailing the right to a jury trial is not one of them. Will the Secretary of State instruct his Department to publish the modelling it will have undertaken, so that we can see how much of an effect on the backlog each individual recommendation will have, and this House can take a view on the efficacy of his legislation before we vote on it?

[Mr Lammy]

I undertake that there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

The governance of jury trials has changed considerably over time—dramatically so in the 19th century, and again in the 1970s. In both cases, that was to improve public access to justice. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that if our traditions are to endure, including our legal traditions, they need to adapt?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Demand is soaring. Quite rightly, we are asking our police to arrest more, and we all know that smartphones, DNA, and phenotyping to tell the colour of a person’s eyes increase the workload. We have to reform the system, or we will break it.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but we have a proud history of juries in this country. If juries are to be suspended for cases in which a sentence of less than three years is expected in order to clear the backlog, will that just be for a limited time, and when will normal jury service be resumed?

[Mr Lammy]

For the reasons of complexity that Sir Brian has set out, and because the process of passing legislation means that I think we will only see the numbers starting to fall by the next general election, no, this change has to be permanent.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Given that the Bar Council has said it has seen “no evidence” that removing the right to elect to have a jury trial will significantly reduce the Crown court backlog, and that both the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have said that the real cause of delays is years of underfunding and reduced sitting days, will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are pursuing the removal of jury trials without publishing any modelling to show that juries—rather than chronic under-resourcing—are responsible for backlogs? Will he release the evidence base underpinning this proposed reform? Releasing impact assessments after the reform is made will be too late.

[Mr Lammy]

I say to my hon. Friend, who has tremendous expertise in these areas, that the evidence is contained in Sir Brian’s very lengthy review. That review looks at all the issues and says it is likely that the new division within the Crown court and the changes to magistrates courts will speed up the process by 20%.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The idea that we have to scrap jury trials to save jury trials is simply farcical. A legal framework 800 years old is being upended, and not to reduce backlogs or save money; this is a reframing of rights and of where power lies, taking power away from the people. Does the Lord Chancellor accept that jury trials—being judged by one’s peers—protects the vulnerable and enables fairness, and that as the Mother of the House said, this decision will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice?

[Mr Lammy]

Our criminal law cannot be set in aspic. The system that we have now largely came about as the result of legislation in 1971. Just prior to that, this House decriminalised homosexuality, and it was only in 1991 that we outlawed marital rape. Of course we make change, and it is right that we make change in this circumstance.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I have immense sympathy for the difficult position that the Lord Chancellor and the many victims of crime in this country are in. There is, however, a category of offences relating to the right to protest—a right that has been restricted by multiple Governments over time. It is very important that we maintain jury trials in anything that touches on that area, so can the Lord Chancellor commit to retaining jury trials in cases where the offence would currently go to the Crown court or would be an either-way offence?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise that there will be a range of cases beyond those that will now sit with the magistrates, in which the sentence would be more than 18 months and up to three years. However, I believe it must be left to our magistrates and judiciary to make the appropriate determination.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

We are supposed to have a legal system we are proud of, and the purpose of jury service is to ensure a fair and impartial justice system. Although there are dire backlogs in Crown court hearings in England, as well as delays in Northern Ireland, would the Lord Chancellor consider other options—such as fully funding and resourcing the system to address backlogs—as opposed to removing a civic obligation that people in this country believe in and have upheld for the sake of a fair judicial system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

The evidence is in Sir Brian’s review. This is an independent review, and I will read once again what Sir Brian has said:

“it is important to underline that greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I welcome the £550 million investment in victims, but trial by a jury of your peers is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system in this country. Court backlogs are a serious problem—I know that first hand—but the evidence shows that this is because of issues such as a chronic lack of funding, rather than the use of juries. Surely the Secretary of State can see that it would be a grave error to erode a principle that has stood the test of hundreds of years and is widely regarded as producing the fairest outcomes, including by his own 2017 review, all for the sake of time-saving and cost-saving measures that might in practice save neither time nor cost.

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the sincerity of my hon. Friend’s remarks, but I have really reflected on what Sir Brian has said. There is no silver bullet in this area—I am not suggesting that the changes we are making to the threshold for a jury trial will fix this entire problem. It will take more investment, and we are making that investment. It will take modernisation, particularly in relation to transcripts and audio, but it will also take reform. We have reformed the criminal justice system in the past; we can do so again in a way that is fair and right for everybody.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

In the event that a volunteer magistrate makes a mistake and jails someone for two years, that person’s automatic right to a rehearing will have been removed. Can the Justice Secretary confirm whether he believes this is efficiency, or just easier wrongful imprisonment?

[Mr Lammy]

Of course that person would get permission to appeal if the circumstances were legally correct.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the proposals to tackle the court backlogs and delays, which the previous Government did nothing to address. Will the Secretary of State please confirm that this Government will preserve the sanctity of jury trials, and that the proposed changes relate only to some either-way offences—those that are considered to be less serious and can therefore be properly dealt with by magistrates, who already deal with 90% of criminal cases?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I can. For every victim of a crime, the crime is serious, but the decisions that I am announcing at the Dispatch Box are about the length of sentences—about asking our magistrates to go up from one year to 18 months, and asking the new division in the Crown courts to deal with sentences of 18 months to three years.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Does the Secretary of State not agree that his policy of abolishing trial by jury in all but the most serious cases undermines the whole foundation of law and order in this country, and risks the further politicisation of our judicial system, with judges acting alone as the state and no longer being held to account by the people in the form of a jury?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

No, I do not.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Victims are waiting for years for their cases to go to trial. Christmas after Christmas, they are unable to heal or move on. The backlog of cases is now a record 78,000, and it was growing under the Conservative Government before the covid pandemic. Does the Secretary of State find the hypocrisy and faux outrage of the Conservative Opposition as galling as I do, given that reform is needed to clear up the mess that they made of our criminal justice system?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend has put it very well. As I have said, it worried me when the shadow Justice Secretary did not mention victims at all, and he did not talk about the Conservatives’ record in office, either. Much has been said about further investment, but behind those questions is the suggestion that we should ask victims to wait for another decade for it, and I do not think we can do that.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I appreciate the focus on victims, but has the Secretary of State considered the risks of removing juries when charges involve state or corporate victims if we are to preserve dissent, whistleblowing and protest? Given that big concerns have been raised about representation among judges, is he concerned about the potential for damaging attacks on, and politicisation of, individual judges and their decisions?

[Mr Lammy]

We must protect our judges, and there is a climate of increased concern about their security because of statements—some of them made in the House—that would undermine the independence of our judiciary.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The proposed new “swift courts” will mean that decisions regarding guilt will be made by judges alone, who will have received vital, inadmissible and potentially prejudicial evidence. Can the Secretary of State assure us that judges’ decisions are not influenced by inadmissible evidence, given the significant consequences for both victims and defendants involved in cases that are no longer eligible for jury trials? If this policy goes ahead, will he consider a non-extendable sunset clause?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for that question, and I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about evidence, but as I have said, I do not believe that a sunset clause would be right in this area because of the demand and the complexity to which Sir Brian has referred, and also because legislation will take some time. I hope to see the backlog reducing by the next election, but I do believe that these changes have to be permanent.

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

Tony Blair’s Administration put forward similar proposals, but were eventually forced to abandon them, thanks to opposition in the House and beyond. A similar coalition of opposition appears to be building up yet again. On the reply that the Justice Secretary has just given, may I urge him to reconsider the sunset clause, which might be the only way that he can get these proposals through the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I came out of practice at the beginning of the Tony Blair period, and the number of cases then was nowhere near what it is now. There was no backlog—cases could come on within a year—so the circumstances were vastly different, and we did not then commission a lengthy review to look at all these issues in the way we have today.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

In September, I attended a roundtable meeting with survivors of child sexual exploitation, hosted by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, and one of the key issues that they raised was the delays in court proceedings. It is unacceptable that perpetrators are not being brought to justice more quickly. I welcome these reforms, but how will we ensure that court delays are reduced as much as possible and perpetrators are brought to justice as quickly as possible?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right. Implementing the recommendations, moving to legislation as soon as we can, continued investment in the court system, the concordat, and my obligation to bring about more sitting days are all important, as is the modernisation of our courts through, for instance, the use of AI and technology throughout the system. The discussion today is about our criminal courts, but we also need investment in our civil and family courts.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a practising barrister and a law firm owner.

Our centuries-old right to jury trial is not an ornament of the past. It is the living guarantee of a fair trial. It is the safeguard that ensures that no citizen is judged except by their peers. It is the cornerstone of our legal heritage, and the bedrock of public confidence in criminal justice. It must not be curtailed for administrative convenience, and let us be clear: curtailing jury trials will not cut the backlog, or, if it does, it will simply shift that backlog straight to the appeal courts. Why, then, have the Government chosen not to prioritise court capacity, judicial recruitment and proper case-management reform, but instead to curtail jury trials?

[Mr Lammy]

We are doing all of it, I would say. I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman and his experience as a criminal practitioner, and of course I have heard a great many messages over the last few days from friends of mine who are at the Bar or are criminal legal aid solicitors. Change is hard, but the Government’s responsibility is to look at the whole system and at all that has been said, and to put victims at the centre. What I am not hearing in the Chamber from those who oppose what we are doing is what else can be done. What I am hearing is, “More money might fix this problem.” Sir Brian has made it clear that investment alone will not fix the problem, and it is not acceptable to ask victims to wait another decade for that investment to kick in.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the news that the Government will match-fund criminal barrister pupillages, and I agree that there should be a focus on opening up a career at the criminal Bar to even more young people from across society and from all socioeconomic backgrounds. What additional plans does the Lord Chancellor have to make law a more accessible sector for young people from all backgrounds?

[Mr Lammy]

The day I was called to the Bar, back in the mid-1990s, was a huge moment in my life. I came from a working-class, poorer background, raised by a single mother, and I am deeply saddened that over the last few years young people from all backgrounds have been put off from becoming criminal legal aid solicitors or barristers. We must do something about that, and I have found the money not only to raise fees for barristers and other lawyers in this area, but also to ensure that the next generation of lawyers comes through. I hope that is not lost in some of the misconceptions about jury trials.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary blames the court backlog on a reduction in funding by the past Government, yet he plans to reduce access to jury trials permanently. Is not the truth of it that he does not want to fund courts because his Government have prioritised welfare for the few over justice for the many?

[Mr Lammy]

No. Absolutely not. We are implementing and building on the work of Sir Brian Leveson, and we are determined to bring the backlog down. It takes investment, it reform and modernisation.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. Residents in my constituency of Harlow are rightly concerned about the court backlog. Waiting six years for justice is not justice. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that these changes will bring down the court backlog, and can he reassure us that for the major crimes he spoke about, there will still be trial by jury?

[Mr Lammy]

I can confirm that the jury remains the cornerstone of our system, and must do for obvious reasons. I want to see the backlog coming down, but this is a mountain to climb, and that is why I have said that I want reductions by the next general election. The trend at the moment is upwards, and we have to throw everything at the problem if we are to solve it.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I have previously raised the case of my Woking constituent Dani, a victim of grooming and sexual abuse, who is having to wait more than six years for justice. Although I am concerned about these proposals from the Justice Secretary, I and others can probably be convinced if they do genuinely put the victims first without undermining our justice system. To persuade me, please will he agree to publish the impact assessment in full and let the Justice Committee fully scrutinise these proposals before a Bill is introduced?

[Mr Lammy]

As the hon. Member would expect, there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation, and full scrutiny of these proposals both in this place and in the other place. I just say to him: listen to victims’ voices today, to our Victims’ Commissioner, and to the groups that support victims. They support these proposals because they know that, combined, they are our best attempt to recalibrate the system and bring it back to where it should be.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Justice is devolved to Northern Ireland, with the exception of the regulation of non-jury trials. On 9 June, the then Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said in a Committee of this place on the extension of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland that

“the Secretary of State has asked officials over the next two years to examine how Northern Ireland could move away from those provisions”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 9 June 2025; c. 5.]

Is that still the Government’s mind?

[Mr Lammy]

Northern Ireland is of course in a special and unique position on this issue, and I am happy to get the appropriate Minister to meet the hon. Member and any colleagues to discuss these issues.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I am hoping that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Justice Secretary can rule out any changes to inquests with a jury, which are required when the deceased has been detained by the state. These inquests are also subject to agonising delays for bereaved families. Given those delays, what plans does he have to address backlogs in the coroner’s court?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful for the question, and I can rule that out. I am happy to have a Minister discuss with the hon. Member what we are doing in the coroner’s court.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I declare an interest as a practising criminal barrister. Before the Justice Secretary tears up clause 39 of Magna Carta, which guaranteed that no free person shall be imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of their peers, I ask him to consider that, when I was in the Crown court in Birmingham only a few weeks ago, a matter was delayed and adjourned because we did not have courtroom availability, so eliminating jurors will not solve the backlog in the way he has described, but it will erode public confidence in the principles that have protected our justice system for over 800 years. I accept that justice delayed is justice denied, but I am sure that he understands that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that can only be done through juries.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member accepts that justice delayed is justice denied, but then does not come up with a solution. Does he respect Sir Brian Leveson and his work? Does he recognise that it is important that we reform the system, so that it is fit for purpose and for the next generation? Does he accept—he must, as a criminal practitioner—the huge demand, and the changes that we have seen in criminal practice since I qualified as a lawyer 30 years ago? Of course he does.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Having spent my professional life practising in the criminal courts in Northern Ireland, where we have had both jury trials and non-jury trials to deal with terrorist offences, I must say to the Justice Secretary that whatever the intellectual capacity of judges, they do not have the practical life experience of 12 jurors collectively, and that is what brings superior credibility to a jury verdict. Dissipating juries will strain the quality of our justice, particularly in circumstances where the presiding judge will have to decide on the admissibility of evidence, and then put from his mind evidence that he might have dismissed when reaching a verdict, but none the less convey to the public that justice has been seen to be done?

[Mr Lammy]

I am hugely respectful of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s experience in these areas. We do ask our judges to make life-changing decisions across a whole range of areas. I am the father of an adopted daughter, and believe me, there is no greater decision someone can make than to take a child away from its birth parents. Judges do have to make difficult judgments, and they do so with the assistance of those who give evidence before them. So I believe we can do this, and I just ask him to reflect on the three-year threshold and the sorts of crimes about which we are asking our magistracy and our judges to make those fine judgments.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The previous Government should hang their head in shame for leaving our judicial system—the courts, the backlog and the prison system—in such disarray. A 2022 survey of 373 legal professionals, conducted by barrister Keir Monteith KC and the University of Manchester, found that 56% of respondents had witnessed at least one judge acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant, while 52% had witnessed discrimination in judicial decision making, and concluded that there is

“institutional racism in the justice system”.

Given that the Justice Secretary now seeks to remove juries, does he foresee greater injustice, prejudice and racial discrimination in our courtrooms, and what steps is he taking to tackle the existing and likely increase in institutional racism?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the former Prime Minister David Cameron and the former Justice Secretary Michael Gove asked me to conduct the Lammy review. In that review, I recommended that training, which was not happening in the way it should, should happen, and it is now happening. I was concerned about the diversity of our judiciary and our magistracy. That has improved, but there is more to do. In London, for example, 31% of our magistrates are now from an ethnic minority background. It is also important that, with the changes we are making, we will now get a judge’s reasoning, which lawyers such as those on the Back Benches can challenge. Where we have a jury, we do not get the reasoning, which I think is important as we look at issues of accountability.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the questioning, the Justice Secretary referred to the Victims’ Commissioner supporting these proposals. For the record, will he make it clear that, sadly, the Victims’ Commissioner passed away a number of weeks ago and cannot possibly have seen these proposals? He may have been referring to the incoming Victims’ Commissioner, who starts in January, but the statement she has released today makes no reference to the Justice Secretary’s proposals on changes to jury trials. I wonder if he might have inadvertently misled the House about that.

[Mr Lammy]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the Secretary of State wants to respond.

[Mr Lammy]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to clarify, I did discuss these proposals with the incoming Victims’ Commissioner. Today, an event on violence against women has been held at No. 10 with many victims organisations. From them and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—she is in her place to make the next statement—there is a wide welcome for these proposals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That concludes the statement.

Royal Assent

Criminal Court Reform

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Written Statements

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

On 9 July 2025, part 1 of the independent review of criminal courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, was published. I am grateful to Sir Brian and the panel of expert advisers for their work.

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. Some victims are waiting years for justice, which is why the Government asked Sir Brian to make recommendations for how to restore confidence in the system.

The first part of Sir Brian’s review sets down a blueprint for bold, structural reform in our criminal courts. In accepting that blueprint, the Government intend to rebuild the system through investment, structural reform and modernisation.

In addition to the significant investment this Government have announced already in our court estate and criminal solicitors, I am committed to investing up to £34 million more a year for criminal defence advocate legal aid fees to recognise the crucial work that our legal professionals do in delivering for our justice system. This is subject to consultation. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation that the Government match-fund a number of criminal barrister pupillages, with a particular focus on opening a career at the criminal Bar to even more young people from across society.

I will agree sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. This year, I allocated a record 111,250 days to the Crown court, and I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise, and that our ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.

Today, I am confirming that the Government agree with Sir Brian’s blueprint for structural reform and intend to legislate for the following measures:

Magistrates’ courts sentencing powers will increase to 18 months, with provision to extend to 24 months if necessary to relieve pressure in the Crown court.

The right of defendants to elect for a jury trial will be removed, meaning that it will be for the court to determine where a case will be heard, based on the severity of offences.

The appeals process from magistrates’ courts will be reformed so that automatic appeals to the Crown court in criminal cases are replaced with a permission stage, limited to points of law.

A new bench division will be established in the Crown court for triable-either-way cases with likely sentences of three years or less, heard by a judge alone.

Jury trials will remain for indictable-only offences and cases with likely sentences over three years.

A small number of serious but particularly technical and lengthy fraud and financial cases may be heard by judge alone in the Crown court, subject to certain requirements and at the discretion of the court.

The threshold for criminal damage to be tried summarily will be updated from £5,000 to £10,000, in line with inflation.

These reforms are grounded in the rule of law, equality before the law, and the right to a fair trial.

Sir Brian’s second report will set out a further blueprint for modernisation in the criminal courts, focused on efficiency improvements and the better use of technology, and I am grateful to the judiciary for their ongoing support for this work.

In addition to structural court reform, the Government will continue to consider the review’s broader recommendations, including those focused on efficiency, in the second part of the review, once published. We continue to explore options to stop cases coming to court in the first place, through smarter and wider use of diversion. We will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.

The Government recognise that the structural reforms will take time to implement and are committed to supporting victims during this period. We have committed multi-year funding for victim support services, and commit to investing £550 million over the next three years.

