Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Today, the Government will let another 650 criminals out of prison early, on top of 1,350 last month and tens of thousands under their original early release scheme. When the Justice Secretary launched this scheme, he promised that there would be a presumption that every released criminal would be tagged, but that is not happening. I have asked Ministers about this many times, in letters, written questions, oral questions and urgent questions, but to no avail. He talks about waiting for the release of data in January, but waiting for January is his choice, so I ask again: how many released criminals have been tagged, and if he will not tell us, will the public not conclude that he is just hiding his broken promise?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have this both ways. I have heard him say, and I am sure the whole House tuned in to listen to him in recent podcasts, that he accepts—he never accepts it in the Chamber, but is more willing to do so in public—that we are in these circumstances because the Conservatives did not build enough prison places, and he also refused to rule out an emergency release scheme. I put this to him gently, because I like him: perhaps he is not quite walking the walk, though he is talking the talk.

On the presumption of tagging, we will in due course have the full data; that has been the position of successive Governments, including ones in which the hon. Gentleman had important roles. However, I made a commitment about the presumption of tagging, and I also made a commitment that this would be the biggest expansion of tagging in history, and I look forward to having a conversation about the data when it is available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Russell Brand verdict surprised nobody, and all those who allowed his behaviour to go unchecked should reflect on their own culpability. The truth is emerging also about Mohamed al-Fayed; David Walliams remained anonymous for years thanks to an injunction; and there are many similar cases. Following the attack by Brand’s barrister on journalists who reported similar allegations concerning different victims before the case began, what will the Government do to prevent these abuses of process, and stop the abusive injunctions and super-injunctions, which stop scrutiny, accountability and the work of the free press?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for raising these important issues. All the perpetrators he named are individuals whom the Government have concerns about, and we are working with many of the victims and survivors directly. Just yesterday, I met yet another victim of Fayed who had come forward to me with serious allegations and concerns that the processes have not been appropriately followed.

I reassure the shadow Secretary of State that the Government are determined to do all we can to ensure that anyone who is a perpetrator of these crimes is held to the full force of the law. That includes looking at what we can do regarding injunctions. He will know that applications to the courts for privacy injunctions are considered independently, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment; however, we are concerned about their use. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services is looking at what more we can do on strategic lawsuits against public participation injunctions—we have already taken action on non-disclosure agreements for sexual abuse cases, as the hon. Member will know—and to prevent abuse of process throughout the judicial system.

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Sarah Steele was strangled and allegedly sexually assaulted by a US fighter pilot based at RAF Lakenheath. Like in several other cases, some involving child abuse, jurisdiction was wrongly handed to the Americans, with defendants facing a jury of US service personnel. The NATO treaty and the law say that in such cases, our police, prosecutors and courts should be in charge. Victims report charged suspects being free to travel without restriction, dubious acquittals, lighter punishments, and perpetrators potentially avoiding the sex offenders register. I have written to the Justice Secretary about this several times, and so far the replies have been quite general. Will the Government legislate so that any decision to surrender jurisdiction must be approved by an individual Minister?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The case at RAF Lakenheath, and others that have subsequently come to light, are extremely concerning. As the Minister responsible for international justice and the rule of law, I take the issue extremely seriously. Decisions on jurisdiction are made by the relevant police force in response to the claim by a visiting police force, and should be taken in accordance with the Visiting Forces Act 1952. However, following that case, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council has written to all forces to remind them of their responsibilities under that Act. We must ensure that such cases are heard in the correct jurisdiction. I reassure the shadow Secretary of State that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence are also engaging with the United States on the matter. I will happily work across party lines and across Government Departments to see what more we can do to protect victims.