Early Release of Prisoners

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy]

I completely agree. I am happy to say that if the Government want to bring forward emergency legislation to fix this in primary legislation or, if they want to buy themselves a little more time to consider things more fully, to introduce new commencement regulations delaying the introduction of the early release scheme, the Opposition will completely support them in doing that.

For now, however, we do not know. The Government are not in a position to tell us who will be released, what crimes they have committed and when exactly they will be released. When will Ministers know the identity of, and the crimes that have been committed by, those who are due to be released? Are we to wait until they have re-offended, and the details emerge as they are arrested, charged and prosecuted all over again? Is the cost of this ineptitude yet more crime, yet more victims of crime and yet more lives ruined? A Government who cannot tell the public who they are releasing from prison have no business releasing any of these dangerous criminals.

Today, the Government have caved under Conservative pressure, but we still do not know what the policy will be. We have a Minister unable to answer: a political eunuch humiliated by his current boss, the Justice Secretary, and his next boss—if he gets a job—with nothing to say but “Wait for Andy”.

The approach of Ministers to all these concerns—legitimate concerns, shared by people up and down the country—has been to say, “Nothing to see here.” They still tell us that it will all be fine, but they have not had the nerve to ask their MPs to vote on it. The Government say that the criminals they release early will be managed “under strict licence conditions” and can be recalled if those conditions are breached, as though this is some kind of special new initiative. Of course they are released under licence, but the Government refuse to say what those conditions will entail, whether they are new conditions or tougher conditions, what safeguards are in place and what resources will be deployed to ensure that these criminals do not reoffend or disappear from the radar. If they will not even tell us how many prisoners released under SDS40 have been recalled to prison, how can we trust them with what they say about SDS33?

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

I am a little puzzled by this excuse that offenders can always be recalled if they breach the terms. Presumably, a breach means that there has been a fresh victim of a crime, so it is rather pointless to give that as a reassurance. Does my hon. Friend know what proportion of the prison population is made up of serious sexual or other serious offenders? I cannot believe that it is such a high proportion that even if the prison system were utterly full, they could not release other inmates rather than such serious criminals.

[Nick Timothy]

My right hon. Friend puts his finger on the button. This is what we have been saying, and the Government have been saying in response: “No, this is absolutely necessary. We must release these serious sex offenders otherwise there will be a crisis in the prison system.” It is clear that the right hon. Member for Makerfield—the next Prime Minister—agrees with us, not with them. That is why they have folded in this afternoon’s debate. I feel very sorry for the Minister. It is one man, two guvnors, and he is in a very difficult position. Of course it is possible, even if we accept that we need an early release scheme of the kind the Government are introducing, to exclude the sorts of offenders that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East has described.

As I was saying, if the Government are releasing record numbers of prisoners in error, how can we trust them to get these processes right?

It is easy for debates like this to be lost in statistics, technocratic jargon and legal language, so I will end on this important note. Fiona Goddard was just 14 when she was abused by a rape gang. Seven of her abusers were convicted. In June last year, Fiona received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing her that her abusers were likely to be eligible soon for early release, having served just half their sentences. Last month she received another letter saying that under the Government’s Sentencing Act, her abusers may now be released after serving just one third of the time she was told they would serve in prison originally.

Fiona and several other victims—Sarah Wilson from Rotherham, Carly and Jessica from Huddersfield, Erin from Dewsbury, and the mother of a victim from Rochdale, who has since died—have written to all Members of the House. Several of those brave women and some others are in the Gallery today. They have asked us, in their words

“to hear the pain behind this letter…support an amendment to the Sentencing Act”

and exclude sex offenders from the early release scheme.

We can only imagine the suffering and torment that these women have experienced. To be told that those who abused them over many years may now be back on the streets long before they were supposed to be is not just disgusting but terrifying to them. It is shameful that the Justice Secretary has refused to come to the House today, and it is ridiculous that the Government have bowed to our argument and accepted our motion without telling us or the victims what they plan to do instead. Victims are left in limbo. Are we going to get emergency legislation? Are we going to get new commencement regulations? Which offences will be excluded from the early release scheme? How is this possible when Ministers previously said that it was not?