The Ministry of Justice will continue to work with the judiciary and stakeholders and will bring forward legislation for Parliament’s consideration in due course.

[HCWS1123]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reform human rights laws.

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

Mr Speaker, the whole House will know that I shall be making a statement shortly after this Question Time.

The Government are committed to human rights at home and abroad, but in order to retain public confidence, the European convention on human rights and other instruments must evolve to face modern challenges. Domestically, we will clarify how convention rights operate in immigration cases, and I am engaging across Europe on wider reform.

[Bob Blackman]

The public are clearly frustrated that foreign criminals and people who come here illegally are not deported because human rights laws are used to prevent that from happening. I understand that the Lord Chancellor’s predecessor, the present Home Secretary, is considering changing those laws, which might happen, but if that is the case, could the Lord Chancellor not accept the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the shadow Lord Chancellor and put it into law so that we can get on with the job of deporting people who should not be here?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right; people are claiming the article 8 right in particular and using domestic law to thwart removal to their countries. That is why it is important for us to deal with that domestically, through legislation. I remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that this Government are deporting more foreign criminals than have ever been deported before—over 5,000 just in our first year in office. We are taking this seriously and we are acting.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Because of our proud history and our commitment to the rule of law, the UK is a global leader in legal services, with our courts garnering respect across the world. What does the Lord Chancellor think would be the impact on our reputation should we begin ripping up our international agreements and our commitments to the very rule of law that we as a nation helped to shape?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that legal services, the rule of law and the importance of this jurisdiction for companies and individuals seeking recourse brings £47 billion a year into our economy. It is right for us to seek common cause with countries such as Denmark and Italy, which are, like us, exercised about how the European convention on human rights is being thwarted; but we do that in a steady, progressive way, and we certainly recognise the importance of the ECHR.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I serve on the Council of Europe, which is a perfectly worthwhile assembly. The convention was framed shortly after the second world war and was designed to counter Nazism—it was not designed to protect illegal migrants entering a country. We all know that this crisis is sapping belief in government. Why does the very reasonable Justice Secretary not work with the even more reasonable shadow Justice Secretary, come before the House and say that we will get a temporary derogation from the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, and that we will detain and deport anyone who enters this country illegally? That would solve the crisis.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman, who is hugely experienced, will know that it is important that we do not do anything that might, for example, undermine the Good Friday agreement, in respect of which the ECHR is fundamentally important. He rightly mentioned the refugee convention, which sits with the United Nations. I will be going to Strasbourg shortly, where I will be taking up many of these issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Perran Moon.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Speaker. There are perhaps other unforeseen consequences of leaving the ECHR, including for the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that either the Opposition parties wishing to leave the ECHR have not considered the impact of leaving on Cornish national minority status, or they have but they just do not care about the Cornish?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will know that, in relation to the debate that we had on exiting the European Union, all sorts of things were promised by many colleagues now on the Opposition Benches, but they were not delivered. It feels a little bit like we are on repeat in relation to this. There are areas of immigration where we have to do things domestically, and there are areas where we want to work with European colleagues—who are also concerned at the way that laws are being thwarted—but please let us not undermine a fundamental that was instituted by one of the heroes of this Parliament, Winston Churchill.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Fuad Awale is an extremist and double murderer who later took a prison officer hostage and demanded the release of the radical cleric Abu Qatada. He is the definition of evil. Yet the Justice Secretary’s Department is now set to pay him compensation as his ECHR rights have apparently been infringed, because he could not associate with monsters like those who killed Lee Rigby. Will the Justice Secretary ensure that not a single penny of taxpayers’ money is handed over to this man? If he will not, and he puts our membership of the ECHR above the interests of the British people, will he put his money where his mouth is and pay any so-called compensation himself?

[Mr Lammy]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is always keen to get headlines, but he knows that the consequences of judgments—their impacts on Government and any payments made—have been an issue for successive Governments for the entire time that he and I have been on the planet. He knows that we are committed to the ECHR—offering asylum to those who are genuinely fleeing torture and execution—but he knows, too, that we are seeking to work domestically and with European colleagues on the issues that I referred to earlier, and article 8 in particular. This is not the time to start revising decisions that have effectively been made by our courts.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

2. What his Department’s policy is on the use of the Welsh language in prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We are determined to back our hard-working probation staff by investing up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review and investing an initial £8 million in new technologies to reduce administrative burdens. We will also recruit 1,300 trainee probation officers in 2025-26, in addition to the more than 1,000 we recruited last year.

[Ian Sollom]

In July 2024, inspectors rated Cambridgeshire and Peterborough probation service inadequate, with major leadership failures and child safeguarding assessed as adequate in just 28% of cases. The action plan committed to increasing probation officer staffing by 87% by March 2026, but the National Audit Office has now revealed that the Probation Service has underestimated staffing requirements by 34%, which implies that the service in Cambridgeshire has been operating with only half the staff needed. Given that miscalculation, will the Secretary of State commit to revised, accurate staffing targets for Cambridgeshire, and reassure my constituents that child safeguarding will not be compromised as the service tries to manage with inadequate resources?

[Mr Lammy]

Cambridgeshire is a part of the country that I know well, having spent seven years of my life in Peterborough. I will look closely at this issue, and I will ask the Prisons Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss how we move forward.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Probation Service plays a vital role in our justice system, and is integral to ensuring that community sentences are effective and that our communities are kept safe. The Conservatives’ part-privatisation reforms were disastrous for our Probation Service. What are this Government doing to ensure that our probation officers are properly supported in carrying out their vital jobs?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The decisions that were made under the last Government by the then Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, were catastrophic for a wonderful service, and we are now in the business of rebuilding the Probation Service. I have been very pleased to visit probation workers in Chatham, Kent, and in Islington recently, and one of the things they raise is their caseload. In Kent they were trialling our transformation fund money, which is introducing artificial intelligence that can help them do what they want to do: provide face-to-face contact and reduce their caseloads. I want to see that rolled out across the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Currently, if a child sex offender is released from prison, the police and the Probation Service can track them on the sex offenders register, but if a child abuser is released from prison, the authorities have no register to track them with. There is a glaring gap in the system. Paula Hudgell has been fighting to fix the law after her adopted son Tony was abused so badly that he lost his legs. She has been diagnosed with terminal cancer, and she says this campaign is the fire in her belly. Paula is truly inspirational, and we are backing her campaign. Will the Secretary of State take our amendment or bring forward his own, and get this change over the line for Paula, for Tony and to protect children now and into the future?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I can tell him that the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), met Paula today and we are keen to support her campaign.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Like much of the justice system, the Probation Service is buckling under the strain after a decade of being undervalued by the previous Government. The injection of £700 million by 2028 was welcomed last year, but it has yet to be felt on the frontline of probation, which is estimated to be 10,000 staff members short. Given that the Sentencing Bill and a presumption against short sentences are bound to put additional pressure on the Probation Service, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the service can work efficiently to properly manage offenders in the community?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. It was important that we exceeded our target of 1,000 officers last year, and we have to get those 1,300 officers in place. The £700 million must be spent by the end of the spending review. It is important that we bear down on getting AI across the service and that we introduce new technology, because it is only by doing so that probation officers can do what they want to do: get back to face-to-face and personalised care.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to help support the Probation Service to manage repeat offenders who cross jurisdictional boundaries to avoid supervision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the number of prisoners serving imprisonment for public protection sentences.

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

It is right that the IPP sentence was abolished. The number of unreleased IPP prisoners fell to 946, as of 30 September 2025—a reduction of 14% compared with the previous year. Legislative changes that we implemented have reduced the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community to around two thirds.

[Mr Brash]

My constituent, Terry Rowley, received an IPP sentence on 8 February 2008. His minimum tariff was set at one year and 126 days. That was 6,486 days ago—almost 18 years—and he remains in prison. No one disputes the seriousness of his offences, but the issue for Terry and his family is one of equal justice. Someone sentenced to the same crime today would not receive an IPP. Does the Secretary of State accept that this raises fundamental concerns about fairness and equality before the law for those serving under the IPP regime, and what steps will he take to fix it?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the challenges for Terry and his family. We are determined to support those in prison to progress towards safe and sustainable releases, but understandably that cannot be in a way that undermines public protection. We are not giving up on any individual serving an IPP sentence. We will ensure that each one gets the support and access to the risk education and risk reduction work that they need. I will ensure that Terry is receiving all the support he needs.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

What is the Government’s assessment of the current protocols regarding the comprehensive risk assessments, and can the public be assured that the existing policies on IPP sentences are safeguarding the community effectively?

[Mr Lammy]

That is why we have to put public protection first and there has to be a robust risk assessment. We require the Parole Board in particular to make very sensitive assessments. People cannot leave prison unless we are confident that they will not go on to commit further crimes. That is the assessment we ask the Parole Board and others in the prison system to make.

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

9. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of lowering the pension age of prison officers.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Since the last Justice oral questions, I am proud to have taken the next steps towards putting a landmark Hillsborough law on to the statute book, with the Second Reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. There has also, understandably, been widespread interest in the number of releases in error from prisons. I can tell the House that in the year to March 2025, there were 262 releases in error and my Department has today published data showing that from April to the end of October this year, there were a further 91 mistaken releases. I am clear that we must bear down on these numbers, and I look forward to updating the House in my oral statement later today on the steps that the Government are taking to reverse this trend.

[Clive Jones]

The Conservative Thames Valley police and crime commissioner has said that the public should be doing more to stop shoplifting. This week, my constituent Sarah described being “smacked into” during a shoplifting incident and the fear that she felt at that moment. Does the Minister agree with the police and crime commissioner that Sarah is part of the problem, or does he think the bigger problem is that shoplifters know that more than 80% of these offences result in no charge at all?

[Mr Lammy]

This issue does require more neighbourhood policing and bobbies on the beat—as the hon. Gentleman knows, numbers were cut under the last Government. I also think that the intensive supervision courts, provided for in the Sentencing Bill, will be able to make a huge difference. A lot of shoplifters need a judge checking in with them regularly, and sometimes dealing with their addiction issue, to get them to change course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Harpreet Uppal. Not here. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Last week, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that there was “no doubt” that the Government’s early release scheme would lead to an increase in crime. This followed the news that a man who had been released from prison early had been charged with murder. So this is a simple question: will the Justice Secretary rule out any more early release schemes for prisoners?

[Mr Lammy]

Can I just remind the right hon. Gentleman that, just before the general election in July 2024, his Government had three different versions of their early release scheme? We inherited a situation, as he knows, where prison capacity was completely unsustainable. Successive former Justice Secretaries under the previous Government have said this in the last week. We brought forward our early release scheme, and it was important to do that to put capacity into the system, but it is the Sentencing Bill that will begin to deal with this issue in a comprehensive way.

[Robert Jenrick]

Well, if we strip back all that waffle—the Secretary of State did not deny it, did he? That is interesting, because there has been another accidental release by the Ministry of Justice, and this time it is an email sent in error by his officials to me. It shows that his Department is looking to accommodate criminals in the community instead of in prison. As we would expect from him, it says that the plans are a “finger in the air” approach. It says that the Department is considering spending up to 100 grand a year per person to live outside of prison. That is more than the cost of a prison cell. Can the Justice Secretary really say with a straight face that his latest scheme is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that email, which was sent in error, referred to women. He knows that when we are talking about women offenders, the system must understandably consider the fact that many of them are mothers and many have been the victims of men who have groomed them, who have pimped them and who have abused them. That is why public policymakers understandably look at alternative ways to deal with women in the community. None of us in this House should make any apologies for that.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

T7. Meaningful activity and access to education in prison are key to supporting those leaving prison with the skills and tools they need to move away from crime. However, the University and College Union reports that recent changes to the education contract have triggered notable job losses. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on how the Government are supporting the prison education system to help reduce reoffending?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I am fortunate to get thorough updates from my police, fire and crime commissioner, Danielle Stone. In the latest update, she told me that she sees real improvements in the Probation Service, but Northampton still has a 40% staff vacancy rate. What is the Department doing to support recruitment and retention of the skilled staff that we need in the sector?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We recruited over 1,000 staff last year and 1,300 this year—we must retain them. Key to that is reducing caseloads, and that is why I am introducing AI.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

T2. A 2022 victim survey found that only 10% of victims believed that the criminal justice system was effective. What steps are the Government taking to support victims of violence against women and girls, and will they ensure that all police and prosecutors receive training in understanding the impact of trauma on survivors?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T8. Why did the Government vote against releasing migrant crime data?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman knows that successive Governments have made data releases. Those data releases have to be analysed properly. We make no excuses for voting in the appropriate way.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

My constituent Richard Pyke was the victim of a violent attack at his workplace in March of this year. He was given his victim impact statement when he met the Crown Prosecution Service barrister five minutes before going into court on the day of sentencing. It had been amended: he was not allowed to say how he felt that the perpetrator tried to murder him, he was no longer allowed to say that he was manipulated into a vulnerable position, and he was not allowed to state how he felt about the perpetrator’s release. What assurances can the Minister give victims of serious crimes, such as attempted murder, that they will not be censored in such a way?

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Two weeks ago, at the statement on prisoner release checks, the Secretary of State called my question “ridiculous”. Let me try a different tack: has he spoken to the affected family in Epping?

[Mr Lammy]

I said last week that I was keen to meet with the family, and I will meet with them when they meet with the Prisons Minister, I hope, in the coming weeks.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have seen a lack of maintenance of prisons, a stop-start prison building programme and all the challenges in our courts—is it any surprise that we are looking at non-custodial sentences for lower-level offenders? Does the Secretary of State agree that those on the Opposition Front Bench have some cheek to come to this House and question that when the failures in the system are down to 14 years failure?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend did a valiant job as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, constantly revisiting these issues. She will have noticed how successive Justice Secretaries under the last Government have said that they cut the numbers, they failed to invest, violence was up, and now we have junior staff making very important decisions.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I have been contacted by a Surrey Heath resident who has not just endured and survived appalling domestic abuse but is now enduring and attempting to survive the family court process, with multiple hearings over child contact arrangements. Will the Minister commit today to implementing the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s recent recommendations to better protect children at risk?

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

What does the Deputy Prime Minister have to say about the unprecedented letter in The Times today from nine recent former heads of the armed forces, stating that the Government’s Northern Ireland troubles and legacy legislation breaks the compact between service personnel who do their duty and the Government, who should stand up for them, not open them up to endless litigation and persecution?

[Mr Lammy]

I saw the Northern Ireland Secretary’s statement last week. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there has been considerable lawfare and that the scheme proposed by his Government was largely thrown out by the courts. That is why the Veterans Minister has listened very keenly to not just military families but all those who were victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State today agree to publish clear, honest and regular statistics on the number of illegal migrants convicted of sexual offences, murder or indeed any other crime? A yes or no answer will do well.

[Mr Lammy]

We do publish statistics in the usual way after they have been properly analysed. We have to make sure that all facts are verified, and we have done that in the same way that the last Government did.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I recently met the chief executive of an international charity that happens to be based in Wiltshire where there have been serious historical allegations. Unfortunately, the resourcing of such inquiries falls between the Serious Fraud Office, the National Crime Agency, Wiltshire police and the Charity Commission. Will one of the Ministers meet with me? It is not right that charity investigations are not conducted properly when there are serious allegations.

[Mr Lammy]

I am very happy to look at that and ensure that a Minister meets with the right hon. Gentleman.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Sexual exploitation is being perpetrated on an industrial scale by pimping websites, which currently enjoy near-total legal impunity, moving sexual exploitation off the street and into locations like flats and hotels, where outreach is harder and the coercion of vulnerable women can thrive. Given that advertising prostitution in a phone box was made illegal 25 years ago, can the Government explain why they are yet to outlaw the same advertising online?

Prisoner Releases in Error

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on releases in error from prison.

On Armistice Day, let me begin by paying tribute to those we honour: Members of both Houses and parliamentary staff who gave their tomorrow for our today. Whatever divides our politics, today we remember what binds us together: our belief in service and the pursuit of the common good.

On Wednesday 5 November I answered Prime Minister’s questions. As someone who has served in this House for 25 years, I take my responsibilities to Parliament incredibly seriously. The House will recall that I was asked repeatedly whether any asylum-seeking offender had been released in error. At that time, I had been alerted of the release of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif from His Majesty’s Prison Wandsworth. Details about the case were still emerging throughout Wednesday. Importantly, my officials had not had confirmation about whether or not he was an asylum seeker. Indeed, it was not until later that afternoon that the Home Office confirmed to the Ministry of Justice that he was not.

Given the nature of the Opposition’s questions, I made a judgment that I would wait until I had all the detail, rather than risk giving an inaccurate, incomplete or misleading picture to the House about a sensitive case. Conservative Members may argue that they would have handled the situation differently. All I can do is to be open about the factors I was weighing at the time and that the data in the system we inherited is painfully slow. I thank Mr Speaker for the opportunity to update the House in full today.

Members will recall that, following the release of Hadush Kebatu on 24 October, I put in place stronger release checks. I can confirm that the error leading to Mr Kaddour-Cherif’s release happened in September, before those checks came in. He was charged with burglary at Snaresbrook Crown court and a warrant was issued to HMP Pentonville for his remand. Contrary to the set down process, it was then forwarded by email to HMP Wandsworth when Mr Kaddour-Cherif was transferred. However, staff did not pick it up and he was released on 29 October. Mr Kaddour-Cherif was taken back into custody on 7 November by Haringey police. I am grateful to officers from my part of north London again, after they also re-arrested Mr Kebatu. I am grateful too to the wider Metropolitan police and to the public who assisted them.

I can tell the House that there were around 57,000 routine releases from prison in the year to March 2025. In that same time, there were 262 releases in error from prison. New data my Department published today shows that from April to the end of October this year, there were 91 releases in error from prison. Further data on the breakdown of offences are official statistics that need to be combed through in detail before being put into the public domain. That data is not due for publication today, but we recognise the public interest in being transparent about the overall number. It is important to note that this number may be revised as additional cases are subsequently recorded, but this is the very latest that I have been provided.

We understand that three mistakenly released prisoners are currently unlawfully at large. Their prison records show that none of them are convicted sex offenders. I have been informed this afternoon that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is investigating a further case of a potential release in error on 3 November of a person who may still be at large. It is symptomatic of the data issues that we inherited that this is all the information that I have been given, while police and HMPPS investigate.

On the confirmed cases, case one was in prison for failing to surrender to the police and was released in error in December 2024. Case two was in prison for a class B drug offence, and was released in error in August 2024. Case three was in prison for aggravated burglary, and was released in error in June 2025. Two are British nationals, and one is a foreign national offender. I will not provide any further details on individual cases. In each case, we have to consider the welfare of victims and the judgment of our law enforcement agencies.

