Deputy Speaker’s Statement

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before we begin, as Mr Speaker said in his statement yesterday, today marks the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. It is also the subject of today’s Adjournment debate. I, too, have seen the site of the attacks, and it is a harrowing reminder. We remember the 2,977 innocent lives lost, including 67 British citizens. The attacks also impacted family members in my constituency of Sussex Weald. We pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery of everyone who risked their lives and their own safety and ran towards the danger in order to save others. I am sure that colleagues from across the House will wish to remember the victims of those terrible events and their loved ones.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163) and negatived.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind Members that it is not customary to impose a speech limit on private Members’ Bills, but I hope that after the Member in charge of the Bill and the speaker after that, Members will restrict themselves to about seven to eight minutes in the first instance; that includes taking interventions. I may need to ask for further shorter speeches to enable more Members to contribute. I should make it clear that the Chair retains the right to impose a formal speech limit, but I would rather colleagues helped each other, especially on a day like today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I will not give way. I will make some progress—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The Member has made clear that she is not taking interventions at this point.

[Lauren Edwards]

As has been mentioned, the Bill has been subject to hundreds of hours of scrutiny, and amendments have been made to strengthen its safeguards, but that does not mean it cannot be strengthened further. As with any Bill, it will benefit from additional scrutiny. The Bill before us today already includes an important clarification on eating disorders that was agreed without a vote in the House of Lords last time. Together with the co-sponsor of the Bill in the House of Lords, Lord Falconer, who is in the Gallery today, I have recently met representatives from medical bodies and hospice organisations to discuss further amendments that could be made in the other place.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. She mentions that the Government have a responsibility to ensure this legislation is lawful and workable, yet she is the Bill’s sponsor—that responsibility rests on her, too. Yet despite knowing that the Bill’s sponsor in the previous Session brought forward over 30 amendments and eight new clauses of her own and the Bill’s sponsor in the Lords brought forward 77—a recognition that the Bill is manifestly unworkable—she has chosen not to amend her Bill. What is before us today is for a political—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions must be short.

[Lauren Edwards]

I disagree with the position that any time we amend a Bill in this place, it is ultimately deficient and unworkable. That is not how it works. All I am asking the Chamber to do today is to send the Bill back to the House of Lords so it can continue its work, which was interrupted, of scrutinising the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

More than 90 Members are trying to catch my eye. I can maximise contributions only if colleagues keep their speeches to around six or seven minutes.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

Today I am going to share the most personal of stories publicly for the first time, and I ask for the kindness of colleagues in not intervening so that I can.

Last October, my mum, Ruth Hazelgrove, chose to bring her late-stage terminal illness to an end, on her terms, at home, with dignity and with a strength that I can only try to imagine. Mum had just turned 61. She had endured significant health challenges for almost half her life. When mum was 32, she was diagnosed with a rare blood cancer, polycythaemia vera. Thankfully, she was able to see us grow up and meet her grandchildren. Mum loved life and laughter, and our family will remember her this way.

In early 2024, mum was told that her condition had taken a significant turn. That autumn, while we debated the initial version of this Bill, her pain was excruciating. She had access to good palliative care, but what we learned the hardest of ways is that not all pain can be palliated. I will never forget seeing her writhing and screaming in pain, at points for weeks. None of us will. I know of no deity that would want that. Eventually, some medication helped her leave hospital, but it then became less effective over time.

For mum, it was not a choice of life or death; it was a question of what kind of death she would have. She was clear that she did not want a painful or undignified death. She wanted peace. For us, it will always be a tremendous personal sadness that the current law meant that she could not tell us her plan, and we could not say goodbye to her—but more importantly than that, that she could not say goodbye at the end of her life, or be surrounded by her loved ones, which is what she would have wanted for her death.

Instead, the harmful status quo meant that mum died alone, with photos of us around her. This was 11 months ago either today or tomorrow—we will never know whether she died late one evening or early the next morning, or whether we are ever marking the anniversary on the right day. This is the status quo. This needs to change. That is why our vote today and our work on this issue is so important now. People with terminal illnesses, and those who will be diagnosed with them soon, matter greatly. If we were again to leave this issue to another Parliament, it would be too late for other people with terminal illnesses who want this provision, but instead face the same impossible bind as my mum; they would continue to face it well into the 2030s, at best.

An excruciating death or dying alone is simply not an acceptable bind for a human being. To allow choice does not impose an outcome, but to continue to restrict it does. In part of mum’s last note to us, which is why I am speaking today, she wrote,

“I wish the Assisted Dying Bill would have come into force in my lifetime…Maybe there will be hope for others in the future.”