The Minister is about to get to his feet, but I am afraid that he has no authority and no idea what will happen next. This dying Government need to be put out of their misery, and we need answers, not evasion, from the only person who can answer—the right hon. Member for Makerfield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I understand my hon. Friend’s intervention. Let us be clear that many of the offenders we are talking about have been released previously and would continue being released but for the Sentencing Act. This is about what measures we put in the community to ensure that the community is safe, and that is why we are investing more than ever before in our Probation Service and why we have recruited a further 1,300 probation officers this year. We are refocusing supervision to devote more time to dangerous offenders so that we can better protect the public. This is ultimately the choice: either strict licence conditions in the community for those who have already served time in prison under the changes; or, simply put, the collapse of the system altogether, leaving sex offenders and others to act with impunity.

I understand how distressing it can be for victims when an offender in their case is released. That is why we are taking steps, as I have already touched upon, to contact those eligible for and opted into the victim contact scheme to let them know how these changes will affect them, but I recognise that this will not cover all victims affected. That is why, through the Victims and Courts Act 2026, we will for the first time provide a new dedicated route for all victims to request information about an offender. We must ensure that we get this right, which is why it is taking some time to implement carefully, but this is proper engagement with victims rather than the chaotic botched emergency release schemes that we had under the previous Government.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I have a fairly simple question. Does the Minister have a clear idea of what categories he regards as constituting dangerous offenders, and if he does, what percentage of the prison population is made up of these people? If it is something like 10%, 15% or 25%, that still means that there are 75% or more of other categories of prisoners who could and should be released before those in that dangerous category are even considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I can tell my hon. Friend that it is not just a risk; it is a reality. A number of the victims we met earlier said that they were speaking to people who wanted to come forward, and to speak and contribute to the inquiry, but they saw what was happening to those who had spoken up and who had an offender sent to prison, and who now see that the offender will be released even earlier. They ask, “Why would I risk these people being let out even earlier than they otherwise would have been?”

[Sir Julian Lewis]

By coincidence, last night, BBC Three rebroadcast the three-part series about the online predator Alexander McCartney, who was caught when a victim reported him. It turned out that he had groomed 3,500 victims online around the world. In one case in America, he caused a 12-year-old girl to shoot herself dead; he knew that she was threatening to do that. The programme ended with the chilling statistic that out of 3,500 victims, only four had actually reported him to the authorities. It was one of those reports that led to the end of this terrible campaign. Back in 2024, the programme revealed that he had been sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 20 years. What do the people who saw that series think about the fact that it now appears that he might be out in a fraction of that time?

[Dr Mullan]

The only comfort I can give is that there are some exclusions to the early release scheme. If someone is on a life sentence as a minimum term, or on an extended determinate sentence, release does not happen earlier; but we know that more than 90% of the offenders sent to prison every year for child grooming are on a standard determinate sentence and will be eligible for early release.

The Government have quite rightly highlighted the challenges around conviction rates, and I accept the criticisms that the Government have made about the reduction in conviction rates—it is an incredibly important issue—but people do not go to court for the sake of it. It is not done just for the hell of it. They go to court and want a conviction so that a sentence is passed that is an appropriate punishment. The Government take away people’s motivation to speak up when they undermine the outcome.

Let me be specific about what an assurance that serious offenders would be excluded from the scheme would actually mean in practice to a victim. We talked earlier about Fiona Goddard, a survivor of rape, sexual assault and child grooming, whose abusers were sentenced to between 16 and 20 years in 2019. I again pay tribute to her courage. Fiona received a letter from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, telling her that people who abused her may be released early. She talked to the press and went to the media, and a journalist raised her case with the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice said officially, in a quote that was read out on “Good Morning Britain” when Fiona appeared on it, that the most serious offenders would be excluded. It said that to a journalist, in writing, and it was broadcast to the nation, with this victim listening in. It was saying that Fiona’s abusers had not committed offences serious enough to allow her to be protected, and would not be excluded from the scheme.