Of the 262 releases in error from prison in the year to March 2025, 87 were of offenders whose main offence was one of violence against the person, and three were of offenders whose main offence was a sexual offence. I am clear that we must bear down on these numbers, which are symptomatic of a prison system under horrendous strain. As the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), admitted last week,

“the state of the prison service has been unacceptable for a very long time…including under the Conservative government.”

Prisons are still struggling with violence. The safety in custody statistics show an 8% rise in the rate of assaults in the year to June 2025. Systems are archaic; every prisoner’s sentence is worked out on paper. Consideration is given to the type of offence and the legislation that covers it, and there are more than 500 pages of sentence management guidance.

I pay tribute to prison officers, who are doing an incredibly important job, but as the Prison Officers Association has said,

“Prisons throughout the country are underfunded, understaffed and operating under relentless strain.”

Frontline prison officers were cut by a quarter between 2010 and 2017. That is around 6,000 fewer people, and it means that there are fewer experienced staff, which places more pressure on the system. Unsurprisingly, mistakes happen in those circumstances. Indeed, from 2010-11 to the end of 2023-24, under the previous Government, there were 860 known releases in error from prisons.

We must recognise the distress that is caused to victims who learn that the person who harmed them is free when they should be behind bars. In the worst cases, such as that of William Fernandez back in 2021, prisoners have committed further horrific offences. I give an unequivocal apology to all who have faced worry or worse as a result of releases in error, especially Hadush Kebatu’s victims, whom I have offered to meet. I hope that the right hon. Member for Newark will join me in that apology to all who have suffered because of releases in error under this Government and previous Governments.

Human error will always exist, and no Justice Secretary could prevent every mistake, but we must reduce the risk and reverse the trend over the course of this Parliament. We must be honest: the release process requires a radical overhaul, and establishing the facts in individual cases is complex. Decisions about public statements rightly rest with the police. Issuing details too early could frustrate covert inquiries, or put police officers or the public at risk. These are judgments for experienced operational leaders to make, and parliamentarians must give them the space in which to make them.

This is a complex issue—we must be straight with the public about that—and I am clear that we have a mountain to climb in response. First, I am chairing a new justice performance board, which will give a comprehensive view of prisons and criminal court performance, including releases in error, to drive a step change in how we respond. The first monthly meeting took place yesterday. Secondly, I am making sure that we understand the issues. Following the release of Kebatu, I asked Dame Lynne Owens to carry out a review, which will conclude by the end of February next year. That review will now include the adequacy of data collected and published on releases in error, and we fully expect to uncover additional incidents. I can also announce that we will set up a team of data scientists to review historical releases in error in order to understand what is going wrong.

Thirdly, I am improving processes. Because some of these errors originated not in the prison process, but in the court process, I will implement an urgent warrant query unit, supported by court experts, so that prisons can escalate queries and get rapid clarifications to reduce the risk of releases in error that emanate from the court system. We are also issuing instructions to court staff to reinforce mandatory requirements for imprisonment orders to be confirmed verbally with judges before they are finalised. This measure has been shared with the judiciary. The court and prison services are also scoping a joint exercise on live warrants. It will initially take place in the London region. That exercise will identify errors and ensure that prisoners are subject to the correct warrants.

Fourthly, I am accelerating upgrades. I stood up a digital rapid response team last week to reduce human error with cutting-edge technology. Over the next six months, we will provide up to £10 million to deliver artificial intelligence and technology solutions, which will help frontline staff avoid mistakes and support them in calculating sentences accurately. Finally, I am simplifying the release policy. One of the aims of the Sentencing Bill is to standardise how cases are treated, and following Dame Lynne Owens’ review, we will consider whether amendments to operational policy are required. These are the initial steps to address this issue, but I will update the House where further changes are necessary. I commend the statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just clear something up, which does not have to happen? First of all, I was told that the Justice Secretary needed 13 minutes. [Interruption.] Bear with me. I said, “You will need to ask,” and in the end, the Department came back and said, “Oh no, it’s 10 minutes.” That statement was not 10 minutes; it was almost 12 minutes. I will work with Ministers and Secretaries of State, but the limit is 10 minutes. If there needs to be an extension, please ask; do not keep changing the length of time, because it is unfair to shadow Ministers when a statement runs over. The shadow Justice Secretary now has an extra minute, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has an extra half-minute, but in future, please stick to the rule of 10 minutes. If you do need longer, I am always sympathetic, as long as I know in advance, but it makes your Department look foolish if you run over, having said to me that an extension was no longer needed. It is certainly not going to make me look foolish in the future. I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

So we are back here again. At least the Justice Secretary is getting some use out of his new suit. But where has Wednesday’s bombast and bravado gone? “Get a grip, man!”, he thundered last week, without even a hint of irony. There was none of that today, was there? Why is that? It is because, like increasing numbers of criminals in our jails, the Justice Secretary just does not know whether he is coming or going. Even his colleagues in government are turning on him, some with unbridled contempt. “The handling is terrible”, was the verdict of a Cabinet Minister; “just rank incompetence”, “cowardly”, and “frankly pretty dodgy” was the verdict of another. Before long, the Prime Minister will be saying that he has full confidence in the Justice Secretary, and we all know what that means.

Two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary told the House that he had put in place the strongest checks ever to stop releases in error. Forty-eight hours later, another prisoner with a history of sex offences was released in error. Seven days later, a fraudster was let out, on the very day he was sentenced to 45 months inside—and today, the Justice Secretary admits that he lost another prisoner on that same day. They are Lammy’s lags, a whole new category of criminal who can just waltz out of prison despite the “strongest ever checks”, introduced by this Justice Secretary.

The public are being endangered as this circus rumbles on week after week, with no end in sight. When will the Justice Secretary put a stop to it? He cannot hide behind the inquiry that he has commissioned. He could not even get the name of the head of the review—Lynne Owens—right last week. “Anne Owens, Anne Owens,” he bellowed. Well, I looked her up, and the only “Anne Owens” I could find was a panto performer who recently appeared in “Alice in Wonderland”. Perhaps she was the one who gave the Justice Secretary tips on his performance at the Dispatch Box last week.

The former chief inspector of prisons says that the issue was caused, at least in part, by the “confusion” created by Labour’s botched early release scheme. Does the Justice Secretary now concede that there is a link between the doubling of the number of prisoners accidentally released in the last year and the introduction of Labour’s standard determinate sentence 40 scheme, or is it just an extremely unlucky coincidence? Do not take us for fools!

When will the Justice Secretary finally come clean? He will not provide details in answer to parliamentary questions. He will not answer even when he is here for Prime Minister’s questions. He will not respond to letters—but perhaps that is because they were not addressed to “the Deputy Prime Minister”. He has now been dragged here, kicking and screaming, to admit that one prisoner has been on the run from this Labour Government for 14 months, and 91 have been accidentally released over the last seven months. However, the Justice Secretary is so clueless that he has literally lost track of how many prisoners he has lost. He has said today that a prisoner “may” have been accidentally released last Monday. Well, has he looked? The prisoner is either in his cell or he is not.

What a complete and utter farce the Justice Secretary is presiding over. As we all suspected, the crisis on his Government’s watch is even bigger than he dared to admit. That is why he would not say anything last week. Prisoners are being accidentally released nearly every other day, putting our constituents—his constituents—at risk.

At this rate, he is on track for 156 prisoners to be accidentally released this year, which would be a record, were it not for the doubling that his Government managed to achieve last year.

In his statement today, the Justice Secretary posed more questions than he managed to answer. How many crimes were committed by those prisoners while they were on the run? Why can he not tell us who these 91 prisoners are? Who is the foreign criminal, and who is this mystery fourth offender whom he “may” have lost? How can he possibly be found if, unlike in the case of Cherif and Kebatu, the public do not have his face or his name?

The public deserve to know the truth, and this situation could not be any more serious. There has been a ninefold increase in the number of violent offenders accidentally released in the last year. On the Justice Secretary’s watch, the criminal justice system has been made to look a total mockery. The public are being put at risk. In his own words, it is time for him to “get a grip”—or go.

[Mr Lammy]

This is a crisis that we inherited in our prison system. [Interruption.] That is worthy of sober reflection, because the shadow Justice Secretary knows that when the Conservatives were in government, 17 prisoners were released in error every month. He knows that. A former Conservative Justice Secretary said in respect of this issue last Friday: “We essentially run our prisons regime very hot. We are very close to capacity. We have seen a big increase in the prison population over the last 20 years, and resources have not necessarily matched that. That is the first problem.” Another former Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, said:

“Part of the issue is we can’t hold on to prison officers…Without that expertise, errors creep in.”

The shadow Justice Secretary himself challenged the Conservatives’ record in office, so he knows that this is a cross-party issue—one which, of course, we have to grip. I said that I had put in place those checks, and I stand by the checks that I put in. I also said in my statement that many of the cases that we are uncovering occurred before those checks were in place, and another case involved an error in the court system. That is why the new query process is very important indeed.

We had to introduce SDS40, and the right hon. Member knows why that is the case: because his Government, just in their last few months in office, made three different changes to their early release scheme, so worried were they about prison capacity—a prison capacity issue that we inherited. In their 14 years in office, they built only 500 extra places in the prison system, while we have pledged 14,000 by 2031.

The right hon. Member also knows that, as night follows day, if Governments cut officers by almost 50%, as the Conservatives did in office, and then recruit new officers, as we have attempted to do, those are then very junior people. They are working hard, and I thank them for all that they are doing, but in those circumstances mistakes will be made.

I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this—that is really important. I have put in place the digital team, because, as the right hon. Member also knows, this is a system based on human beings and there will therefore be errors; only technology will fix this issue over time. I have also now put in place that double check between the court and prison systems.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

I welcome the initiatives that the Lord Chancellor has announced to deal with wrongful releases, but does he accept that the level and circumstances of such releases are symptomatic of a deeper malaise? Will he look at the Justice Committee’s current reports on drug culture, organised crime and the lack of education and work in prisons? Will he commit to tackling the underlying breakdown of order and discipline in the prison system, which, over years of decline, has made many prisons unsafe, chaotic and unfit for purpose?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he has been doing on these issues for many years. His words echo those of the prison inspector. My hon. Friend of course knows that this is a system that is incredibly hot, frankly, because violence is up, self-harm is an issue, and there is the issue of things arriving in prison by drone, particularly drugs. We have staff doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend knows that no Government, in just 16 months in office, could turn around the austerity that this public service saw.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

If the situation was not so serious, it would be laughable. It seems like people currently have tougher checks to speak to an adviser at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or to get a GP appointment than offenders have to be released from prison.

Since the mistaken releases of recent weeks, I have heard horrendous reports from prison officers inside prisons of prisoners being identified by low-quality black-and-white photographs printed on paper and a few basic questions on personal information—information that could be readily shared between inmates—before being cleared for release. That is not good enough, especially when we now have biometric technology that is used for visitors to prisons but not for inmates. We cannot be reliant on an honour-based system that depends on the good will of convicts to hand themselves in, and police forces certainly do not have the spare capacity to conduct regular manhunts for people who should still be locked up.

After the release of Hadush Kebatu, the Deputy Prime Minister promised enhanced security checks, yet some of society’s most dangerous individuals have still ended up on our streets. Will he now spell out what those enhanced checks actually involve and whether biometric testing is used routinely to confirm a prisoner’s identity before release? Can he confirm what training prison officers receive before managing prisoner releases?

Like most of the justice system, our prison system was mismanaged and underfunded by the previous complacent Conservative Government, so we appreciate that the Labour Government inherited this mess. However, the number of mistaken prisoner releases has risen sharply on their watch and they cannot continue to risk public safety, particularly given that it took them a whole seven days to realise that a prisoner had been mistakenly released and that they are seemingly blaming an email being unread for the most recent error.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm how long the Ministry of Justice has known about the three prisoners at large and how long the police have been trying to find them? The Deputy Prime Minister has promised the public an investigation, but they cannot wait months for answers while their safety continues to be put at risk, so what immediate action can he take today to ensure that dangerous criminals stay behind bars and that these mistakes stop once and for all?

[Mr Lammy]

I say to the hon. Lady, who reflects on the releases in error, that 57,000 people are released from prison every year. I am sure that, like me, she will commend the good work of prison officers and those in offender management units across our prisons, who do a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances.

The hon. Lady refers to the complexity. The last Government kept expanding their emergency release scheme—from 18 days to 35 days, and then to 70 days. In 2021, a review found 503 pages of guidance that staff had to follow for early release. It is a paper-based system. I cannot stand here as Secretary of State and say that we can eradicate all human error in a paper-based system, because we cannot. The only way to deal with it is to use technology to bring those levels down to something that the House would think is acceptable. I want to see the figure come down to historic levels over the course of this Parliament. It will of course take further investment, but I hope that the £10 million investment in the new digital team, and indeed the support that we are now offering between courts and prisons, will make a substantial difference.

The hon. Lady asks me what I am doing. I am delivering a new justice performance board, Dame Lynne Owens’ review, the urgent query process that I have outlined, the digital rapid response system and, of course, a simplified release policy, which is effectively what will come out of the Sentencing Bill.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that wrongful releases of prisoners will have caused a lot of distress and anxiety to the victims, their families and others? Does he also agree that we inherited a prison system that was in complete chaos and in such major breakdown that, although we are now taking the appropriate action to sort out the prison system and to prevent wrongful releases, this is going to take some time?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think the public recognise that. They might not have visited our prisons, but they know that cuts in our public services are real. They see it in their local authorities. They see it in their local hospitals. They see it in their local schools. They know that things like Sure Start were decimated. I am afraid that our Prison Service, which the public do not see, was one of the worst-hit public services.

It is my job to minimise that risk to the public, which is why I am introducing new measures and have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this issue very carefully. She is a former head of the National Crime Agency, and I know she will do a forensic examination. I will implement her recommendations so that we can bear down on this problem, but it is a paper-based system. Coming into this job, I did not realise that it was a paper-based system. I am not sure that the shadow Justice Secretary has realised that since he has been doing his job, but former Conservative Justice Secretaries know that it is a paper-based system, and they know that that is why errors happen.

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

Mistaken releases of prisoners do not just undermine public trust and confidence in the system; they cost money, because the police have to go and find them and return them to prison. Can the Secretary of State set out how much it has cost the police to return prisoners to prison since this Government came to power?

[Mr Lammy]

Previous Governments did not have that data, and I am pretty confident that I do not have that data. If it exists, it exists in the individual police forces that deal with these issues operationally. However, the hon. Member is absolutely right that every prisoner released in error has to be found by the police. I thank the police for all they have done, and I particularly thank Haringey police for finding the two high-profile cases.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Under the system that has been in force for many years, the Government cannot initiate deportation action until after minimum custodial terms have been served. Can the Deputy Prime Minister commit to ensuring that measures removing all minimum custodial requirements will be implemented, so that eligible foreign offenders can be removed as soon as possible after sentencing and victims can be spared the distress we have seen recently?

[Mr Lammy]

I can give my hon. and learned Friend that undertaking. That is why we have brought forward the sentencing review and increased the removal of foreign national offenders to 5,000. All of that has been done in the last 16 months, when the Conservatives never did it once.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Two days before Kaddour-Cherif was released, the Justice Secretary said he had

“introduced the strictest checks ever seen in our prison system to stop similar unacceptable errors in future.”

Were they not implemented, or are they not strict enough?

[Mr Lammy]

Was the hon. Gentleman not listening? I discussed the cases just a few moments ago, and I discussed how those cases emanated prior to those checks—many of them—and that one of the errors in those cases started in the court system. It is also the case, and I have been crystal clear about this with the House, that in a paper-based system in which it is often the most junior people in our OMUs who are dealing with this, we cannot eradicate all human error. Any Secretary of State who stood at this Dispatch Box and said that we could would be telling a mistruth.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

We must of course solve the immediate problem of accidental releases, which are a huge issue. However, for longer-term planning, we have a very high vacancy rate in our prisons. I understand what the Secretary of State has said about the work on bringing that down, but will he look at the Justice Committee’s recommendation to produce a 10-year plan for the prison system workforce in the same way as we do for the NHS?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and we are looking at that recommendation. There are significant workforce issues. We are asking our prison officers to work in a system that the prison inspector himself has said is cracking and at “breaking point”, and we must invest in our workforce.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

The day before Prime Minister’s questions last week, we spent hours discussing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Bearing in mind that there has been such a crash in public trust and confidence, has the Lord Chancellor considered that it might have been better to have referred to the fact that he knew there was a mistaken release of a prisoner in the offing? He might not have been able to give the details, but to restore public trust and confidence, and in light of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, might it not have been better to have said something, and to have held over that decision and said he would come back to the House later with more detail?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise why the hon. Lady, who is very reasonable, has made her comments in that way, but I simply say that we inherited a system in which 17 errors on release are made every single month. There is a data release every July, and I have now updated the House with more information than it has ever had about this issue. I have also been clear, as any Justice Secretary would be, that we are not going to be able to eradicate human error or to get back to historical levels quickly, but I have put in place as much as I can to minimise the risk to the public.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

As a Member who represents a prison constituency, I would like to put on record my thanks to prison and probation staff who work hard under difficult circumstances. In recognising that, I also know the pressure the prison system in under. It is shocking that the legacy of 14 years handed over to this Government was a paper-based system and a prison system that was breaking. The Conservatives like to talk about a farce. If they want to talk about a farce, I will hand them a mirror to look into, because the only farce here is the breaking system. What more can we do to support prison staff? Yes, there needs to be accountability, but we need to invest in technology and invest in solutions, and give our prisons the systems they need to stop these things happening in future.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way to deal with this issue is to move to a system that is based on technology; to use the AI that is out there to properly compare records, whether they come from the court or from early release. That will take significant time, but I have found £10 million to at least begin that process. And that process begins as a result of these recent high-profile cases.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that even the west midlands victims’ advocate, Natalie Queiroz, is herself living in fear due to the Government’s new release guidelines on open prisons? In 2016 she was stabbed in my constituency 24 times by her ex-partner. She was eight months pregnant. Her attacker was jailed for 18 years but is now moving to an open prison four years earlier than expected. Natalie is terrified of coming face to face with him. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why those convicted of domestic abuse who cannot apply for early parole under the SDS40—standard determinate sentences—process are not also excluded from the Government’s dangerous policy of moving offenders to open prisons?