Ultimately, is it not what Parliament is for to provide safeguards and freedom? I believe that we are here not to dictate how people live their lives and their deaths, but to enable safe individual choice. Today’s vote is on whether we should continue to work on this, or not at all. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to ask themselves if they feel that this impact of the status quo is right, is just.

My hope, and I know my mum’s hope, is that her story can help us choose to end this harmful status quo and see terminally ill adults finally have true choice over their lives and their deaths.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Looking around the Chamber, I see many Members wishing to contribute. In case I did not make myself clear, I urge colleagues to keep their contributions to five minutes or less; otherwise, I will be forced to put a speaking limit in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Members can help each other by keeping their speeches to five minutes.

Criminal Justice Reform

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Norris)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the implementation of the Sentencing Act 2026. When this Labour Government took office, we inherited a crisis in our prisons. They were regularly at 99% capacity, with fewer than 100 places available at one stage. We were one bad day away from running out of space, which would have meant the courts being forced to suspend trials, the police being unable to make arrests, and there would be nowhere to put dangerous criminals—a total breakdown of law and order, with victims bearing the brunt.

My predecessors acted swiftly to stabilise our prisons by committing to the most ambitious prison-building programme since the Victorians and pledging 14,000 new prison places by 2031, with 3,200 already delivered. Compare that with the record of the Conservative party, which added just 500 net places in 14 years. We have also deported nearly 12,000 foreign national offenders, but we had to ensure that we never return to the shambolic emergency releases carried out, with little scrutiny or warning, by the previous Government. We passed the Sentencing Act, which introduced the earned progression model, whereby offenders on standard determinate sentences spend at least a third of their sentence behind bars, and longer if they behave badly. More serious offences require people to serve at least half of their sentence, with no upper limit for time spent inside for bad behaviour.

But release from prison is not the end of the story. We have overseen the largest ever expansion of tagging and, working closely with the police, we are giving the Probation Service access to the largest and toughest range of measures to manage offenders. Every single offender leaving prison can now be tagged, and strict licence conditions can include curfews and bans from pubs, clubs and even football matches. There will be exclusion zones where criminals cannot go. For the most serious sexual and violent offenders, we are introducing world-first “restriction zones” that confine them to specific areas, which are sometimes a few miles wide, curtailing their liberty in order to give victims more freedom. If conditions are breached, offenders can be recalled to prison.

This clearly asks more of our brilliant Probation Service, so we are also investing £700 million more in probation and community services by 2028-29, and we are hiring a further 1,300 trainee probation officers, on top of the 2,300 recruited in the past two years.

Let me be clear about who the model applies to. The most dangerous offenders, who have been locked up for serious violent and sexual offences, and those on life sentences were never eligible, but the Prime Minister and I were determined to look again. We moved quickly to exclude rape and many serious child sex and grooming offences, and we have gone further still by excluding all unlawful killing offences—including death by dangerous or drink-driving, causing or allowing the death of a child, and manslaughter—as well as indecent assault, which has been used to prosecute historical child sex abuse. This means hundreds more dangerous criminals staying behind bars for longer, including those who killed PC Andrew Harper in the line of duty. It is the right thing to do, and I pay tribute to his wife Lissie and his mother Debbie, who campaigned for this. We would like to have gone further, but we were unable to do so due to the lack of investment by the previous Government over 14 years.

I want to reassure the House that victims in the victim contact scheme are being kept informed by dedicated victim liaison officers. We are rightly giving victims the opportunity to have their say on licence conditions for offenders in their case, and I have instructed my officials to attempt to trace all affected victims for whom we do not have the details. On top of that, we are boosting victim support with a £18.9 million funding package, including a dedicated free helpline offering emotional support for anyone affected, and specialist support for victims of violence against women and girls. I have asked the Prisons Minister to work with victims groups to shape our response, because victims must come first.

The Prime Minister and I have pushed the system to its limits. At the same time, my duty is to ensure that we always have the space to lock up offenders. Today I can announce a fast-tracked plan to create more headroom in our prison system by bringing forward more than £110 million of funding. We have identified where we can accelerate the delivery of more places, including by converting space within prisons into cells, and we are pushing to deliver current building plans more quickly. We will also invest in new land for prisons and build a credible pipeline of new sites to enable more prison building, because my top priority is to build a long-term, sustainable future for our prison estate.

We are also freeing up space in the shorter term. There are thousands of foreign national offenders in our prisons, at vast expense to taxpayers. We have increased removals by 41% compared with the last two years of the previous Tory Government, and we have changed the law to expand the early removal scheme. Now we will go further. Next year we will begin removing foreign national offenders serving determinate sentences immediately after sentencing, but I want to reassure the House that the most dangerous offenders, such as those already excluded from the Sentencing Act changes, will still be required to serve prison time before being deported. I want to be clear that all removed offenders will be barred from returning to the UK for life, because deportation is the anchor of that punishment. If you break our laws and abuse Britain’s hospitality, we will permanently remove you.