Survivors were in the Gallery today because letters landed through their doors telling them exactly the same thing. When the Minister says that serious offenders are excluded, they are saying, to every single victim who receives one of those letters, “Those are not serious offences. They are not heinous crimes. They are included in the scheme.” That is absolutely appalling, and thousands of people have received those letters.

I say to every Labour Member that this is not a partisan observation. During the urgent question, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) said there should be more exemptions and that Members should work together on this, and the hon. Members for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) have contributed to this debate. Let us be clear: there are hundreds of Labour MPs, and not a single one of them has come to the Chamber today to defend the Government’s policy and position. That is absolutely extraordinary and tells us what we need to know. It seems that the Government just want to keep their fingers in their ears and pretend this is not happening.

I want to be clear about what has actually happened under this Government. At the same time as this Labour Government have released over 60,000 criminals early, prison capacity has fallen on their watch, so we have roughly 500 fewer prison places under a Government who seek continually to attack our record on prison building. I accept the criticism—we should have built more prison places—but in their time in office, the figure has gone down. As with so many issues, from police numbers to teacher numbers, things have got worse under this Government.

We have more than 10,000 foreign national offenders in our prisons right now, representing around 12% of the prison population and costing hundreds of millions of pounds a year. The Government could have moved faster on deportation and freed up those places. As I said, I am clear about our failings in government, and I am happy to say it again: we did build more than 14,000 prison places, but we closed too many prisons that were not fit for purpose, and that has created challenges in the system. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and I have said, and as Members on both sides of the House have said for a long time, the failings in the prioritisation of our justice system go back many decades, over many political parties.

I say this not to make a political point but to demonstrate that these are long-term issues. When Labour was last in office, it introduced the existing automatic halfway release for all offenders. Despite that, prison capacity was so tight that Labour released 80,000 prisoners early. When Labour was last in office, it made use of early release schemes because it failed to build enough prison places to keep people in prison.

Prisoner Early Release

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

As the right hon. Member knows, questions as to whether a defendant should be remanded are a matter for the judiciary. I am happy to look into the particulars of this cross-border issue and the matter of local protective agencies working together to keep the public safe, and will get back to her.

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

One reason that the present Prime Minister has lost the trust of the public is his refusal, time and again, to give straight answers to straight questions. My Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), asked a straight question: how many rapists and how many child abusers are scheduled for early release? Either the Minister is not answering because he does not know the answers, in which case he should tell us that, or he does know the answers but is refusing to give them. Which is it?

[Jake Richards]

When the Sentencing Act went through Parliament, we had a number of debates, and an impact assessment was published. The numbers are contained in there.

Youth Justice

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing these issues. I hope that she sees an indication of what she seeks from the fact that two Ministers are working hand in hand and sitting on the interministerial group to direct this activity. There is more to do on education in the youth custody context and more to do on neurodiversity and its prevalence among this cohort of young people. We have to extend that work into communities and join up better with local child and adolescent mental health services as well.

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

May I ask the Justice Secretary to explain a bit more about the intensive community placements to which he made brief reference? Can I put to him a particularly challenging scenario? Imagine that we have, say, a single parent—a single mum—who is very much afraid of her own adolescent child. She is aware that that child has been getting machetes and other violent accessories through internet-related delivery services. Let us imagine that she does what she is supposed to do, and what we would all think she ought to do, which is to report the child. Given that no offence has yet been committed by the child, what protection will be offered to her against potentially lethal violence from her own adolescent son?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Member raises a very serious issue, and it lies at the heart of what we are discussing, because we are seeing young people, particularly this prolific cohort, becoming addicted—often addicted online and often groomed—and this is where the knives and, sadly, the terrorism come in. This is not a stand-alone policy; the work of Prevent, the police and social services matters. Here we have to do better to join up that work, and that is the signal we got following the Fulford inquiry into what happened in Southport. This is an attempt to move directly in that direction, recognising that we are seeing that addictive behaviour in a cohort of young people, and that they are often neurodiverse. We need to support parents to get this right, and an intensive supervision court can make a real difference and put a judge right at the centre of that ring.

Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers.

May I begin by thanking all the Members who have taken the trouble to attend and hopefully speak in this important debate, and also the Minister and shadow Minister for their anticipated contributions? Members of all parties in the House will wish to put on the record our appreciation for prison officers up and down the country, who work tirelessly and courageously to protect our society. Let us especially pay tribute to Claire Lewis, a brave constituent of my friend the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), the newly appointed Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who we heard in full voice a few moments ago on another debate topic. She rightly drew attention to Claire’s work on 18 June last year.

After suffering a horrific assault, Claire set up a petition calling for anti-stab and anti-slash protective gear to be made mandatory for all prison officers. It achieved over 32,500 signatures. She had been severely stabbed in the back with a broken bottle while working on a supposedly less risky general population wing at HMP Frankland as a prison officer in 2010. In her own words, the attack left her with

“life-changing physical injuries and deep psychological toll…to this day.”

I understand Claire is watching at home today, so this is a good opportunity to acknowledge her remarkable commitment and dedication in turning such a dreadful experience into an inspirational campaign for change. No one should be subject to needless vulnerability while doing his or her job. Prison officers work constantly to safeguard society from some of the most dangerous and violent people. They are entitled, in return, to expect from us the maximum practicable protection from attack.

Sadly, Claire’s experience is no isolated incident. According to The Independent, the number of assaults on staff in adult prisons in England and Wales nearly trebled in the decade from 2014 to the end of 2024, from 3,640 to 10,605.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. The figures in Northern Ireland have also increased in recent years, with 96 attacks recorded in 2024, up from 59 in 2023 and 66 in 2022, reflecting rising safety concerns in Northern Ireland’s prison system, as he has referred to. It is attributed to factors such as overcrowding and higher prison populations. Does he agree that if we are to address the issue of prison officer safety, we need to address the issue of overcrowding and higher prison populations? Every prison officer should have access to body armour to ensure their safety.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Yes, indeed. No debate in this Chamber or the main Chamber would be worth while without a typically relevant contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The rise that I quoted earlier equated to 122 attacks on staff for every 1,000 inmates on the prison estate. Such a level of violence has inevitably brought into question the safety and adequacy of the current protective equipment available to prison officers at work. Only last year, three officers were viciously attacked in a particularly serious incident at HMP Frankland, the same prison where Claire was badly wounded.

The full implications of this unacceptable deterioration have yet to be learned, though significant progress was made last September, when the Justice Secretary announced during a visit to Belmarsh prison that 10,000 more staff would be given stab-proof vests and 500 tasers would be supplied to trained personnel. Although those steps are welcome—they would have helped protect Claire in her prison—they go only part of the way. The extra 10,000 vests will provide a stab-proof garment for every prison guard working in high-security facilities, but even with body armour being made mandatory for prison officers working in close supervision and separation centres, too many at-risk staff remain without protection.

Any prison officer working on any wing of any prison can be attacked. Therefore, any prison officer working on any wing of any prison deserves to be protected from violence while trying to do his or her job. Yes, progress has been made, but as long as any prison officers lack adequate protection and remain vulnerable to attack, there is still work to do.

High levels of violence coupled with a lack of protective equipment will undoubtedly serve as a recruitment disincentive for potential prison officers. That must be remedied to ensure that our justice system continues to function and our society remains safe. Prison officers will always face challenges, often in trying circumstances. It is up to us to minimise the risk of attack, if we expect people to volunteer for such a vital, though difficult, career. It is also a matter of justice and fair play. We cannot expect to be protected by brave prison officers if they do not feel that appropriate safety measures are in place.