[Mr Lammy]

I know that the Victims Minister has met her. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that under the Sentencing Bill restriction zones can restrict the movement of those who have committed crimes such as the one he refers to.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

As a Wandsworth MP, my constituents are very concerned about these releases. They have seen years of underfunding of Wandsworth prison. They have also seen more investment by this Government since coming into power than for years and years before that. From visiting Wandsworth prison, I have every confidence in its new governance and the systems it is putting in place. I thank the Justice Secretary for his response to my letter, outlining the changes in training, technology and resources, and the digital rapid response unit, which are being put in place to redress these wrongs. For the sake of my constituents, will the Justice Secretary outline the stronger release checks that he has put in place straight away?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing in her community. I recognise that there will be anxiety in her constituency as a result of high-profile cases that have emanated from Wandsworth. She will know that one of those cases involved an error that actually started in the court system back in September, before the checks that I put in place. She asked me to outline what I have done. What it effectively means is that the duty governor and the deputy governor are having a double look at what comes out of their OMUs, which are largely staffed by slightly more junior staff who are making the decisions on who should be released from custody. I look forward to visiting Wandsworth with my hon. Friend in the coming months.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The ministerial code requires honesty and transparency. On 28 October, in a written parliamentary question, I asked how many of those released in error under this Government remain at large. On 3 November I received an answer, but it did not answer the question. Was that because the Government did not know how many people were at large, or because they chose not to be transparent and give the answer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I explained at length in my statement who is at large. I have released data today outwith the normal cycle of releasing in July, which was done under the previous Government. I have been as transparent with the House today on this issue as any Minister has been. I remind the House that I checked the record and, despite 860 releases in error on their watch, the Conservatives never came to the House once on this issue—not once.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Our constituents deserve a prison system that they can have confidence in, yet prisoner releases in error increased every year since 2021. Despite that, there was no call for an investigation and there were no reforms. Can the Justice Secretary therefore reassure my Carlisle constituents that it is this Government who will implement the findings of Dame Lynne Owens’s investigation and restore the confidence that was eroded under the previous Government?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: not once did the previous Government make a statement. Even when William Fernandez was released in error under them and went on to commit an horrific crime, not once did a Minister come to this Dispatch Box. Not once did the previous Government release extra detail, which I have done today.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

A Torquay solicitor has recently told me of multiple occasions when there has been a lack of security staff to convey convicted criminals from Newton Abbot magistrates court to prison. On one occasion, one individual started self-harming. On another occasion, an individual waited and then absconding because the building was being locked up—he was later arrested following a machete attack. How often is this happening across the United Kingdom, and what are you doing to stop this failure within the system?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman raises issues that are, in a sense, beyond the prison system. He is right about the delivery mechanism of prisoners from court to prisons. He knows, because it has come up in oral questions in the House, that we inherited backlogs from the Conservative party. He also knows that we are demanding that our police arrest more and bear down on crime. The criminal justice system is phenomenally hot. All this will affect the prison system. That is why we have asked Brian Leveson to look at issues of efficiency, in particular, in relation to the courts backlog. Part of that is the relationship between security and the movement of people from our courts to our prison system.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I chaired and served on the Public Accounts Committee, on which I served for more than 10 years, we looked at and, with the help of the National Audit Office, uncovered failures in the Probation Service—a policy area that yo-yoed between Ministers as they changed—as well as the failure to build and maintain prisons, failures with the courts IT system and failures with identifying information that needed to be shared. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Magee review, which was commissioned at the tail end of the previous Labour Government, and can he speculate as to why the review was never implemented over the 14 years of the Conservative Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the Magee review and its recommendations. I have of course asked my officials to look closely at the recommendations and at whether they pertain to the crisis we have inherited. I am grateful to her for highlighting that issue. She will know that, under the Conservatives, the Prison Service saw 24% cuts, because of which more than half our frontline prison officers today have less than five years’ experience. It is shocking. That is what we inherited.

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

May I try to make a constructive suggestion to the Deputy Prime Minister? Has he considered that when somebody is due for release, they should be read a short statement saying that if they think they are being wrongly released, they should say so now, and if they do not do so, a further penalty of some sort will be imposed? Might not that act as a bit of a deterrent, as well as a check?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. The truth, however, is that because of the complexity of the various early release schemes, the numerous pieces of guidance that exist and the many different thresholds, the prisoner himself is often not completely aware whether he should be released on Monday or Thursday. It is sometimes possible when a prisoner has been released in error that it is by a matter of days, and not a significant period. I recognise why the right hon. Gentleman says what he says—we do have to make sure that there is an obligation on the prisoner. It is something that I will ask Lynne Owens to look closely at.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State seems to have kicked off panto season. His comments reminded me of my favourite character, Buttons, who longs to be Prince Charming. If only his colleagues would write into the 1922 committee so that he can formally start his leadership bid. In the spirit of panto season, I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister will join me in reminding the shadow Secretary of State that if he is looking for the reasons why our prisons are in this state, they are behind him!

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend puts it beautifully. I suspect that it is why the shadow Justice Secretary said last week that the state of the Prison Service has been unacceptable for a very long time, including under the Conservative Government. I suspect it is why William Hague, a former leader of the Conservative party, said that the Government failed to grasp this—they did not build more prisons, and they did not have enough people in our prisons—and that this has been a long period of real failure.

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

Between 5 July and the end of the reporting period in March, this Government oversaw the accidental release of 193 prisoners. That is five prisoners every week. We now know that there have been a further 91 accidental prison releases since 1 April, so there have been 284 in total. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that no prisoners have been accidentally released from HMP Littlehey in my constituency since Labour took office?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member knows that about 17 prisoners a day were released in error under the last Government.[Official Report, 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 43.] (Correction) He knows too that, in introducing their early release scheme and our emergency early release scheme, there is complexity in the system. I will look closely at the data that is available in relation to the prison in his constituency.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Having spoken to my prison governor in Monmouthshire this weekend, I know the burden that clerks and prison officers are under when they are calculating these sentences on paper. The brass neck of the Conservatives is quite something to be believed. Their own party grandee William Hague has said that

“the Conservative Government failed to grasp either that they had to build more prison places or that they had to let people out, and they did not want to face up to either.”

Can the Secretary of State say how we are tackling both?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right; we have to grip the system. I did that by chairing a performance board in the Department yesterday, and I have done it by asking Dame Lynne Owens to look at this closely. There does now need to be an urgent query process working between courts and prisons so that we are not seeing those mistakes between the two systems. I think that ultimately it will take digital technology to fix this, but I have started that with £10 million to expand the digital rapid response unit so that we can at least start to raise flags in and across the system so that those working in our offender management units can spot where there might be a problem. I am pleased that the Sentencing Bill, which has now been through this House, will simplify the system greatly, because it is too complex at the moment.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Kebatu was released in error on 24 October, which was a Friday. I was under the impression that in the last Parliament Simon Fell, the former Member for Barrow and Furness, passed a rather brilliant private Member’s Bill that became the Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Act 2023. The Act states that a prisoner cannot be released on a Friday without the Secretary of State’s say-so, in order to reduce recidivism because people cannot get access to the state for 72 hours. Has the Secretary of State devolved that to prison governors, and if they are being seen to be ignoring the will of this House, will he draw that power back up to himself?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member makes a good point. The system had got to a place where prisoners were not being released on Fridays. It is my understanding that that was relaxed, and I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at that again.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

At the weekend, I was visited in my constituency surgery by one of the many hard-working prison officers from Durham—himself a victim of the chaos in the justice system that the previous Government left behind. Before he left, he wanted me to know just how bad it is and why people are being released early.

As we all know, 800 prisoners were released early on the Conservatives’ watch, so bad was the chaos they created. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), says that it is getting worse. That is because of the chaos they created—it got worse every year on their watch, too. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that, both for the victims of crime and for our hard-working prison officers, he will do what it takes to get to the bottom of this? He has referenced the paper-based system. Without pre-empting Dame Lynne Owens’s review, will we be moving away from that 1980s paper-based system?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right: there were 17 releases in error per month in 2024. Just in the Conservatives’ last days in office, there was a step change in those releases in error, and it very much started back in 2021 on their watch. But why did it start? It was because of the complexity of the system and the need to introduce new mechanisms to get prisoners out of an overheated prison system while being able to lock up the most violent people. That is why it has happened. Now, of course, we will do everything we can to get a grip.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is good to see a quieter, more emollient and, even by his own lights, humbler Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box than the one we saw last week. Will he say how many people have been wrongly detained and how much money his Department is setting aside for the likely ensuing litigation?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Member knows that we release those statistics on an annual basis. I think behind his question he knows that, just as the system releases prisoners in error, it sometimes retains prisoners when they should be released. The two go hand in hand.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sure that as the Lord Chancellor made his statement, victims were at the forefront of his mind. We can all only imagine the fear and distress felt by victims when someone who has caused them so much harm is released in error. Will he give us more detail and assure us that, in those circumstances, victims and their families will receive support and be kept fully informed about what is happening?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right to put the victims and the anxiety that they will be feeling front and centre. I have published more data today on this issue than ever before because I recognise the public’s concern at this time, but it is right that I work with the police and our enforcement agencies on the publication of particular cases—sometimes victims have not been informed, it would be dangerous to publish names or, indeed, a prisoner would get to know that he or she is being looked for and go underground—in order to protect the public, and absolutely to protect victims.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Public safety should be the Justice Secretary’s priority, so why did it take six days for the Metropolitan police to be informed that a sex offender had been wrongly released from HMP Wandsworth?

[Mr Lammy]

As I said, I have apologised from the Dispatch Box. Human error is in the system. There are delays not just within our prisons but between different agencies, and that is why I have put in place the query system in particular.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Government inherited a prison system so weakened by austerity, but it was also overcrowded by a justice system that failed to look at rehabilitation as well as punishment. Will the Secretary of State redouble the Department’s efforts to match employers who want to give prisoners a chance to learn skills and the habit of work with the opportunity to do so while serving their sentences and afterwards, so that we can ensure that our communities are safer because we rehabilitate as well as punish?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she emphasises punishment that works, and that has to mean skills, education and employment so that people do not go on to reoffend. We have inherited a system where recidivism rates are beyond 60%, which means that the system is not working even though it is overheated. We have to look at those issues in time. The Sentencing Bill is the beginning of the story, but we will have to return to those issues if we are serious about reducing reoffending.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Recent events and today’s court ruling again bring to the surface anxiety in our Epping community. My thoughts remain with the victims, including the 14-year-old Epping schoolgirl. Appallingly, they and their families heard about the wrongful prisoner release from the media instead of the Government. It is frankly astonishing that the Government are only using their levers of power in the courts to overturn the case brought by the council, but are not using their powers to address these issues on the frontline: the illegal immigration crisis, mistaken release of convicted prisoners and serious management and safeguarding issues associated with the Bell Hotel, which needs urgently to close. When will the Government get a grip, realise that they are not political commentators but players on the pitch, and use their powers to tackle those issues once and for all?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the sensitivity of this issue in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and that many will have looked closely at today’s decision in court. He knows that under the last Government £9 million a day was spent on housing people in hotels, he knows that the Government are committed to a new programme and that we are looking, for example, at military bases to see where can house people, and he also knows that we have increased the amount of foreign nationals leaving this country and returning to the countries they are from.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I put on record my thanks to all the prison officer staff at Buckley Hall prison in Rochdale, who have held the line in the face of impossible cuts and challenges over the past 14 years under the previous Government.

It is hard to imagine the sheer distress that is caused to victims and their families whenever there is a release in error of any prisoner, as happened, as has been said, 800 times under the last Government without a single apology, a single independent inquiry or a single photo or name, as has been demanded by the shadow Justice Secretary. Does the Secretary of State agree that victims and their families should be put at the heart of our reforms when we try to make sure that that never happens again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the reasons that I asked Dame Lynne Owens, as she looks at this issue, to meet the victims—particularly the victims of Kebatu’s crime—and to keep them in mind. Notwithstanding the errors made, we have to ensure public confidence in the system. It is important to assert, once again from this Dispatch Box, that 57,000 people are released from prisons every year and there is no error at all in the vast majority of those releases.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the manner in which he has delivered it. The wrongful release of prisoners is of huge concern to my constituents. I echo the comments made by colleagues across the House that, ultimately, the people who really suffer are the victims of such terrible crimes.

Having previously worked for a homeless charity in Harlow, I saw a number of prisoners who were released on a Friday, and who would come to us on a Friday afternoon at about 5 o’clock with nowhere to go. Does the Secretary of State agree that when we release people from prison, we should make sure that they have somewhere to go? If they have to declare where they will go after their release, we might be able to avoid some of the mistakes.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right that the Friday release issue is often about public services not being available over the course of Friday evening into Saturday and the homelessness problem that that pertains to. That is why I think it is important that we relook at what is happening in the system—the system that we inherited.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

On 10 October, Ola Abimbola, a violent Nigerian criminal, walked out of Ford open prison in my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency. He has not been seen since. He is meant to be serving 21 years for grievous bodily harm, kidnap and possession of an offensive weapon. How many other prisoners are at large from Ford open prison and what offences were they imprisoned for?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady will know that absconding is a serious criminal offence, and that any defendant who commits this crime could face longer behind bars. This is of course a different issue to releases in error. Category D prisons have always existed, and absconds by prisoners are assessed, but I assure her that there is a downward trend in those who are absconding—57 in the year to March 2025.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Is the Justice Secretary aware of any crimes committed by wrongly released prisoners while at large?

[Mr Lammy]

As I have just said, William Fernandez went on to commit an horrific crime but the last Government never came to the Dispatch Box about that. By definition, if we got to the situation that we did in 2024, when 17 releases in error were happening, of course it is possible that people can go on to commit crimes. That is why I am hugely grateful—I know it involves police resource—for the efforts of our police to re-arrest these individuals. Some of them, as we saw last week, hand themselves back in when they realise that their release was in error. Our job is to minimise risk, but in a paper-based system we can never eradicate risk in time.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary said that one of the prisoners accidentally released who is still at large is a foreign national offender. I know that, after PMQs last week, the right hon. Gentleman will be very well briefed this week, so can he say whether the prisoner was inside for aggravated burglary, drug offences or failing to surrender to the police? Can he also say how this foreign national offender entered the country and whether he was an asylum seeker?

[Mr Lammy]

I have made available as much detail as possible, given that this information is normally released in July. Case 2 was in prison for a class B drug offence, and to the best of my knowledge, my understanding is that that was the FNO prisoner. I am telling the hon. Gentleman that, but I will have it double-checked, because this information was made available to me very recently, and I will write to him if I make an error.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I have two prisons in my constituency, at Wetherby and Wealstun. I also have two on the outside of it, at Askham Grange and Full Sutton. They will have heard the Secretary of State say that he has put in place some of the strongest measures ever. The only question that my constituents want an answer to is this: when they will be able to say that they no longer fear dangerous criminals being released on to the streets to terrorise their communities?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the anxiety that this issue will have caused. In a way, it has been a revelation to the public that people are released in error from our system. I emphasise that the vast majority of people are released in the correct manner—57,000 are released every year—but under successive Governments, for all of my lifetime, there have been releases in error. We want to bring that number down to historic levels, because it has been going up since 2021. I cannot stand here and say that, in a paper-based system often implemented by junior staff, we will eradicate releases in error, but we will reduce them over the course of this Parliament.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Last week in Prime Minister’s questions, the right hon. Gentleman said:

“Get a grip, man! I know I am the Justice Secretary.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 902.]

I am pleased he knows he is the Justice Secretary, and with that comes leadership, so can he guarantee to the public that he has a grip on the issue of prisoners released by mistake?

[Mr Lammy]

This is why I chair the new performance board. This is why I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this issue intensively. This is why I have found £10 million for a digital rapid response unit. This is why, because there is sometimes a gap between our courts and our prisons, I have put in place a new urgent query process. This is why we are taking the Sentencing Bill through this House, which will simplify release. All those measures will begin to bear down on this issue. I am sure that Dame Lynne Owens will come forward with more measures, and we will take them.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Over the summer recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the probation centre in Dewsbury, where Lucy Nicholson, head of Kirklees probation delivery unit, and her team hosted me. I pay tribute to their work, which has been made extremely difficult by the lack of investment in not just in the Probation Service but in prisons by the previous Government. We have full accommodation, a lack of funding and resources, reduced staff numbers, no processes in place to protect the public or prison staff, no systems, and no checks and balances. Will the Secretary of State outline the timescales by which some and all of these issues will be addressed, so that people in my constituency and across the country can feel safe when they sleep at night?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for centring the importance of probation. It is why one of the first things I did when I took office was to visit the Probation Service in Islington, and it is why I was recently in Chatham in Kent with probation officers. Investing in technology is hugely important to reduce their caseloads. Investing in more staff is hugely important —we recruited more than 1,000 staff last year, with 1,300 to come. Probation needs more resource, and that is why we have committed to £700 million by the next spending review. I am sure that we will return to these issues because I have no doubt that the decisions made by former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling were a travesty for probation and criminal justice.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Can the Justice Secretary tell the House whether in the last 16 months any prisoners have been accidentally released from Hewell Grange prison in Worcestershire and, if so, how many?

[Mr Lammy]

As I said, I have released more data today than ever before. The hon. Member knows that the data is most often released in July. I will look closely at his prison to see. If 17 prisoners in 2024 were released in error every month, he will recognise that that will touch many prisons across the country, but he will also recognise that there are differences in terms of the category of prisons and prisoners, particularly those prisons that have a lot of churn and are letting people out on a more frequent basis than others.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary’s team say that he found out about the accidental release of Algerian sex offender Kaddour-Cherif on Tuesday evening. He contradicted them by saying he only learned of it on Wednesday morning. He said at PMQs that he had been busy shopping for a suit that morning. Did the Lord Chancellor spend any time at all shopping for a suit after he was told about that prisoner’s release?

[Mr Lammy]

No.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Three hundred and twenty-one violent or sexual offenders either failed to come back to jail after being temporarily freed, returned later or breached the terms of their licence last year—the highest number for years. The number was 177 four years ago and it was 59 in 2014-15. Again, I ask the Secretary of State this question: will he commit to all the necessary changes, including updating data and technology in the present system, as a matter of public safety and public confidence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member is right to put at the heart of his question getting back to historic levels before we started to see the increase back in 2021. That is my intent: to get back to much lower levels than we see now. This afternoon I have set out the measures that we are taking immediately. More will follow the review by Lynne Owens, but of course this will take investment across the prison system.

[Robert Jenrick]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to questions, the Justice Secretary said at one point that 17 prisoners a day were released in error under the last Conservative Government. He then repeatedly said that 17 prisoners a month were released in error by the last Conservative Government. Neither of those things is correct. The actual figure was five a month—and five a month is five too many. I know that he would not want to appear as if he did not know what he was talking about, so might you be able to get him to correct the record, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want to continue the debate, and that is what we are in danger of doing. I recognise and accept that a mistake was made. I think you have corrected the record, and we will leave it at that—unless the Justice Secretary wishes to come back.

[Mr Lammy]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I said that 17 prisoners a month were released in error in 2024. If I misspoke at any point, then of course I am happy to correct the record, as I just have done, but I am pretty sure that I said that. [Official Report, 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 36.]