We will also act on a long-standing injustice. More than 2,000 people are still trapped by indeterminate imprisonment for public protection, or IPP, sentences. They were rightly abolished a decade ago, but offenders are still locked up for far longer than envisaged, often for crimes that, if committed today, would see them spend much less time in jail. Of those who have never been released, 99% are beyond the tariff imposed by the court, and 80% have served 10 years or more beyond it. Tragically, with no end of their sentence in sight, some IPP prisoners have taken their own lives.

Concerns about IPPs have been raised across the political spectrum, including by the former Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, who called them “a stain” on our justice system. The number of IPP offenders has been reducing, but the Prime Minister and I want to go further. We will soon bring forward legislation to end the sentence, once and for all, by the end of this Parliament. These are complex cases, and some of these offenders have committed serious crimes. Public safety will always be my top priority, but we must balance that with fairness on sentences. It will take time to get this right, but the work will begin immediately, and I offer Members of all parties and none in this place the opportunity to work together on a cross-party basis. I will listen to experts inside and outside this House, including the former Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, and the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett. They are committed advocates of IPP reform, whom I thank for agreeing to work with me. In the meantime, we will do everything within the existing framework to support those in prison to move towards a safe and sustainable release.

I also intend to look at how we can improve outcomes for offenders with complex needs. Women in prison often have high levels of trauma, abuse, mental ill-health and addiction. Many are mothers and their children can be affected profoundly by them being in prison, so I want to reduce the number of women in custody where it is safe to do so, alongside a cross-Government agenda to address the drivers of women’s offending. For youth offenders, I am announcing £4.5 million of investment for robust community alternatives to locking children up in expensive, ineffective and unsuitable prisons. To help solve the crisis in adult prisons, I have decided to temporarily hold some 18-year-olds in our youth estate for longer.

My job is to balance the sustainability of our prisons with public protection, the rights of victims and public confidence in the justice system. The decisions that the Prime Minister and I have had to take are difficult ones. We would like to have gone further, but the Government inherited a system on the brink of failure. I am clear that there must always be space for dangerous offenders, because protecting the public means fixing prisons for good. Otherwise, it is victims who are let down. We will never let that happen.

This Government will run towards problems, including the tough decisions needed to build a justice system that is firm, fair and that protects the public. Those aims will guide me as I tackle its challenges, reform it for a sustainable future and ensure it commands the confidence of the British public. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Mother of the House.

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

Opposition Members seem to need reminding that the early release programme was devised by a Conservative Government. We have been debating at great length, in the media and among politicians, keeping people in prison for longer. I support Government policy on this issue, but I remind the House that the only things, ultimately, that make people safer are: giving more support to prison officers, including their salary; putting money into improving the prison estate—some prisons are Victorian buildings; and, finally, putting effort and money into the rehabilitation of prisoners, not just keeping them in prison longer.

[Alex Norris]

I agree wholeheartedly with the value my right hon. Friend places on the important work of our prison officers and our probation officers. She is exactly right that what surely binds all of us is that we want to reduce reoffending. What I have presented to Parliament today is a measure to get us through a crisis, but we know that we have to build a new criminal justice system. That can be done from this Dispatch Box, but it also has to be done much more widely, including through work with our prison officers, our Probation Service, the police and our communities in order to reduce reoffending, which is what we all want.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Justice Secretary knows that the chaos and uncertainty for victims and their loved ones over the summer months from the handling of this scheme have been unforgivable. The Government have changed course countless times, leaving PC Andrew Harper’s family and countless others without the certainty that they deserve.

The reality, as we all agree, is that in a properly functioning justice system, no victim or loved one should ever be told that their perpetrator is being released earlier than they were told when that sentence was handed down. However, if tough decisions have to be made, they have to be made carefully, sensitively and preparedly, with the safety of victims, loved ones and the public front of mind. How, therefore, will the Justice Secretary be communicating these—I hope—final changes to those who received the generic letters, including victims of grooming gangs and sexual abuse, earlier this year, and will those letters be tailored to each victim? He mentioned in his statement those who are not in the victim contact scheme and an effort by the MOJ to contact them. Can he please provide an assessment of how many victims he thinks that is, and how much resource he will be given to try to track them down?

The reality for the new Justice Secretary is that his inheritance is now a public safety crisis. If probation staff go ahead with strike action, as threatened last month, is he confident that the system can safely manage the risks of releasing thousands of extra offenders? This has all the hallmarks of a national emergency waiting to happen, yet where is the emergency response? Can he explain why the national Criminal Justice Board has not met all year, despite these changes being discussed last year as part of the Sentencing Act, and will he now convene Cobra to give the situation the gravitas it deserves?