If the principle of providing protective body armour to all prison officers is accepted, we must ensure the adequacy of the equipment itself. We must listen to and draw upon the experiences of those who have already been issued with protective equipment to make certain that it meets the highest safety standards. In 2024, more than half of police officers and staff in England and Wales said that their uniforms were “unfit for purpose”, restrictive and causing health problems, according to the first national police uniform and equipment survey ever undertaken. Furthermore, that survey revealed alarming health consequences, with 44% of men reporting muscular pain, which was often linked to body armour or heavy equipment, and women reporting that body armour failed adequately to accommodate female anatomy. Ultimately, 62% of male and 85% of female respondents reported at least one physical health condition as a result of equipment flaws.

Lessons must be learned and procurement tailored accordingly, in both senses of the word. As well as its protective function, body armour must be light in weight, not impair mobility and remain comfortable if worn for lengthy periods. I understand that Claire Lewis has identified at least one designer and manufacturer of stab vests and other protective clothing that she believes to offer enhanced protection against blunt force, significantly reducing the risk of injuries from punches, kicks and strikes from improvised weapons. Clearly, market research and objective evaluation will need to be done.

The argument is twofold: we should ensure that all prison officers have comparable protection from attack by prisoners, and the selection of protective equipment must be right rather than rushed. Not only is this morally sound, but it will save costly claims later on from individuals suffering health consequences from faulty equipment.

I conclude with the following questions for the Minister, to whom I have given advance notice—I thank him for his accessibility in this matter. First, does he accept that, regardless of which prison wing an officer works on, he or she deserves protection from violence? Secondly, if that is agreed, will the Government seriously consider rolling out mandatory body armour to all prison officers in all prisons? Finally, may we have the Minister’s word, here and now, that any new body armour procured will be of the highest specification, to avoid causing physical problems for male and female officers further down the line?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing today’s debate on this very important subject. I will attempt to directly answer the questions he posed. All our prison officers, to whom I pay tribute today on the record, deserve protection. Whether that means we should roll out mandatory body armour is a more complex question and requires a more complex answer. Some of the reasons why it is a complex task have been set out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) who quite rightly raises questions about the commitment that we have already made. He then also, quite rightly, asked about the training and the process by which the roll-out will take place, where items will be stored and ensuring that all staff agree with such a roll-out. I accept the premise of his question, but it is somewhat more complex than perhaps it may seem from the outset—and we are working on that.

I also want to directly speak to Claire, if she is watching this debate. What she has suffered is horrific. Like the shadow Minister, I pay tribute to her for powerfully turning a horrific incident into a campaign on a number of issues, through her efforts and those of her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I am very happy to meet her. It may be that Lord Timpson, who is operationally responsible for many of these matters, will also meet her as well. I will look to organise that as soon as possible with her MP.

I will try to deal with as many of the issues raised as possible, and otherwise, I am happy to follow up with hon. Members in writing.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

On what the Minister said at the beginning, I would be the first to acknowledge that it may take time and be a gradual process before all prison officers are equipped with body armour in practice. What we are looking for from the Minister today is whether he accepts the principle that they should be—then we can work on the timescale and the practicalities.

[Jake Richards]

I absolutely accept the principle that prison officers should be safe at work and be given the tools to be so. Every prison of each different category has a different context, culture and working environment, and each has to make an assessment of the risks therein.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

That was not really what I asked the Minister. I was asking whether he accepts the principle that all prison officers are vulnerable to attack in any prison and that, in principle, they should be able to have appropriate body armour as standard?

[Jake Richards]

I accept the principle that too often there are attacks in all sorts of prisons, but of course there are more acute settings where that risk is greater. I accept that we have to take protective measures in all sorts of prisons. I do not think that I can go as far as the right hon. Gentleman may want me to in accepting the second part of his premise—I can see that he is trying very hard to get me to, but I think it is more complex than that, and I hope I can set out a bit why that is in the short time that we have.