[Mr Speaker]

Just for the record, you mistakenly said 17 a day, but I knew exactly what you meant: 17 a month. We will leave it at that.

Prime Minister

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Written Corrections

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It is at this time of year that many of us think of those who have served their country and continue to do so—those like my grandad who served in world war two and brought up my dad and my uncles in forces accommodation, and those like my nephew currently serving, who sends me videos of accommodation riddled with black mould. Will the Deputy Prime Minister welcome the new defence housing strategy announced this week, which will guarantee the end of the scandal of unfit forces accommodation? Will he guarantee to my residents in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages—the 500-plus military families—that they will finally have accommodation fit for them?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for championing our armed forces, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep our country safe. We are renewing our country, and that includes renewing our contract with those who commit the ultimate sacrifice. Four thousand military homes—that is, nine out of 10—will be upgraded thanks to the £9 billion that we are investing. Of course, that will include her constituency—homes fit for heroes delivered by a Labour Government.

[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 907.]

Written correction submitted by the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy):

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for championing our armed forces, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep our country safe. We are renewing our country, and that includes renewing our contract with those who commit the ultimate sacrifice. Forty thousand military homes—that is, nine out of 10—will be upgraded thanks to the £9 billion that we are investing. Of course, that will include her constituency—homes fit for heroes delivered by a Labour Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 November.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr David Lammy)]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister is in Brazil, attending COP30 in Belém and the Earthshot prize ceremony alongside His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

The thoughts of the whole House remain with those affected by the appalling scenes we saw in Huntingdon and Peterborough, where I spent seven years of my life at school. We thank our emergency services for their outstanding professionalism and the individuals who showed such tremendous courage to defend others.

This weekend is Remembrance Sunday. We will never forget those who fought to defend our freedom. It has been one of the greatest honours of my career to meet our troops around the world, whether in Cyprus, the Gulf or Australia. This week, the Government announced the biggest renewal of armed forces housing in more than 50 years, kick-starting one of Britain’s most ambitious building programmes in decades.

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.

[Mr Rand]

May I start by congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister on being the first black person to ever answer Prime Minister’s questions? It is a landmark moment for this place and for our country, and I hope he is proud.

My eight-year-old constituent Phoebe is battling cancer. Her parents are fundraising to help with treatment costs and to raise awareness of Phoebe’s condition. People across my constituency have been moved by her story and have come together to raise over £122,000. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to Phoebe’s inspirational bravery, and will he celebrate the incredible generosity and community spirit of Altrincham and Sale West?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is very kind of my hon. Friend to say those opening remarks. I am conscious that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and indeed the Leader of the Opposition, are both trailblazers who have stood at the Dispatch Box. It is important to recognise the progress that has been made, particularly in the wake of Black History Month.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is heartening to see a community rally around someone as brave as Phoebe, and I wish Phoebe, her twin brother Eric and her parents, Lindsey and Matt, the very best in their fight against cancer.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Defence.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I begin by associating myself and the Opposition with the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks about the terrible, horrific attack in Huntingdon? We wish a speedy recovery to those still in hospital and pay tribute to the brave actions of the public and the police.

Overnight, the father of the girl assaulted in Epping by Hadush Kebatu, the illegal immigrant released by accident, said that the Government had failed them “relentlessly”. I confess, I am surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister has not already apologised. I am going to give him an opportunity now: will he apologise to the family concerned?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is great to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. I had expected to see the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), but I am nevertheless pleased to see the hon. Gentleman today. He must have missed the statement on this matter, because in it, I of course said sorry for the anxiety caused while Kebatu was at large. I repeat that now. It is hugely important that Dame Lynne Owens gets to the bottom of what has happened with her further investigation.

[James Cartlidge]

Watching the interview last night was absolutely heartbreaking. I have to say, I do think the Deputy Prime Minister owes it to the family to offer an apology here on the Floor of the House—[Interruption.] But he should have done it at the start of his remarks.

These are very serious matters, which is why I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a further, very important question: can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The Chamber is, thankfully, quiet, so I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me when I said that of course I apologise and am sorry for the anxiety caused. Let me just remind him that he was a Justice Minister who allowed our prisons to get to this state in the first place. It is now for us to fix the mess that we have got into. It is important that Dame Lynne Owens can continue her work and understand what is happening. The hon. Gentleman knows that early releases began under the Conservatives’ watch in 2021.

[James Cartlidge]

We are talking about extremely serious crimes. I am going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister the question again. Can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison? It is a very specific question for him to answer.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

After Kebatu’s release, I put in place the toughest checks we have ever had in the prison system. It is important that Lynne Owens is able to get to the bottom of her work. I suspect there will be more checks and balances that we need to do. We inherited a complicated system that the Conservatives set up that was letting people out on the sly. That is part of the problem, and we are trying to fix it.

[James Cartlidge]

The right hon. Gentleman is the Justice Secretary; he is responsible for the justice system, and he needs to take responsibility. I am asking him a straight question and I am going to repeat it once more, for the avoidance of doubt, because he did not answer it twice. He is here to answer questions, so can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison? It is a clear question. Can he give an answer?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Get a grip, man! I know I am the Justice Secretary. That is why I am at the Dispatch Box, also as Deputy Prime Minister. We know that. [Interruption.] I am not going to pray in aid. Dame Lynne Owens is a former deputy commissioner in London and was head of the National Crime Agency. It is for her to get to the bottom of this work. We know that there have been spikes since 2021 under the hon. Gentleman’s watch. When did he come to this House and apologise?

[James Cartlidge]

The purpose of government is to take—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

People in Epping and right across the country want to know the answer, so I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question again. He is the Justice Secretary. Can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison? Can he answer the question?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have got to tell the hon. Gentleman: I spent 14 years in opposition and I did a hell of a lot better than he has just done. I have answered the question. Under the Conservatives’ watch, prisons were in a mess. Suicides went up, prison officers were cut, and 20,000 neighbourhood police officers were lost. We have deported more people in the last year than they deported in the last five years. Please, I am not going to take any lecturing from the hon. Gentleman—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Dewhirst and Mr Stafford, you test my patience each week. Today is not the day to do so; we have a long weekend coming.

[James Cartlidge]

The public are extremely concerned about what happened in the Kebatu case; they want to know that there will not be a repeat, so I am putting to the Deputy Prime Minister a very clear question about his responsibilities. I repeat: can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidently let out of prison? Can he answer the question?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am looking forward to being up against the right hon. Member for Newark next time. In 25 years in this House, I have not witnessed a more shameful spectacle, frankly, than what the Conservatives left in our justice system—their criminal negligence, on the hon. Gentleman’s watch as a Justice Minister. They left our prisons on the brink of collapse entirely, threatening to allow offenders to run wild on our streets—he knows that! Rape victims waited years for their day in court—he knows that! Neighbourhood policing was decimated, leaving our people feeling unsafe in their communities. The Conservatives have not learned a thing. We are tackling knife crime. That is why it is falling. We are putting 13,000 more bobbies on the streets and kicking out 5,000 foreign national offenders. I have got to say to the hon. Gentleman: he should do better.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jonathan Brash.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q3. My constituent Georgia Hart was just 15 years old when she was diagnosed with Friedreich’s ataxia, a cruel and degenerative condition that slowly robs a person of their mobility and independence. Since then, her courageous parents have battled day in and day out to raise awareness and money to get her the treatment she needs. There is now a drug, omaveloxolone, which has been proven to slow the progression of the disease, yet despite that it has been stalled by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, partly because the number of patients affected is judged to be above the limit for ultra-rare conditions.Georgia and those like her are being failed not because the science is not there and not because the treatment is not there but simply because the numbers do not add up. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that we cannot allow bureaucracy to stand in the way of life-changing treatment? Will he commit to ensuring that I, along with Ataxia UK, can meet the relevant Minister at the earliest opportunity so that Georgia and her family do not lose more precious time?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It seems that, like the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) cannot count, let alone stand up on behalf of the public.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) for his question. Our NHS has a strong record in delivering new medicines for rare diseases. The evaluation process is rightly led by NICE. As I understand it, the manufacturer of the new treatment for Friedreich’s ataxia has withdrawn from the process. However, the door remains open for the company to re-engage. I am happy to arrange the meeting that my hon. Friend seeks to help ensure more broadly that everyone gets the care they deserve while we are investing an additional £29 billion in the national health service.

[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 expressing our horror at the terrifying knife attack at the weekend and pay tribute to all those, including the emergency services, who put themselves in harm’s way to protect others? As we approach Remembrance Sunday, may I also join him in remembering all those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our rights and our freedoms?

Those rights and freedoms are now under threat in a way that we have not seen since the second world war. Putin is waging war on our continent and interfering in democracies across Europe, the Chinese Government are waging espionage against this House and Elon Musk is inciting violence on our streets. To date, the Government have failed to heed our calls for a new inquiry into Russian meddling, failed to place China on the enhanced tier of country threats and failed to launch an MI5 investigation into the threat posed by Elon Musk. What will it take for the Government to act and protect our democracy?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

May I remind her that as Foreign Secretary I stood at this Dispatch Box and spoke to the China audit that we said we would do on coming into government? We did that; indeed, I did it on the same day that we published our national security strategy. The Secretary of State for Defence has also published the strategic defence review. If the hon. Lady looks across all three of those documents, they set this country in the best place possible to face down the threats that she rightly refers to.

[Daisy Cooper]

I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister in his new role will consider our calls again.

Right now, families across the country are struggling with a cost of living crisis, yet the Chancellor is preparing to increase taxes. Meanwhile, because of high interest rates and arcane Treasury rules to do with quantitative easing, the big banks are making billions of pounds in windfall profits that they never expected, never relied on and never had to take any risk to earn. Without asking the Deputy Prime Minister to pre-empt the Chancellor’s Budget, which does he think is fairer: taxing struggling families or taxing big banks?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady knows that we have 80 years of convention, and it is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to present her Budget later on this month. I say gently to her: it was under her Government, in which her party was in coalition with the Conservatives, that we saw austerity right across our country; and she will know that there are major parties that are proposing austerity again. I know that the Chancellor will do everything she can to continue, as she set out yesterday, to invest in our NHS and in our public services.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q4. The leader of my local council, Kent county council, has said that they are a “shop window” for Reform UK. With councillors facing criminal charges, inappropriate conduct and behaviour, a defection, five expulsions, a failed DOGE-inspired cost-cutting drive and an authoritarian leader who shouts and swears at colleagues, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the people of Kent deserve so much better? How will the Government ensure that we deliver higher standards in local government?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I see the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in his seat. This may be the first time I have seen him at Prime Minister’s questions. Reform said that Kent county council would be the best advert for what a Reform Government would look like, and they are delivering on the chaos that they promised. On standards in public life, I say to the hon. Gentleman— [Interruption.] This is serious. I used to replace the hon. Gentleman on LBC, so we have known each other for many years. The disgraceful, racist language that we heard from a Reform MP last week belongs in the dark ages, and he should condemn it.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The week of 22 to 28 November marks BBC Scam Safe Week—it feels like it comes around quicker every year. By sheer coincidence, the Chancellor has chosen that week, of all weeks, to deliver her Budget. Given her previous broken promises on energy bills, on inflation and to businesses, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm to the public that if they see something suspicious on tax at the Budget, they should report it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I usually look forward to the bombast that the hon. Gentleman brings to the Chamber, but as usual, the SNP will say anything to distract from its appalling record. In the week when Scotland’s Health Secretary had to apologise for the state of the health service on his watch, the right hon. Gentleman could have mentioned that in his question. We will see what is in the Budget later on this month.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Q6.   I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with everyone affected by the Huntingdon attack, and we should praise the actions of the train’s driver, Andrew Johnson, and the heroic guard, Samir Zitouni—in my mind, a worthy candidate for consideration for the George Cross—as we wish him well in his continued recovery. Andrew Johnson told “ITV News”:“I was only doing my job”.Will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity from the Dispatch Box to recognise the importance of our railway crews, drivers and station staff and the vital role they play in keeping us all safe, from averting suicides on the rail network to dealing with antisocial behaviour and emergencies such as the one we have seen this week?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The actions of the driver, Andrew Johnson, and the train staff member, Samir Zitouni, were nothing less than heroic, and I am sure that the whole House would agree that some form of recognition is absolutely deserved. Our country is defined by these people working on the frontline, caring for and supporting the public every single day, and I am proud to be part of a Government who are fighting for them, increasing their pay, tackling the cost of living crisis and fixing the public services that we rely on.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Q2. On Sunday and on Tuesday we will honour those that made the ultimate sacrifice, not only from this country but from across the Commonwealth. I wear not only the poppy but the marigold to honour the Commonwealth troops that gave their lives. A week on Sunday, there will be a parade at the Cenotaph by the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women, where Jewish people will come together—veterans, men, women and children—to parade with the medals that their forefathers won during world war two, the great war and other conflicts. It will be particularly apposite this year, with antisemitism on the rise, that a senior Cabinet Minister comes to that parade and lays a wreath on behalf of this House and the whole country, to remember the Jewish people that gave their lives for this country so that we could all be free.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. I bought a new suit this morning because my godmother said that she would be watching. His question brings to mind the West Indies Regiment and its contribution in two world wars. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) for ensuring that despite wearing a new suit, I have managed to put my poppy on. We wear a poppy to remember all those who fought and died for this country. They represented every walk of life, every race and every religion. My ministerial colleague, the noble Lord Coaker, will be proud to lay a wreath at the annual remembrance event at the Cenotaph to mark our enduring gratitude to generations of Jewish service personnel and veterans, and I would like to thank AJEX for organising the event and for all that it does throughout the year to keep alive the memory of the Jewish people, many of whose descendants live in Stamford Hill in my constituency, who gave their lives for this country.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Q9.   I am regularly contacted by leaseholders and residential freeholders from across Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages who raise concerns about rising property management fees, poor service and a lack of transparency over what they are being charged for. As they already pay council tax, it is wrong that they should pay extra for the maintenance of roads and green areas on their estates. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the actions the Government are taking to reform the current outdated system so that my constituents can look forward to having stronger rights, greater powers and improved protections?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

For millions of leaseholders, the dream of home ownership has fallen woefully short of what was promised. That is why we are implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, providing homeowners with greater rights, power and protections. We will bring the injustice of fleecehold to an end, protecting people from unfair costs. As my hon. Friend knows, the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), is going to meet the director of FirstPort to address the serious concerns over its performance.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

Q5. On Monday, the Defence Secretary said at the Dispatch Box that the Scottish Government were a “threat” to national security—a charge repeated this morning by the Scottish Secretary. What he in effect was saying is that a democratically elected Government elected by 1.3 million Scots poses a threat to this country. I do not know whether that is something the Deputy Prime Minister will repeat at the Dispatch Box today, but can he tell me why democratic Scotland is a threat to national security and China is not?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I took a DNA test a few years ago: I am 5% Scot. The people of Scotland are not a threat to national security; it is the SNP, and its desire to get rid of the nuclear deterrent, that is a threat to national security. The hon. Member should hang his head in shame.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Q10. It is at this time of year that many of us think of those who have served their country and continue to do so—those like my grandad who served in world war two and brought up my dad and my uncles in forces accommodation, and those like my nephew currently serving, who sends me videos of accommodation riddled with black mould. Will the Deputy Prime Minister welcome the new defence housing strategy announced this week, which will guarantee the end of the scandal of unfit forces accommodation? Will he guarantee to my residents in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages—the 500-plus military families—that they will finally have accommodation fit for them?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for championing our armed forces, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep our country safe. We are renewing our country, and that includes renewing our contract with those who commit the ultimate sacrifice. Four thousand military homes—that is, 9 out of 10—will be upgraded thanks to the £9 billion that we are investing. Of course, that will include her constituency—homes fit for heroes delivered by a Labour Government.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Q7. May I echo the words of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) of how proud I am to wear the marigold alongside my poppy? Last year, Sadiq Khan was elected London mayor with a promise to keep a police station front counter open in all 32 London boroughs 24 hours a day. Labour has just broken that promise to Londoners as only two will remain. This year, the Met police has 1,419 fewer police officers and staff—that is, fewer people working hard to keep Londoners and our visitors safe. In Sutton and Cheam, we have just had our high street police team cut from 11 officers to just four, inevitably leaving my constituents less safe. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats and Sir Mark Rowley that a shrinking Met police force compromises their ability to keep Londoners safe?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Member knows, the previous Government cut police officers and police community support officers while also critically underfunding the criminal justice system. We are acting in London, funding the Met with up to £262 million this year, and we are investing £200 million this year to put 3,000 more neighbourhood police on our streets by spring. Through our Crime and Policing Bill, we will also give them the powers they need, including tough new respect orders to tackle crime and make our streets safer. But I do gently say to the hon. Member that the Liberal Democrats come to their feet and ask for more funding, and then given the opportunity, they vote against the reforms that would actually grow our economy.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

Q11. In Aylesbury, I have been running a programme called “Your Voice, Your Future” to help young people engage with politics and shape the issues that matter to them. They have sent in ideas for the school curriculum review, advocated for better mental health support and shared their fears about smartphones and social media. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in recognising the contributions and ideas of young people, and what more will he do to ensure that they can meaningfully engage in national policy?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I applaud my hon. Friend. She is a passionate champion of the next generation. She will have seen my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) launch her curriculum review, which will deliver high standards for every child, giving them the skills they need to thrive and boosting their engagement in our democracy. I am proud that we will also be giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in our UK elections to make their powerful voices heard.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q8. Burning waste is as polluting as burning coal, and our incinerators are already over-capacity. When will this Government renew the previous Government’s pause on new incinerators, end perverse deliver-or-pay contracts with incinerator companies, and deliver an incineration tax, such as the landfill tax, to encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced. He knows that on energy, our country’s future is in renewables, and that is why we are investing in them. He should listen carefully to what the Prime Minister has to say at COP. The Chancellor will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s observations about further taxes; he will have to wait until the end of the month to see what happens.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Q12. Since this Government massively boosted the national minimum wage for young people, my Erewash constituents earn far more than the £3.40 an hour that I was paid in my first job just 17 years ago. What is the Deputy Prime Minister’s response to the people, including Conservative and Reform Members, who claim that £10 an hour is too high a wage for young workers? Does he happen to know whether any of the Reform leader’s dozen extra jobs pays him less than £10 an hour?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I was looking at the entry of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. He is making quite a lot out of gold bullion. One has to ask: why does he want to cut the minimum wage for people who are not making even 1% of what he makes? The Labour party is on the side of young people, boosting their wages and delivering the youth guarantee to help everyone realise their potential. I hope that young people recognise what those two other parties want from their records.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Q15. People across the country are fed up with extensive and needless delays caused by road, rail and utility works happening at the same time because of a failure to co-ordinate. My Transport (Duty to Cooperate) Bill would fix that and cut disruption, supporting communities and the economy. I understand that the Government are looking for ways to support the economy—apparently—so will the Deputy Prime Minister pass on my proposal to the Chancellor and back my Bill?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I will certainly pass it on to the Chancellor.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