As I said, rolling out protective body armour—as we have committed to, and I am proud to be serving in a Government who are committed to doing what the last Government did not in the high-security estate—is not just about having equipment; it requires thoughtful planning. There needs to be secure and accessible storage so that officers can access their kit quickly while also preventing unauthorised use. There needs to be clear guidance on how to handle and check the armour, and regular inspections and proper replacement schedules so that equipment remains effective. Compatibility with other equipment is also vital. Protective body armour must work seamlessly with body-worn video cameras, radios, batons and PAVA—the synthetic pepper spray. It must fit within existing uniform requirements and the regulatory environment around that. We also need to consider the impact on other staff who are prisoner-facing, but who may not be equipped with protective body armour. Making sure that their safety is not compromised is also vital.

While protective body armour is important, the Government do not feel that it is an instant silver bullet. It is one part of a broader package to improve staff safety. Officers in the adult male estate already have access to PAVA spray, which is used to prevent serious assaults. We also have over 13,000 new-generation body-worn video cameras. Work on that began under the last Government and has been continued under this Government, and it means that every officer in bands 3 to 5 can wear one during their shift. They provide high-quality evidence to support prosecutions and include a pre-record function to help capture the often crucial lead-up to incidents.

We are also going further. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term and high-security estate with tasers. That will improve safety and enhance frontline capability in the most high-risk environments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

When I realised that this debate was going to be held on the last day before the Easter recess, I was rather perturbed and thought that perhaps not very many people would turn up. I could not have been more wrong, both in terms of quantity and quality. The six contributions from Back Benchers taught me a great deal more about this issue than I ever dreamt I would absorb in a single afternoon. They included contributions from the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), as well as the leader of Plaid Cymru in the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and other senior Members old and new. Every one of them made a very worthwhile contribution.

My hope was that we were going to roll it all the way through to the end with absolute agreement on the single issue of the body armour, even though some of the very knowledgeable contributions we heard from the Floor understandably went into wider issues that are also of concern to the Prison Officers Association, who were in touch with me before the debate as well.

Sadly, the Minister has made indications in the right direction but has not been willing to give the complete commitment that we want, which is that, in principle, given that this is what the staff members themselves desire, they should be able to have stab-proof vests in whichever prison they work. It would be good if we could get that nailed down.

I fully understand the Minister’s point that it cannot all happen within 24 hours of making the decision, but the process cannot begin until the principle is acknowledged. I fear, from his point of view at any rate, that he will not have heard the last of this issue, even though the Government have made some substantial steps in the right direction, as I acknowledged in my opening remarks.

I conclude by referring back to where it all began, which was the brave campaign by Claire Lewis, who turned her own dreadful experience into a force for good so that others will be better protected in the future. I did not know very much about this issue until it was brought to me by people who are more acquainted with it than I was. I acknowledge the help I have received—on background information, information about the issue and in drafting my opening remarks. With that, I conclude by wishing everybody a very happy Easter break.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers.

Court Reporting Data

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that the report to the ICO has not yet been made. I raised the matter with our data officer, and the conclusion—the advice that I was given—was that it did not meet the threshold for an ICO referral. I have asked for that to be looked at again, but what is clear, and Courtsdesk accepted this fact, is that it breached the agreement by passing this material to an AI company. That is not a responsible thing to do with people’s private addresses and other sensitive data relating to individuals through which those individuals can be identified and which are not subject to the same reporting restrictions which, of course, journalists abide by. Let me be absolutely clear with the House: the sort of service that Courtsdesk provides is one that we want to replicate, but we want it to be on a stable footing with the necessary data protection guardrails, and that is what we are putting in place. If Courtsdesk had engaged with the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS in a responsible fashion, we would not be in the position that we are in today.

The fact is that, all along, journalists have retained the ability to obtain information. That is the critical point. This is about court lists, not court records. In respect of court lists, for all courts, journalists throughout have been able to engage with the information in the same way as they were able to do pre-2020, pre-Courtsdesk. They can get that information, and they can continue to report what is happening in our courts.

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

It is certainly a cause of great concern if an AI machine now has access to people’s private home addresses. What investigations have the Government carried out to establish how much personal information that should not have been released is now out there for anyone, no matter how ill-intentioned, to dial up at will?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a matter of concern, although it is clearly not a concern that is shared by the Front Benchers in his party. Our understanding is that some 700 individual cases, at least, were shared with the AI company. We have sought to understand what more may have been shared and who else may have been put at risk, but the mere fact that the agreement was breached in that way is incredibly serious. That is why all this needs to be put on a much more licence-secure and regulatorily secure footing.

Separation Centres Review

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

Jury Trials

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We in the Liberal Democrats have sympathy for the scale of the task that this Labour Government have inherited, and we are glad that they recognise the real losers here—the victims. It is an utter failure of the justice system that victims and defendants are being given court dates for the end of the decade, facing years of delay and re-traumatisation, when so many just want justice and then to move on with their lives.

Here’s the rub, though: we fundamentally disagree with the Government’s approach to tackling this crisis. They are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, ignoring the actual issues and targeting a key and celebrated success. Trial by jury is deeply enshrined in our conscience and constitution, and is respected all over the world. The possibility of being tried by one’s peers—not an elite, unrepresentative group of individuals—is fundamental to a fair trial in this country. That point was recognised by the Deputy Prime Minister himself in the Lammy review. It concluded that unlike other stages of the criminal justice system, jury trials do not show statistical bias against ethnic minorities. The Deputy Prime Minister set out in extreme detail that, compared with magistrates courts, Crown courts provide an effective check on prejudice and avoid discriminatory verdicts. Twelve heads are better than one—a point proven by the increased public trust in jury trials.

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

I would like to say, in support of what the hon. Lady has been saying, that surely a distinction of which we need to be aware is that, whereas the judge is a specialist in deciding what the law says and how it should be applied, he or she is not a specialist in deciding whether someone is telling the truth or not; and in that sense, we are far more likely to get the right answer from a group of people considering it together, as a collectivity, than from an individual, no matter how eminent in the intricacies of the law.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid and worthwhile point, and I thank him for raising it. It is highly irresponsible and dangerous for this Government to pursue efforts to remove the right to trial by jury in most Crown court cases as a means of fixing the backlog—although we have just heard from the Minister that that is not actually the intention at all; the intention is that she would do it anyway—especially given that the evidence behind the provisions’ effectiveness is flimsy.

Restriction of Jury Trials

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend has asked a very important question. Equality before the law is, of course, a fundamental principle, but so is the need for all our communities to have confidence in our justice system. One of the worst symptoms of the broken system that we have today is the fact that so few people now have that confidence.

Let me say first to my hon. Friend that we are preserving jury trial for the most serious cases, and secondly that our proposals represent a vote of confidence in our magistracy, which is increasingly diverse and needs to be more diverse still. In London, more than 30% of magistrates are drawn from the communities that they are serving and come from black and minority ethnic communities. In the midlands, where I know my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience, the numbers are getting higher and higher, at 15% or 16%, and we want more still. This is how we continue to include that very important democratic and community component in our justice system, so that communities such as hers can continue to have confidence in it.

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

I am afraid that the Minister’s treatment of the 60% figure only tends to confirm my belief that one is better off with the common sense of 12 ordinary people than with one legal professional. [Laughter.] Even she is smiling—good for her. Can she look again at this point? Yes, it is disastrous if 60% of women who allege rape drop the case before it proceeds to a conclusion, but if only 9% drop the case after the alleged criminal has been charged, the overwhelming reason for their dropping the case is not the length of the trial by jury, but the slowness between the reporting of the allegation and the criminal being charged. Will she accept that, in this case, she is looking at the wrong target?