Q13. Seeing dentists is crucial not just for people’s dental health but for their broader health and wellbeing, but access to NHS dentistry has been a growing problem for a number of years. In my constituency, only two out of 10 dentists are taking on new adult NHS patients—the number is the same for children. Will the Deputy Prime Minister set out what the Government are doing to improve access to NHS dentistry and put healthy smiles on my constituents’ faces?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, which is important up and down the country. We are taking action to address the appalling inheritance we received by rolling out extra urgent and emergency appointments across the country. We are also reforming the dental contract, recruiting more dentists and ensuring that they work in the national health service for a minimum of three years.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

The inclusion of Oxford University hospitals NHS foundation trust in the rapid review of maternity and neonatal services is welcome. Reports today in the New Statesman and on Channel 4 set out failures at that trust. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to carrying out in full the outcomes of Baroness Amos’s review, and ensure that the review is the start of a sea change in maternity services, not a whitewash?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Baroness Amos is a dear friend of mine. I know that the Health Secretary is considering her recommendations.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Q14.  Hurricane Melissa has devastated Jamaica and left the country in crisis. The Imperial College storm model states that the hurricane would have been unlikely without climate change. I know that the Prime Minister is representing the UK at the COP30 summit against climate change. Will my good and right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that the UK leads the way on preventing climate change?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am deeply saddened by the loss of life and the scenes of devastation in the great country of Jamaica. Like my hon. Friend, I have relatives in Jamaica, and I thank and commend her for her personal fundraising efforts. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been in touch with their counterparts to offer our full support, with £7.5 million of aid funding already mobilised. We have chartered flights from Jamaica for British nationals who are unable to fly home commercially. Jamaica will also receive $71 million from the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility pool—funding that began under the previous Labour Government and that Jamaica can draw on for its renewal.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for joining me at a recent event in Parliament to support the work of Prostate Cancer Research, a charity of which I am an ambassador. He and I both believe that introducing a targeted national screening programme for prostate cancer is the right thing to do and would save lives. Does he agree that the recent compelling results of the 162,000-patient European trial support the case, and that that evidence, alongside data from Prostate Cancer Research and others, should be given significant weight by the UK National Screening Committee?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising the issue. Sadly, too many of us will know someone affected by prostate cancer; too many members of my family are currently living with prostate cancer. I was proud to co-chair the Prostate Cancer Research event last year and this year with him, and I share his determination to boost research, speed up treatment and deliver better care. He knows that I am biased, but these are rightly decisions for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The UK National Screening Committee is reviewing the latest evidence for prostate screening and considering whether any changes should be made to save lives, and we have invested £42 million jointly with Prostate Cancer UK—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jenny Riddell-Carpenter.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

In the past 15 years, there have been 170 cases of matricide. In 2022, more women were killed by their sons than by strangers. Child-to-parent abuse is often linked to complex mental health issues, and earlier this year I met Laura and Ian who are doing all they can to support their son in his rehabilitation after serving time in prison. They are living in constant fear of physical harm from their son, who they love and adore. Will the Deputy Prime Minister support my request to meet the relevant Minister to discuss the effects of child-to-parent abuse?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Matricide is a horrific crime and we are committed to tackling it. Our violence against women and girls strategy will set out how we will halve violence, including domestic abuse, against women over the next decade, and I will arrange for the Minister to meet my hon. Friend.

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

Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency is under threat of closure, with the loss of hundreds of jobs. There have been a number of expressions of interest in taking over the whole site. If one of those passes the test of due diligence, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that the Government will back the project and allow the continuation of operations at the refinery?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance from the Dispatch Box, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets him.

Prisoner Release Checks

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to make a statement on the release in error of Hadush Kebatu from HMP Chelmsford last Friday morning.

As the House will be aware, Mr Kebatu was apprehended by the Metropolitan police on Sunday morning in the Finsbury Park area of my constituency. He is back where he belongs: behind bars. I thank the Metropolitan police, Essex police and the British Transport police for their swift action to return him to custody, and the public who helped to locate Kebatu after the police appeal. I can tell the House that he will now be transported for deportation back to Ethiopia as quickly as possible. However, that does not change the fact that Mr Kebatu’s victims are rightly outraged about what has happened. I am livid on their behalf, and on behalf of the public. This was a mistake that should not have happened. The victims expect better, the public expect better, and this Government expect better from a critical public service, which plays a vital role in our first duty: to keep the British people safe and free from harm.

On Friday 24 October, Mr Kebatu was scheduled to be transferred from HMP Chelmsford to an immigration removal centre, from which he was to be deported. Due to what appears to have been human error, he was instead released into the community at 10.25 am. Shortly after 12 pm, concerns were raised about the release to the duty governor, and, following checks, staff were dispatched to locate him. When it became clear that he was no longer in the vicinity of the prison, Essex police were notified and a manhunt began.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service instigated an immediate investigation, and I have asked for the initial findings to be with me this week. The House will appreciate that, in the meantime, there is a limit on what I can say. Members will be aware that there are national security considerations within a case like this. I will update the House in the appropriate way as soon as I can. What I can say today is that there must be, and there will be, accountability for what has happened.

When I was first informed of the release in error, I spoke immediately to the duty governor at HMP Chelmsford and senior HMPPS leaders in order to understand what was known and to seek assurances about the immediate measures being taken. I tasked my officials with working through the night and co-ordinated a response with the Home Office and the police, and I put on the record my thanks to the Home Secretary for her engagement over the weekend. I also chaired three operational meetings with the police, and on Sunday I was able to travel to Wood Green police station, just outside my constituency, to personally thank the police officers who caught Kebatu.

I have been clear from the outset that a mistake of this nature is unacceptable. We must get to the bottom of what happened and take immediate action to try to prevent similar releases in error in order to protect the public from harm. First, on Friday I instructed the chief executive officer of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to carry out an urgent review to look at the checks that take place when a prisoner is released, and to identify immediate changes that could be made to the process, in order to mitigate the risks of release in error. As a result, HMPPS has taken steps to make these processes more robust. There will now be more direct senior accountability for ensuring that protocols and checks are correctly applied, including a clear checklist for governors to determine that every step has been followed the evening before any release takes place. These are the strongest release checks that have ever been in place. They will apply to every release from custody and are effective immediately.

Secondly, any foreign national offender being removed through the early removal scheme—the scheme through which Kebatu was supposed to be removed from the country—can now be discharged only when the duty governor is physically present, and there will be no ERS removals from HMP Chelmsford for the rest of this week.

Thirdly, I am today announcing that there will be an independent investigation by Dame Lynne Owens—I spoke to her yesterday. She is a former deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police and a former director general of the National Crime Agency. She will fully establish the facts of Kebatu’s release and whether staff had sufficient experience, training and technology. She will also talk to the victims in this case to understand the effect that this incident had on them. Her report will highlight points of failure and make recommendations to help prevent further releases in error, which have been rising year on year since 2021—from an average of nine per month in 2023 to 17 per month in the period spanning January to June 2024.

I am clear that a single release in error is one too many, which is why we have launched this independent investigation. I can tell the House that it will have the same status as those into other prison incidents, including the awful attack on three prison officers at HMP Frankland in April and the escape of Daniel Khalife from HMP Wandsworth in 2023, under the last Government.

Releases in error are a symptom of the system that we inherited from the Conservative party. Jails were full—almost to breaking point—and there was the threat of a total collapse in law and order. The fact is that we were left with prisons reeling from historic funding reductions: a 24% real-terms cut between 2010 and 2015, and 30% cuts in staffing. Today, we have been left with over 50% of frontline prison officers having less than five years’ experience. When the system has been brought to its knees, it is little wonder that errors like this happen.

We must also be honest about how the previous Government’s approach to this crisis—piecemeal, complex emergency releases in the hope that the system would not collapse—has added a level of complexity and pressure that makes errors more likely. This Government have been transparent about the difficult decisions necessary to fix the mess for good so that prisons can keep us safe and future Governments need not find emergency solutions to free up capacity.

This Government have brought forward the Sentencing Bill, which is currently making its way through this House. It will ensure that we have a suitable criminal justice system, and one that can deliver punishment that works, cuts crime and keeps the public safe. This Government are also building 14,000 additional prison places, so that we have the capacity to lock up the most dangerous offenders. This is the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era, and let us be clear that there will be more people in prison at the end of this Parliament than there ever have been before. We have already built 2,500 additional prison places in just over a year, compared with the 500 added overall to the prison estate under the Tories.

We are deporting more foreign criminals than the last Government. We changed the law last month to speed up the early removal scheme—which, to be fair, the shadow Justice Secretary called for—so that most foreign prisoners can now be deported after serving 30% of their custodial sentence, rather than the previous 50%. Through the Sentencing Bill, we will go even further to deport foreign criminals as soon as possible after sentencing. I can confirm that, in the year to July 2025, we sent 5,179 foreign national offenders back to their countries of origin, which is a 14% increase on the previous 12 months. This frees up desperately needed prison places and saves the taxpayer the £54,000 per year it costs to hold an individual offender.

This context sets out the scale of the challenge, but I am clear that releases in error are not simply a fact of life. The public will not accept that and neither do the Government. We will get to the bottom of what happened in this case, and we will take whatever steps necessary to tackle the spike in releases in error, so that we can uphold the first duty of every Government, which is to keep the public safe from harm. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Dear, oh dear, where to begin? This Justice Secretary could not deport the only small boat migrant who wanted—no, who tried—to be deported. Having been mistakenly released, Hadush Kebatu came back to prison asking to be deported not once, not twice, but five times, but he was turned away. The only illegal migrants this Government are stopping are those who actually want to leave the UK. His officials, briefing the press, called it “the mother of all—”. Yeah, they are not wrong, are they? Calamity Lammy strikes again. It is a national embarrassment.

Today the Justice Secretary feigns anger at what has happened. He says he is “livid” that Kebatu was mistakenly let out, but under his plans to abolish short prison sentences, which he forced through the Commons last week, Kebatu would never have even stepped foot in prison in the first place. Let us get it straight: we had the spectacle of the Metropolitan police scouring London to find a man the Justice Secretary is simultaneously legislating to avoid sending to prison. What an absolute farce! I must commend the Justice Secretary’s performance: it is truly BAFTA-worthy. He has perfected the art of performative outrage to a tee.

On Wednesday—[Interruption.] They may be laughing, but let me finish this point. On Wednesday, the Justice Secretary will force every one of his MPs to vote again on the Sentencing Bill, which will see hundreds of sex offenders just like Kebatu avoid prison altogether—sick men who destroy the lives of young girls, who steal their childhoods from them. They will be free to roam your communities to steal the childhoods of your constituents. I will tell you who will be livid then: the British public will be livid and they will know who is to blame.

The Justice Secretary says he has launched an inquiry into what has happened, but he should be able to provide some basic questions to the House now. With respect to the prison in question, HMP Chelmsford, there is clearly a very significant problem. In a previous internal audit at Chelmsford, officials had marked their own homework as “good”, yet inspectors rated it as of “serious concern”. What is the Justice Secretary going to do now to address the way in which problems in our prisons are covered up routinely or wished away?

On the inquiry itself, you will not be surprised to hear that I am—how shall I put this?—sceptical about this Government’s ability to conduct inquiries with any competence. Why are they limiting themselves to this particular security farce and not the other glaring errors, such as the doubling of drone sightings above prisons, the soaring assaults on prison officers or the rampant extremism we are now seeing in our jails?

Shocking as this accidental release is, it is not a one-off blunder. It has come to be the norm under this Government, as the number of prisoners mistakenly let out early has more than doubled. Will the Justice Secretary tell the House how many of the 262 prisoners let out mistakenly in the year to March were violent or sexual offenders? And how many are still at large? There are now record numbers of foreign nationals clogging up our prisons—more than under the last Government. How many of those 262 prisoners accidentally released are migrants, like Kebatu, who were awaiting deportation?

Can the Justice Secretary give the House his cast-iron assurance that this man will be deported from our country by the end of the week, as he promised on the news on Sunday? If he fails, will he take responsibility and resign? Lastly, on Tuesday the Justice Secretary blocked my amendment to release the migrant crime data. Does he now finally acknowledge that there is a link between the small boats and crime in this country? Will he call the small boats out for what they are: a national security emergency?

This man should never have been in our country in the first place. That is the truth. He should have been detained. He should have been deported. Instead, he was put up in a hotel in Epping and allowed to prey on schoolgirls. Now we learn that some Labour officials privately concede that they were wrong to scrap the Rwanda plan. Be in no doubt: from start to finish, the Kebatu fiasco was a creation entirely of Labour’s own making. So, I say to the Justice Secretary, there is no point coming to the House today professing to be livid at the consequences of your own policies. The British people, they can see straight through you.

[Mr Lammy]

This is a serious issue and that is why there will be a full independent investigation.

The shadow Justice Secretary—I will give him this—is smooth. But as my mother would have said, if he was chocolate he would lick himself. He should hang his head in shame. The crisis in our prisons that we face today is because of 14 years of failure under his Government. As they were packing their bags to leave office—he knows this—there were temporary release failures under his watch. They presided over 17 mistaken releases per month.

This did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable; it was due to the choices made by the right hon. Gentleman’s party over 14 years of chaos. The Conservatives said that they were the Government of security and safety, but again and again they oversaw rising instances of violent crime and crumbling courts and prisons. They promised 20,000 extra prison places, and they managed only an extra 500—500 in 14 years. They promised to remove more foreign national offenders from our prisons, and they failed. They promised investment and expansion in the prison system, but budgets stalled. They promised investment in the police, but we saw police numbers cut by 20,000. They promised increases in access to justice, but we did not see that; instead, we saw almost the collapse of legal aid. Under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch, violence, self-harm and drug abuse went up in our prisons while prison officer numbers were cut, yet he has the brass neck to come here and give the impression that this problem started just 14 months ago.

Let me just pause there. William Fernandez, a sexual predator, was released in error in March 2021. After he was let out of prison, he raped a 16-year-old and sexually assaulted another young woman. Was there an independent investigation? No, not from the Conservatives. When Rayon Newby, another man who was mistakenly released from a category B prison, was released in error in March 2023, was there an independent investigation under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch? No, there was not. When Lauras Matiusovas was released in error in December 2021, was there any independent investigation? There was none at all. The right hon. Gentleman has some brass neck.

I have asked Lynne Owens to look at this incident and to do so in eight weeks, and we will of course come back to the House when that is done. All of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—looking at what happened over this period of time—will be subject to that review.

The right hon. Gentleman also says that the sentencing review will let out more foreign nationals, but he is wrong. We have actually brought down the threshold, so that someone can now be deported with just a suspended sentence. He knows that. If he reads clause 42 of the Sentencing Bill, he will understand that properly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

Given the pressure on prison front desks and the complexity of rules for release, this was an accident waiting to happen. One thing that might bring down the number of releases in error is the digitising of prisoner records. On visits to prisons, Justice Committee members are often horrified to find staff relying on handwritten files. While some parts of the justice system are entertaining artificial intelligence, why are our prisons still run on pen and paper systems?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As he knows, there is to this day largely no wi-fi or anything like that available on our prison sites, in part because of concerns over the use of technology by prisoners. For that reason, prisons use a paper-based system, which will always be subject to some human error. In the context of this continued early release scheme being done on the quiet under the previous Government, and indeed because of the changes that we are making in the Sentencing Bill, it is right that we have a proper look at this. I discussed this matter with Lynne Owens when we spoke yesterday.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

We Liberal Democrats are relieved that Kebatu has been recaptured after what must have been a terrifying few days for his victims, and we echo the Justice Secretary’s remarks thanking Essex police, the Metropolitan police and British Transport police. However, Kebatu’s recapture does not excuse the serious mistakes that caused his release to happen in the first place—it is totally unacceptable that the safety of the public was ever put at risk.

HMP Chelmsford is a remand prison that regularly deals with prisoners coming and going, and it should therefore be highly capable of handling situations like this. Yet we know from His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons that there are deep-seated inadequacies at Chelmsford, including inexperienced staff and a lack of adequate training, identified especially in pre-release documents. At the same time, we have seen worrying trends nationally in mistaken prisoner releases, with 262 prisoners released by accident in 2025, up from 115 the previous year.

We Liberal Democrats recognise that the Government inherited a mess when it comes to prisons, but they should have taken serious steps to address the shortfalls and staffing issues in prisons, which are now clearly putting the public at risk. What steps are the Secretary of State’s Government taking to address work culture and training issues in our prisons, especially prisons such as HMP Chelmsford where concerns had already been raised?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an independent investigation, following repeated calls by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), whose constituents were put at risk, but will he confirm what consequences those found at fault will face? Also, pending the outcome of the investigation, does he agree that anyone responsible should face the sack? Does he believe that the new safeguards he is putting in place will prevent this from ever happening again?

Finally, Kebatu’s victims will have spent the weekend incredibly distressed. What support was provided to those victims and their families over the weekend when they were aware of the perpetrator being at large, and will that support continue?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the tone of her remarks. She is right that what happened was entirely unacceptable, and understandably the victims of Kebatu’s crimes and their families would have been very anxious over the course of the weekend. The public at large would also have been very anxious, particularly women and children. She is right that there are issues in our prisons; 50% of our prison staff are effectively new on the job as a result of what we inherited from the Conservatives. It is important that we give them the appropriate support and training over this period.

The hon. Lady knows, because I have said it from the Dispatch Box, that it is our intention to grow the number of prison places—14,000 places by 2031—and build new prisons. In that context, it is also important that we grow the number of officers and support them. The hon. Lady knows too the importance of probation in this context, and the £700 million we have allocated to support our Probation Service at this time is really important. She will recognise that, in a system that releases 57,000 prisoners every year, many prisoners are released appropriately under licence. Some of them are reporting to probation or at home or for tags, and many of them—a proportion that has gone up—are reporting for early removal. For all those reasons it is important that Lynne Owens gets to the bottom of what happened in this circumstance.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

On the weekend we heard Conservative Members talking about the Labour party releasing this prisoner early. That is a rather silly comment, as the Labour party did not release anybody. Does the Secretary of State agree that what has caused, created and contributed to the problems that have enabled these mistakes to happen has not come from the 14 months we have been in power but from the 14 years of austerity and cuts that the Conservatives oversaw?

[Mr Lammy]

As a statement of fact, the Conservatives recognise that the inheritance we had in this context was poor. The public want to ensure that whoever is in government keeps them safe and that people are not being released from prison in the wrong way. That is why it is important that there is a full and independent investigation into this incident and that the system learns lessons from it. I listed previous cases where there was no full or independent investigation. We could have learned from these cases earlier if the Conservatives had acted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The crisis of small boats crossing the channel is utterly debilitating and is alienating millions of people from the whole political process. Imagine how the whole atmosphere would have lightened if the Government had come here today and said, “This sort of farce cannot continue. We will get out of any convention, and from midnight tonight if you land illegally on these shores, you will be detained and deported immediately back to where you have come from.”

I want to ask about a particular constituency point. Such is the crisis around how to house these people that there are reports today in The Times and other newspapers that the Government are thinking of opening disused military sites and are looking at two or three in particular. The Government gave a solemn promise that they would not use RAF Scampton to house illegal migrants. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that solemn promise still stands?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the Housing Secretary this morning talking about how we are looking at military sites. We are looking at a number of them intently. I am afraid that I am unable to give him reassurance in relation to his constituency because I have not got the list in front of me, but I will ensure that the appropriate Minister makes contact with him.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is deeply concerning that a dangerous criminal was released on to the streets—that should not have happened—but I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his honest assessment of what happened and for acknowledging that it was wrong. Does he agree that we are dealing with 14 years of Tory neglect with overcrowded and understaffed prisons, and that when things go wrong—as they have done—it is essential that we take swift and decisive action so that the public’s trust in the justice system is maintained, and that that is exactly what we are doing now?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The truth is that, under this Government in our first year in office, more than 5,100 foreign national offenders were removed from this country. We have removed 2,500 more from prison than in recent times. Under the last Government, there were 800 releases in error and no full independent investigation. That is the truth. It is on this watch that we are going to change that.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

The trial, sentencing and mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu all took place in the heart of my constituency, and it is entirely unacceptable. First, I thank Essex police, British Transport police and the Metropolitan police, as well as the public for their vigilance, for ensuring that he was apprehended and will now be deported. I welcome the announcement of an independent investigation, but the Government must ensure that any recommendations are implemented in full without delay and not just left to gather dust on a bookshelf. On prison leadership, does the Justice Secretary agree that scapegoating a single prison officer for systemic failure is unacceptable and that if leaders—including prison governors—are found to be at fault, they should resign?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I know that this case has been shocking for her constituents and that the reports and scenes of this prisoner wandering around Chelmsford will have been incredibly disturbing; particularly so for the victims of the crime. I know that she has spoken to the Prisons Minister—I grateful that she reached out as she did—and I think that she has spoken to the governor as well.

We have suspended the officer involved pending an investigation—that must be right and proper—but I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that, having asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this case closely, we will of course take seriously her recommendations. I will ensure that the House can fully scrutinise those recommendations when they come forward.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The case of Kebatu has exposed deep failings in our prison system as a result—as we have heard—of 14 years of failure by the previous Tory Government. Those failings were made worse by chronic staff shortages.

The immediate, reckless skilled visa rule change risks forcing hundreds of experienced overseas officers out of the service overnight. At HMP Liverpool, 40% of staff could be affected. Will the Secretary of State explain how stripping our prisons of trained staff will make them safer or help prevent further failures like those seen in Mr Kebatu’s case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the Prisons Minister is talking to Home Office colleagues about these very issues at this time.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

My thoughts are with the victims of this sex offender’s crimes, including the 14-year-old Epping schoolgirl. They and their families want answers as to how this major breach could have happened. The Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have said that they were “appalled” and “livid”. Well, that is great—so is everyone—but Ministers are not commentators; they are in charge and ultimately they are accountable. This issue has not gone away for the people of Epping. The twice-weekly protests continue. No one wants our town to be repeatedly the lead story in the news, but the events of recent days have again raised community anxiety and distress. Will the Government now get a grip on this issue, address the illegal immigration crisis that has spun out of control on their watch, and do the right and safe thing and close the Bell hotel immediately?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman was right, at the beginning of his question, to centre the victims of these crimes and their anxiety, and to hold that dear. That is why the first thing I said to Lynne Owens was that she should reach out to those victims and hear from them as she went about her work. I know Epping very well, and I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents know that the crisis that we inherited began under the last Government. Their discontent with asylum and immigration—the inability of the last Government to deal with the gangs and the collapse of the Rwanda scheme—and the outrage of asylum hotels all began under the last Government, and he knows that as well as I do.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House today to address this serious issue. Many of my constituents raised it with me over the weekend. I notice that not a single Member from Reform is here, especially not the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). I am assuming that she is still running scared after her horrific racist remarks over the weekend. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the deportation of Kebatu will proceed unhindered and without delay—

[Chris Webb]

On your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw that remark. To finish my question, will the Secretary of State ensure that there is a swift plan, so that when mistakes are made we can ensure that public trust in the justice system is retained?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right, and it is hugely important to put this in the context not only of the victims, who will have been anxious, but of the inheritance of the backlog in our courts that is preventing people from getting justice. He is also right to reference the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby, who I see is not in her seat despite her very inflammatory statements over the weekend.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is outrageous that Kebatu was not deported at the end of his sentence. What is worse is that the number of prisoners released by mistake has more than doubled under this Government. If the Justice Secretary is determined to release thousands more prisoners early, how confident is he that this mistake will not be repeated again and again on his watch?

[Mr Lammy]

There is actually a point of agreement between the two main parties: that foreign national offenders who commit crimes should be deported as quickly as possible. We are attempting to do that with the Sentencing Bill. The shadow Justice Secretary has raised that matter, and it is one point, at least, of agreement. I am serious about getting to grips with the early release issue and am serious when I say, and the hon. Member knows this, that this story began before we came to office. It is why one of our most senior police officers will be looking at this issue and, of course, we will take all her recommendations seriously. It is hugely important that the public sees the system working and that they feel safe.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Hadush Kebatu is clearly a depraved individual and a dangerous pervert who should be booted out of the country without delay. But my constituents are sick and tired of having to foot the bill for the cost of housing foreign national offenders in British jails. Will the Home Secretary therefore reassure them that the Sentencing Bill will make it much easier to deport those individuals and ensure that they are in foreign jails where they belong, rather than clogging up our prisons?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It costs £54,000 a year to have any individual in prison in our country—that is a lot of money. That is why it is important that we reduce the period that they are in our country, and that once they have been convicted and served 30% of their time, we can deport them back to where they come from. That is, of course, where Kebatu should be and what he should experience over the course of the next few days.

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

The breakout from prison of Hadush Kebatu sounds less like “The Great Escape” and more like “Fawlty Towers”. It has helped bring to light that 262 prisoners were released by mistake last year and 115 the year before. On mistaken releases, what assurance can the Justice Secretary offer that the responsible contractors or subcontractors will be subject to the sort of financial penalties that motivate them to prevent further mistakes from happening?

[Mr Lammy]

I am not sure in this circumstance that this was subcontracted. The hon. Member will understand that when we look at the 56,000 or so prisoners who are released from prison, many are being released into the hands of probation and asked to report to a probation office. Some are released for time served. There are housing and employment assessment needs. Many are tagged at home. He is right on what is behind his question. For some reason, Kebatu found himself in the wrong stream because for foreign national offenders, it is an immigration removal centre and it is off on a plane, and that is what should have happened.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that Dame Lynne Owens will be speaking to the victims of Kebatu to understand the impact on them, but will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether the previous Government made any steps to speak with victims affected by prison release errors that happened on their watch due to the system being starved of funding?

[Mr Lammy]

There were many cases of early prisoner release. As I said before, whether it was William Fernandez in March 2021, Rayon Newby in March 2023 or Lauras Matiusovas in December 2021, there were no independent investigations under the last Government. Very little was said or, it would seem, learned even though 800 prisoners were released early. This story goes back a long way. It is in part because of the scheme set up under the last Government, which was revised four times in the run-up to the general election, and it is why we must take a thorough look and reassure the public.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary will know that police operational independence, free from political interference, is crucial and is enshrined in the police protocol. Yet, on page three of the statement which the Secretary of State just gave, he told us—I checked against delivery—that over the weekend he

“chaired three operational meetings with the police”.

What has changed?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman has tremendous experience in this Chamber, and I think he would think it was extremely lackadaisical if the Justice Secretary did not seek an operational update from the police over the course of the weekend, when this was at the top of the news cycle and of huge anxiety. Of course, operational matters are for the police, but I am hugely grateful, as I said to Mark Rowley this morning, and I was very pleased that local officers in the London borough of Haringey were able to detain Kebatu, which is why I went up to Wood Green to thank them personally for what they had done.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The erroneous release of this individual was an appalling error. I am grateful that he has been caught and that the Justice Secretary will take steps to get to the bottom of what went wrong in this case. I will be grateful if he comes back to the House in due course to report on his findings.

When they started last year, this Government inherited an appalling situation in respect of the prison estate, with prisons fit to bursting and short of staff. Perhaps that is why the general election came when it did, rather than in the autumn, because there would have had to have been a prisoner release scheme under the previous Government later that year.

I am sick of people coming to my constituency surgeries who have been victims of crime but feel that justice is not being done. I urge my right hon. Friend to redouble his efforts to build up the number of prison places, but also to take steps to ensure that, certainly at lower levels of crime, people do not get into crime in the first place, because that is how we will save money in the long run.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the end of the early supervised licence scheme that was set up by the last Government and revised four times, and under which 10,000 people were released. It was effectively done on the quiet, in a chaotic way, and that is when we began to see the spike. It is not about making partisan or political points, but the truth is that we all know that the prison system that we inherited was in a dire situation. We now need to get a grip where mistakes are being made, which is why the officer involved has been suspended under investigation, the checks and balances in place are now the toughest we have had, we are asking duty governors to look at cases the night before, particularly in relation to foreign national offenders, and we have Dame Lynne Owens doing a further investigation.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I put on the record my role as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Everyone here will want to make sure that this kind of outrageous error never happens again. The chief inspector of prisons warned today of a “systematic problem” of increased releases in error, citing “very busy people, often quite inexperienced, with huge caseloads”. He also warned that prisons are dependent on west African officers whom we might now lose thanks to the changes to visa thresholds that are expected to cause “an enormously damaging effect” on some prisons. With that in mind—because the Government have control over it—will the Justice Secretary press the Home Office to look again at how changes to the skilled workers visa are directly causing prison staff shortages and worsening prison performance?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for putting on the record the challenge we have with junior staff. I am very grateful for the work in our prison system of those staff, who are much beloved, who have come from west Africa, largely Nigeria, to support the system for a period of time. I recognise the challenges that the right hon. Lady articulates and, of course, as she would expect, all such matters are under discussion.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) for starting his question with a recognition that the situation really affects the victims of this terrible crime. We all need to recognise the devastating effect on the families and those who are victims of crime when the person who committed those crimes is released in this way. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to residents in my constituency that this Government will finally get on the front foot when it comes to this issue and tackle it?

[Mr Lammy]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend; he has just returned from paternity leave. I know his constituency of Harlow very well—I think it has one of the highest proportions of Spurs supporters in the country—and I know that folk will have taken this very seriously. I want to reassure them that we have asked one of our best senior police officers to lead the review, and we have put in place immediate checks in the system that are the toughest that have ever been in place for release. Of course the officer involved has had to be suspended pending that full investigation, and the Prison Service itself has immediately begun its own investigation and will report to me later this week.

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

Mr Kebatu came to this country by small boat, allegedly because he was seeking asylum against oppression in Ethiopia. At his trial, however, he changed his mind and decided he would rather be back in Ethiopia. What bothers me about the state of our immigration system is that if, after he has been punished in Ethiopia, he hops on another small boat and comes back again and says that he is seeking asylum because, as a result of his conviction for sexual crimes, he faces disapproval and possibly persecution in Ethiopia, we would have to go through this farce all over again, wouldn’t we?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the concern that may well be on the minds of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and indeed mine, but the biometric system that we have in place should alleviate that of course. The right hon. Gentleman is right that Mr Kebatu said in the trial that he wanted to go back to Ethiopia, and that is where he now belongs.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

The Secretary of State rightly talks about prisons reeling from historic funding and staffing cuts, yet he admits that other current Ministers have added to this problem by changing the visa rules in July, which will force many overseas prison officers out of the country. He just called them “much beloved” staff and just said that he recognises the challenges, so will he confirm that he has asked the Home Secretary to look again at her visa changes for these prison officers?

[Mr Lammy]

It is my job to ensure that we have the right amount of prison officers in the system and that they are supported to do their job. Of course the hon. Lady would expect that that is a No. 1 priority for the Department: the right number of prison officers to do the job, recognising that many of them now have little experience as a result of the changes that were made under the last Government, but also the right number of probation staff, and we are doing both.

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

Kebatu’s accidental release is beyond belief; it is a national embarrassment. But what I have found really disturbing has been sitting here on the Back Benches watching the Justice Secretary laugh at some of the responses. I find that wholly unpalatable and am left wondering what the victims must be thinking. When will he resign?

[Mr Lammy]

I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Lady. I just remind her that I am not sure that the shadow Justice Secretary mentioned the victims once in his contribution this afternoon.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I think we all know that it is the notoriety of the Kebatu case which has brought the Justice Secretary to the House today, but we also know that there were 262 such wrongful releases in 2024-25. How many independent investigations were held into any of those and with what result, and how have we got to the point where, on average, we have five wrongful releases per week? Shouldn’t action have been taken long ago?

[Mr Lammy]

I agree that action should have been taken long ago when this story began under the last Government. That action is beginning now.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The fundamental responsibility of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but—from the mistaken release of a dangerous foreign sex offender to scrapping future prison sentences for over half of offenders—which side is Labour on? Is it on the side of the hard-working, law-abiding British public, or the criminals who target and exploit them?

[Mr Lammy]

After the horrific legacy left by the last Government, I think that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be pleased that we are increasing the number of prison places, that we are reversing some of the cuts made under last Government, that the Sentencing Bill is passing through Parliament and that we have come forward with a courts Bill. Those measures are all to deal with the chaos that we inherited in our justice system. I have got to tell the hon. Gentleman: his question is really rich when it was his party that cut 20,000 police officers in our country.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I say to the Justice Secretary that referring to the last Government’s record is wearing a bit thin? This Government have been in power for over 12 months, so what he says is not going to wash with the British public. May I also say to him that I think he does his calm better than he does his livid?

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I think he paraphrased his own statement, but his statement clearly says:

“Over the weekend, I chaired three operational meetings with the police.”

Hon. Members will know that we can attend strategy meetings, but we never interfere with operational matters. The House, members of the public and police officers deserve clarity about that. He also said:

“Members will be aware that there are national security considerations within a case like this.”

We are talking about a criminal conviction made in open court, so what are those national security implications?

Finally—so he knows that I have not been too tough on him today—I commend his decision to appoint Dame Lynne Owens; she is a first-class public servant.

[Mr Lammy]

Despite the nature of the right hon. Gentleman’s questioning, he and I are actually friends. I think it was important that the police were able to give me an operational update, and I thank the Metropolitan police, Essex police and the British Transport police for their work, which I am sure his constituents value. I am sorry that he does not want me to mention the record of the last Government, but I have a feeling that when he was sitting on the Government Benches, he was hugely disappointed with their record on crime and on the justice system.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As the House will be aware, I was once an Epping Forest district councillor and an Essex county councillor, so I know both Epping and Chelmsford. Given the high-profile nature of this case, public confidence is at an all-time low. Did the Justice Secretary consider his position? If not, why not?

[Mr Lammy]

I really think that is a ridiculous question. The hon. Gentleman knows that the answer is no. What I considered carefully was what my predecessors were up to in the last Government to allow the spike and do nothing about it. When I looked at the cases—particularly the case involving someone who was let out and went on to commit a sexual assault—I wondered why no independent investigations were set up then.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

As the Justice Secretary admits, there is a staffing crisis in our prisons that his Government inherited from the brass-necked Tories. Over a third of prison officers now have less than two years’ experience. With too many officers leaving the profession and too few joining, is it any wonder that mistakes like this happen increasingly frequently? While the Ministry of Justice has sought to address the prison officer shortfall by recruiting overseas, the Home Office, as we have heard, is undermining those actions by raising the payment threshold for the skilled worker visa. I have a simple question. Is the Justice Secretary asking the Home Office to add prison officers to the skills shortage list—yes or no?

[Mr Lammy]

As I have said, it is right and proper that the Home Office has a thorough regime for skilled workers, and I support it in that endeavour. It is also important that we have the bank of prison officers that we need, and it is my job to ensure that we have that, whether they are able to come from abroad or—as the vast majority do—from our own country.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

There are almost a dozen pages in the statement and the Secretary of State has taken questions for almost an hour, but there is one word that I have not heard: “sorry”. That is really important, particularly for the 14-year-old victim and her father. The Justice Secretary has said a number of times that he has personally reached out and thanked the police. Has he personally reached out to the victims? Has he tried to speak to them? Has he tried to say sorry?

[Mr Lammy]

Of course I am sorry—sorry that any victim of crime had the anxious weekend that they had. It was important for me to ensure that police liaison were in touch with them, and I am grateful to Essex police for doing that. It is also important to me that Lynne Owens is able to speak to them so that their concerns are reflected in her full and final report.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

How many of those released in error under this Labour Government are still at large?

[Mr Lammy]

As the hon. Lady would expect, a number of people are released under different regimes: some will be released at home and will, hopefully, lead productive lives; others will be back in prison; and some are recalled under licence. All that will be examined by the independent, full investigation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The fact of the matter is that some 262 prisoners were freed in error in the year to March, which is almost an epidemic. That is compared with 115 in the previous year—a increase of 128%, according to data from the Ministry of Justice. The Justice Secretary knows that I have absolute respect for him, but does he accept that this is absolutely shameful? It exemplifies the changes needed in our justice system: to restore justice, and to remind people that the penalty for crime is to lose their way of life and their rights. Those who commit crime should not simply to be placed in a holding cell to tap their fingers and wait while serving a fraction of their sentence, hoping that they are one of the growing number simply to be sent home without being rehabilitated; rather, they should be detained in the system.

[Mr Lammy]

I associate myself with all the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. He is completely right; this is totally, totally unacceptable. People who commit crimes deserve to be punished. I think the public also want them to be rehabilitated—it has got to be punishment that works—and to be released in an appropriate fashion into the community or sent back to their country in the appropriate way. We have to ensure that the system gets that right every single time.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the length of time for cases to go to trial.

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

Mr Speaker, it is nice to be back on my old beat.

This Government inherited a record courts backlog. We have taken immediate action by funding a record high allocation of 110,000 Crown court sitting days this year. Fundamental reform is of course necessary, which is why the previous Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to propose bold reforms, which we are now considering.