[Sarah Sackman]

I smile because I know the spirit in which the question is asked. I know that it is asked in good faith, but I also say this: as well as being a lawyer, I am also a Member of Parliament and I am also a woman. The question that was asked earlier was put very well: a single victim of whatever crime—rape being one of the most agonising that we can imagine—is one too many pulling out of the system. We do not know exactly what is going through every victim’s head, and it is right to say that the 60% figure was accurate on its own terms. We do not know exactly why people might pull out of the system, but we do know that everyone is aware that the system is broken. Even when they come to consider whether to report a crime, they are aware of what that might entail, knowing the delays, the agony and the bureaucracy that lie ahead. Quite honestly, if something were to happen to me or a loved one today and I was advising them or asking myself, “Would I want to go through with that, knowing what I do about the delays?” I would have to think long and hard about it.

HMP Downview: Female Prisoners

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the devolved competencies of another legislature—this is something for the Scottish Government to determine—but I can outline what will be doing as the Government responsible for England and Wales. More than 95% of transgender women are held in men’s prisons. Of the small number held in women’s prisons, the significant majority are held on E wing at HMP Downview, a women’s prison in the constituency of the hon. Member for Reigate. It is a stand-alone 16-bed unit, where the prisoners are accommodated completely separately from biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence.

Like the hon. Member, I have visited HMP Downview and E wing. I have spoken to the prisoners and the staff there. E wing was introduced by the previous Government in 2019. The reason it was created, and the function that it serves, links directly to the vulnerabilities of many transgender women. Those held in men’s prisons are disproportionately likely to self-harm, as we have already heard, and they face bullying and harassment. They are also disproportionately likely to be victims of sexual assault. Between 2016 and 2021, transgender women were victims in 3.4% of all sexual assaults reported in men’s prisons, despite never making up more than 0.3% of the population there.

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

I know the Minister is a reasonable person, and I am trying to find some common ground here. I could understand it, if the transgender males held in this particular unit had at least undergone reassignment surgery. They would definitely be vulnerable in a male prison. The argument for them to be held in a truly separate unit is strong. It seems from what we heard from my hon. Friend that the people who are causing concern are those who are biologically intact. In other words, they are any male who chooses to identify as a female.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the intervention by the right hon. Gentleman. He always tries to be helpful in debates, and I welcome that. Some of the prisoners held on E wing at HMP Downview have had full gender reassignment surgery. Some have not. However, full risk assessments are carried out before anyone is placed at HMP Downview. As I have stated, no prisoner has been placed there under this Government, and no exemptions have been made under this Government.

The allocation criteria rightly set a high bar for transgender women to be held in the general women’s estate. However, failing to meet that high bar does not mean that a transgender prisoner can necessarily be managed safely in a men’s prison. For those who are particularly vulnerable, such as those who have undergone full gender affirming surgery, E wing can, where appropriate, provide an important option.

Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is right that we equip our prison officers with the most robust security and protection possible. That is why we are working with them, with the unions and with governors to ensure that all steps are taken. I stress that it is also really important that prisoners’ mental health needs are taken into account. We have medical staff advising on the placement of prisoners within separation centres. I will happily write to my hon. Friend with further details on procurement, but I reassure him that we are doing all we can, working with our prison staff, who work in exceptional circumstances, to ensure that they feel reassured and safe.

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

Normally, I like the Minister’s can-do attitude. Is she really telling the House that this Government would rather make payouts to terrorists than disapply the ECHR?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I do have a can-do attitude, and I am willing to do everything we can as a Government to ensure that we get this right—that we keep our public and our prison officers safe, and keep dangerous criminals locked up where they belong. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the legal proceedings are still ongoing. I reiterate that we are looking at all options available, including the right to appeal, because we will be as responsible and effective with taxpayers’ money as possible.