[Josh Newbury]

I recently had the chance to visit my local magistrates court in Cannock, and I was told that a major barrier to ramping up the number of sitting days in both magistrates and Crown courts is the lack of legal advisers. I am told that many are leaving the Crown Prosecution Service because the pay is often better elsewhere, but that means having to cut back on sitting times. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Ministry is taking to increase the number of legal advisers in our courts?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will be pleased that we are recruiting more legal advisers and we are increasing capacity in the system. He is right that magistrates courts particularly are the bedrock of the system, which is why I was so appalled that the previous Government cut back our magistrates courts so extensively. It is important that we support our magistrates to do their very important work.

[Dr Savage]

Crown courtrooms are sitting empty for up to 75% of the time. Judges used to be booking in trials three to six months into the future, but now they are booking well into 2027 or even into 2028, which is to save the cost of bringing in a recorder at £830 a day. However, these cases still need to be tried at some point, so that is not actually saving costs, just deferring them. In the meantime, there is a terrible impact on complainants, and in fact on justice itself. What will the Secretary of State do to clear this backlog and ensure that cases come to trial?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have a lot of questions to get in.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady is completely right. Victims must see justice being done in real time. That is why we asked Brian Leveson to do the second part of his review, on efficiencies, which goes to the heart of her question.

[Liz Twist]

Some cases are now being listed for 2029, which is completely unacceptable. How is the Secretary of State undoing the harm inflicted by the Conservative party not only on the justice system but to trust that justice will be found?

[Mr Lammy]

The inheritance from the previous Government was shocking, and at the heart of it were victims suffering. What we are doing is increasing the number of sitting days, which is hugely important, and I was very pleased to meet the Lady Chief Justice last week to discuss what more we can do. To ensure that we deal with that terrible inheritance, we will of course get on and implement the Leveson review.

[John Glen]

I wish the right hon. Gentleman the very best in his new appointment, but he is presiding over a complicated system, in which, today, 74 out of 516 Crown courtrooms are empty. Will he comment on that, and on when the second part of the Leveson report will come into effect so that we know when action will be taken on the greater complexity that is yet to be evaluated?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that we have to build the system’s capacity to use courtrooms better. I can tell him that Sir Brian Leveson—I was very grateful to Sir Brian for coming to see me, as Foreign Secretary, while he was completing his review because of my experience in the criminal justice system—is completing his review by the end of the year.

[Douglas McAllister]

One of the most effective steps taken by this Government to help reduce the Crown court backlog is the record increases to criminal legal aid. Fewer criminal barristers and solicitors will not help to tackle case waiting times. Scotland is experiencing unacceptable delays in solemn cases coming to trial, made worse by the inadequate funding of Scottish legal aid by the Scottish Government. Does the Justice Secretary agree that unless we significantly increase legal aid fees across the UK, the current criminal defence model is unsustainable and we risk the collapse of our court system?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend highlights almost two decades of the SNP running Scotland into the ground. Here, we have had a record increase of £92 million. On the day we introduce the Hillsborough law, it is hugely important to record that that is the biggest extension of legal aid for people who have suffered at the hands of the state in over a decade.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Rape is a heinous and despicable crime, with lifelong consequences for victims. Some do not survive. According to the House of Commons Library, the average number of days from charge to case completion is 363 days. What time do the Government think is acceptable for delivering justice for rape victims? Do they have a target? What is it and what steps are they taking to reach it?

[Mr Lammy]

We must have swifter justice for victims of rape. When I was shadow Justice Secretary, I was appalled that under the previous Government we got to a position where we had almost decriminalised the situation because there were so few prosecutions. There must be justice, and that means swifter justice.

[Tristan Osborne]

In west Kent, an initiative to share the resource of Maidstone Crown court with Woolwich Crown court is spreading cases into areas where there is not such a backlog. Can the Government indicate whether that is being openly considered in other parts of the country so that we can spread the backlog across different areas?

[Mr Lammy]

It is absolutely the case that where courts are coming together and being proactive, we are seeing progress. I look forward to looking more closely at the example of Maidstone and Woolwich. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is the way forward.

[Richard Foord]

Of 221 people arrested for supporting Palestine Action, 162 were arrested under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This prohibits people from carrying articles in public which

“arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.”

Even the protesters who displayed those sickening pictures of Hamas paragliders in the week after 7 October were each given a conditional discharge. Will the Government please look again at the Terrorism Act to avoid clogging up the criminal justice system with people whose real motive is to support action on Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

I am always happy to do anything—I did it in my last role and I will do it in this role—to ensure that anyone terrorising is convicted. That is quite properly a matter for law enforcement and prosecutors, but I will examine the detail of what the hon. Gentleman says.

[Peter Lamb]

I have met constituents who have been victims of some of the most serious offences and were waiting for years before the general election to have access to justice. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how I can ensure that my constituents have timely access to justice?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right. We have to ensure that the system works for victims. Under the previous Government, half of all magistrates courts closed, and in December 2023, the Crown court backlog had increased by 77%. We are dealing with that—we have to do so as swiftly as possible. I will of course ensure that he meets with the appropriate Minister.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I pay tribute to my predecessor, who is mentioned on the face of the Order Paper, who was killed in 1940.

The Justice Secretary keeps referring to the previous Government, and I sort of get that, but I remind him that the new Government have been in post for some 14 or 15 months—over a year—and at some point, that particular argument is going to wear very thin. Is he aware of the extraordinary length of time that victims of serious sexual assault and crimes must wait in the Shropshire courts, particularly Shrewsbury Crown court? It is double the 363 days that we have just heard from the Lib Dem Benches. What will the Justice Secretary do to help those victims, as well as the defendants who may, on occasion, be innocent?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman and I are friends across this House. However, I have to say to him—and he should say this to his constituents—that under the previous Government, we saw devastating cuts to the police, with a reduction of 20,000 officers; we saw no building of prisons at all, effectively—only 500 places; we saw the decimation of the Probation Service, which we are rebuilding; and we saw a reduction in sitting days. We have had to get on with all that. Yes, we have made some strides in 14 months, but the devastation was big, and it will take a bit longer.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to support probation officers.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

10. What steps he is taking to support the Probation Service.

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

We are determined to back our hard-working probation staff by investing up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review, and an initial £8 million in technology to reduce administrative burdens. We will also recruit 1,300 trainee probation officers in the next year.

[Ms Billington]

The probation officers I have spoken to are supportive of the early release scheme inasmuch as it was necessary to deal with the chronic overcrowding in our prisons—a legacy of the previous Government’s dereliction of duty. Many offenders on the fixed recall scheme with a determinate sentence, however, are not being risk-assessed before rerelease, which concerns probation officers. In that context, can the Secretary of State indicate what measures he is putting in place to ensure that probation officers are able to do their job with offenders being released early?

[Mr Lammy]

I was with probation officers last week, in my first visit as Secretary of State—it was important that probation was the first place I went to because the work and dedication of those officers and the staff is immense. We are working with the Home Office to ensure that those risk assessments are done.

[Marie Goldman]

My constituency of Chelmsford is an important hub for the justice system in Essex; it is home to several courts, including a Crown court. The independent sentencing review led by David Gauke found that the reoffending rate for those who were homeless or rough sleeping was double that of those who had accommodation to go to upon release. Indeed, I have heard examples from charities of those on probation being recalled to prison simply because they have no fixed address. At a time when prison places are so limited, what steps is the Justice Secretary taking to ensure that such frustrating examples of recall stop, and how does he intend to work with the inter-ministerial group for homelessness and rough sleeping to ensure that the Probation Service’s work is not undermined by a lack of accommodation upon release from prison?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question—no doubt she will be contributing to the debate a little later on our Sentencing Bill. That issue was raised with me by probation workers last week. It remains a big issue in our system, made worse by the previous Government. I commit to working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that that housing is available.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend back to his rightful place. I remember being a junior shadow Minister under him—I will try to be less deferential in my current role.

My right hon. Friend rightly says that the Government are recruiting new probation officers to fulfil the new responsibilities under the Sentencing Bill and to deal with early release. The BBC recently reported, however, a shortage of 10,000 probation officers. How are we going to fill that gap? The Probation Service is absolutely essential to the strategy that he is rightly following now.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend and I did a lot of work together while the Probation Service was decimated by a badly botched privatisation that ruined such an incredible service. He is right that we will need to recruit more officers. The £700 million that we found is essential, and I will be looking closely at the allocations over the coming months.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I wish to pay tribute to the probation officers in Northern Ireland, who do an excellent job. I have met them many times, and they are magnificent. On many occasions they have to deal with young people who, due to peer pressure, find themselves influenced to do things that they normally would not do. Restorative justice is one way to try to make things better. Is there a direct strategy within Government to ensure that restorative justice is used to rehabilitate young people and give them the chance of a better life?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman brings a lot of experience to these issues. What he reflects on is an issue faced in constituencies like mine. I hope he will contribute to the debate on the Sentencing Bill later today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I welcome the new Justice Secretary and the Minister responsible for sentencing to their places. The Probation Service relies on an effective tagging system in order to keep our communities safe, but the £300 million contract that the last Government awarded to Serco has resulted in lots of failures. I saw some of them close up when I shadowed Serco over the summer, including, for example, wrong addresses being provided, which means multiple failed visits and a failure to tag the offenders who need to be tagged. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much Serco has been fined in its contract, and will he commit to strengthening penalties so that we ensure that private contractors are not rewarded for failure?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right that Serco’s record was poor and unacceptable. We stepped in, and have fined it. I cannot say by how much, because it is commercially sensitive, but I can tell him that I intend to hold Serco to account. The job that it does is immensely important for public confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

4. 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)]

The safety of our prison staff is a No. 1 priority for me. That is why we are investing £40 million to stop the contraband that puts our hard-working staff particularly at risk. We are also rolling out protective body armour for use in the highest security units and trialling the use of Tasers for specialised staff.

[Jack Rankin]

Thousands of drones are being used to smuggle contraband such as weapons and drugs into prisons. Locally, I have met leading security company Preventive Concepts Security. The shadow Lord Chancellor was good enough to visit it in France to see its technology in action, detecting and disabling drones. What specific steps is the Department taking to roll out drone detection capabilities across the prison estate? Is it currently engaging directly with private stakeholders such as Preventive Concepts Security?

[Mr Lammy]

I did see that the shadow Lord Chancellor had visited France. I looked seriously and closely at what he was proposing, and I propose to make some announcements in that area over the coming weeks.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Last week in Brighton, the TUC unanimously backed the “Safe Inside” campaign promoted by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance calling for urgent action against record-high levels of prison violence and second-hand exposure to psychoactive substances. Does the Secretary of State agree that current conditions are quite intolerable for prison staff and that the Prison Service needs to be held directly accountable for the health and safety of everyone who works in prisons, all of whom deserve to be safe inside?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We are talking to the unions. I hope that the £40 million we have put in will be able to alleviate some of the problems, but he is right that the assaults on our staff are entirely unacceptable. That is why I am committing from the Dispatch Box to making further announcements in the coming days.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the murdered prison officer Lenny Scott, whose killer was found guilty and sentenced over the recess. It is hard to overstate the seriousness of the case: this was a prison officer murdered simply for doing his job. Like police officers, we ask prison officers every day to stand up to some of the most violent people in our society. Does the new Lord Chancellor agree that prison officers deserve the same legal protections as police officers?

[Mr Lammy]

The work that our prison officers do is incredible. The work that our prison governors do is incredible. Over the course of both my career in law and my career in the House, I have visited very many prisons, and I pay tribute to their work. I will certainly be looking closely at this issue. I hope to come forward with more announcements in the coming days.

[Dr Mullan]

I am sure that prison officers will welcome any future announcements that the Lord Chancellor makes. We have talked this morning about preventive measures we can take to ensure prison officer safety, but police officers benefit from legal protections in terms of the consequences for murdering them, with mandatory whole-life orders imposed on people who do that. The Opposition will table an amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would give the same protection to prison officers. I think they deserve it, and I would welcome his support for that measure.

[Mr Lammy]

It is a serious issue and I will certainly consider it. I know that the Law Commission is looking at similar provisions.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

5. What steps he is taking to support rehabilitative programmes in prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

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

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

It is my honour to take my first oral questions as Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary.

Today, the Government will introduce the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—better known as the Hillsborough law. It will create a new professional and legal duty of candour, placing public servants under a duty to act with honesty and integrity at all times. It will be backed by a new offence for misleading the public, and two new offences for misconduct in public office.

This is an historic moment, but the credit belongs not to the Government but to the families of the 97, whose courage never faltered, and to all who fought for justice after Grenfell, after Windrush, after the infected blood and Horizon scandals. This law will be their legacy. We cannot rewrite history, but with the Hillsborough law, we can ensure that it never repeats itself again.

[Becky Gittins]

I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s passionate remarks. Some 71% of people in the youth justice system have a speech and language need that may impact on their ability to access justice, but only a tiny fraction of those young people have received any speech and language support. How is he working across Government—particularly with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education—to prevent those vulnerable young people from being disproportionately drawn into the youth justice system?

[Mr Lammy]

I remain very concerned, particularly about neurodiversity in young people and how they fare in the criminal justice system. I will look closely at the youth justice system, working closely with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and of course the Department for Education.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place. The only one in, one out deal that is working in the Government is the one for Deputy Prime Ministers.

Just last month, the country was crying out that the Justice Secretary must face justice after his scandalous failure to register a licence for fish. Well, he thought he was off the hook, but finally it is justice for Lammy. I know that he has a previous and rather traumatic experience with one John Humphrys on “Mastermind”, so I hope that he is sitting comfortably. How many foreign nationals are clogging up our prisons, and does he stand by the letter he signed that opposed the removal of 50 foreign criminals, one of whom went on to murder?

[Mr Lammy]

I will look forward to this. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is so good that my predecessor was promoted, and that he is auditioning for another job. Let me be clear: returns under this Government have gone up 14%. I took a keen interest as Foreign Secretary. They will be going up further.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will give it to the Justice Secretary; that was a better reply than the one he gave when he was asked which monarch succeeded Henry VIII and he said Henry VII, but it was not the answer that I was asking for. In fact, there are 10,772 foreign nationals in our prisons, and that figure has gone up under Labour. The obstacle to so many of their removals is the European convention on human rights, which has morphed into a charter for criminals. The previous Justice Secretary pretended that we could reform the ECHR, but the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, has stated that that position is a “political trick”. Is it a trick that this Justice Secretary intends to play on the British public?

[Mr Lammy]

I know the right hon. Gentleman was a corporate lawyer, but he really needs to get into the detail. We are reforming through the Sentencing Bill so that we can get people out of the country by deporting them on sentencing. He needs to get into the weeds and look at the Bill—he can do better.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

T5. I have to raise a harrowing case from my constituency. An 84-year-old mother and grandmother reported being sexually assaulted in her care home by one of the workers. When this was reported, it was found that that care worker was already being investigated for a number of similar assaults. The family have waited over a year already to get into court, and they have now been told they will have to wait until 2026. Will the Minister meet me to review this case? Importantly, the family also ask, can we look at how we learn from this, to improve the system for other families?

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I would like to associate myself with the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on the bravery of the Hillsborough families and pay tribute to them for the success that has been landed today.

Many of us across the House are deeply concerned that domestic abusers are weaponising the family court to perpetrate their abuse. Efforts to reform it have not yet been forthcoming from this Government, and we need change. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to legislating in the next King’s Speech for reform of the family court, so that it supports survivors and does not sabotage them any longer?

[Mr Lammy]

We are determined to look at this lacuna for victims of domestic violence, and if necessary, we will come forward with further amendments or, indeed, legislation.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

T7. May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the remarkable achievements of the Hillsborough campaigners?Last week I met Soroptimist International members in Stafford, who raised concerns about mothers in Drake Hall Prison in my constituency. Every year, 17,000 children have their mothers go to prison, yet only 9% are taken care of by their fathers. Where do those 15,000 children go, and what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that children of women in prison are properly identified and taken care of?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his announcement on the Hillsborough law. For decades, the families have carried the weight of injustice, and Governments have failed to act. Today, the Hillsborough law will be laid before this House, but it must not be another false start. Will the Deputy Prime Minister promise me that this Bill will be the Hillsborough law, and that it will emerge stronger and not weaker from Parliament and, finally, deliver justice for the 97?

[Mr Lammy]

I was pleased to sign the 2017 Bill and to put my name, along with that of the Prime Minister, to the 2019 amendment. I pay tribute to the families. I made a pledge to them yesterday: we will see no watering down of the Bill. I call to mind Khadija Saye, who died in Grenfell Tower, and that is why it is such a privilege to steer through the House this important law on behalf of not only the 97, but many, many others.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

T6. It is estimated that £80 million is locked in disabled children’s funds, such as junior ISAs and child trust funds, with parents unable to access them on behalf of their children. The constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne), Andrew Turner, has met no fewer than eight Justice Ministers and fought tirelessly for years to make the Court of Protection application process accessible to parents who are trying to access the funds for their disabled children. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s timeframe for simplifying the process?

--- Later in debate ---

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

T8.  Since 2021, Chichester Crown court has been used as a Nightingale court to catch up with the huge backlog of cases. As court delays continue to slow down our justice system, will the Justice Secretary please give consideration to making Chichester Crown court a permanent Crown court, which would be the only one in West Sussex?

[Mr Lammy]

I know the hon. Lady’s constituency well, so I will take a close look at the issue.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Victims of sexual crimes are understandably often traumatised. What steps are the Government taking to ensure the long-term sustainability of specialist support for those victims—such as the Calderdale WomenCentre, which provides supports for victims in Calder Valley—in particular given the long waits for justice and the high demand for trauma-informed support?

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

In July this year, alongside a cross-party group of parliamentarians and others, I wrote to the then Lord Chancellor seeking a meeting regarding improving gatekeeping and alternative dispute resolution in family court matters. I have not received a response. Can the Lord Chancellor give me the reassurance that such a meeting will take place?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I can.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Barlinnie prison is operating at 30% above capacity, and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons is strongly urging Scottish Government action before the £1 billion replacement is finally built in 2028. What steps are Ministers taking to avoid the costly mistakes of the SNP Scottish Government in tackling the prison capacity crisis?

[Mr Lammy]

The SNP is running down Scotland and wasting taxpayers’ money on the new Barlinnie prison—more than double the original estimated cost. We are doing much better on this side of the border, and we are working with colleagues to see what we can do about that situation.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Does the new Secretary of State for Justice recognise sharia law and sharia courts in the United Kingdom—yes or no?

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to officers at Harlow police station? During recess, I went on a ride-along and saw their professionalism and dedication at first hand.

[Mr Lammy]

I agree with my hon. Friend 100%—and not just because a lot of those officers are Spurs supporters.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Prison officers at Whitemoor prison in my constituency have raised concerns that the recruitment process for staff is not working effectively and is unduly bureaucratic. Will the Secretary of State write to me with his assessment and look at what changes could be made?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, of course, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.