The prison capacity crisis is one that this Government inherited two years ago, but they now own the response. As highlighted by the chief executive of the Howard League, we are

“one major incident away from a disaster.”

Prisons such as Wandsworth have been operating at 62% above their intended built capacity as the new normal, creating dangerous conditions that undermine any effort to rehabilitate offenders. What confidence can the Justice Secretary provide that he can deliver this increase in capacity on time, given past failings to do so, and that he can adequately staff it?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I know the Government will be doing their best to protect potential future victims of early release offenders, particularly those who were in jail for domestic abuse or other fixated behaviour, but it is not good enough simply to try to improve tagging measures; what one has to do is to improve the ability of potential victims to summon help if attacked again. Can the Justice Secretary confirm that the Government will make a unified representation of how such potential future victims can protect themselves—for example, by emergency alarms being fitted as a matter of routine?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that I understand how sensitive this topic is, but we have been in the Chamber a long time, and we have other items of business to get to, so please keep questions short and answers just as short.

[Alex Norris]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. It is part of the conversations that victim liaison officers are having, so that every victim and survivor is able to shape the support around them to make sure that they are feeling safe and secure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. In order to help me to get every Member in, questions must be just one sentence. I call Caroline Voaden.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I am going to say this all in one breath, Madam Deputy Speaker. Prison governors talk about the revolving door of prisoners, with almost half reoffending, but those who go through the LandWorks rehabilitation project in South Devon reoffend at a rate of just 5%, with 90% of them going into employment and back into the community. It is proven to be a success; it works. Will the new Minister for Prisons please come to South Devon to see LandWorks and what it does? It is magic—it is cheaper than prison, and it works. We need to roll this out across the country.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

In the circumstances following the late change to today’s business, Mr Speaker has selected amendments tabled after what would have been the usual deadline.

New Clause 8

Information contained in public records

“(1) This section applies to information contained in a record that is transferred to a relevant authority under—

(a) the Public Records Act 1958,

(b) the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937,

(c) the Public Records Act (Northern Ireland) 1923, or

(d) any other enactment or arrangement under which records are transferred to a relevant authority for their care and preservation.

(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, the information is not to be treated as information that is held by—

(a) the relevant authority, or

(b) persons who work for the authority.

(3) Each of the following is a ‘relevant authority’—

(a) the Public Record Office;

(b) the Keeper of Public Records;

(c) an authority responsible for records deposited at a place of deposit appointed under section 4 of the Public Records Act 1958;

(d) the Keeper of the Records of Scotland;

(e) the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland;

(f) any other person with responsibility for the care and preservation of records under arrangements made with an authority within any of paragraphs (a) to (e).

(4) In this section references to a record being ‘transferred’ to a relevant authority include references to it being transmitted to, or accepted or acquired by, the authority.”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This new clause provides for an exemption from the duty of candour and assistance for bodies such as the National Archives so far as relating to their statutory responsibilities of holding public records.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 9.

New clause 1—Post-legislative assessment of the legal duty of candour for public authorities and public officials—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report into—

(a) the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence that public authorities’ internal processes are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures when they first arise following a major incident.

(b) the role of the standing public advocate in assessing public authorities’ responses to affected individuals and relatives of bereaved victims following a major incident or where there is a major public concern that public authorities may not be acting in the best interests of those affected by a major incident.

(2) The report must assess—

(a) extending the public advocate’s powers to facilitate the gathering of information from those people affected by a major incident to support official inquiries and investigations to help ensure that all public authorities and officials are acting in accordance with the duty of candour set out in this Act.

(b) the case for facilitating a mechanism whereby the public advocate can instigate an independent panel to collate evidence and information following a major incident to support the oversight of public authorities and officials’ responses to major incidents.

(c) the costs of establishing independent panels as compared to non-statutory inquiries, or statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 in line with paragraph (b).

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”

New clause 2—Offence of wilfully destroying information or records relevant to an inquiry or investigation—

“(1) A public authority or public official commits an offence if—

(a) they deliberately destroy relevant information or records relevant to an inquiry, investigation, or inquest;

(b) they know that, or are reckless as to whether, the information is relevant to or required by an inquiry, investigation, or inquest.

(2) A public official who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).”

This new clause introduces an offence for wilfully destroying relevant records after a major incident that may lead to an inquiry or inquest.

New clause 3—Monitoring compliance with duties under the Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must commission and publish annually an independent report which monitors public authorities’ compliance with their duties under the Act.

(2) The report must assess—

(a) public authorities’ record-keeping, disclosures and responses to inquiries and investigations;

(b) the effectiveness of enforcement and sanctions provisions in the Act in helping to ensure that public authorities and public officials perform their functions in line with the duty of candour in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; and

(c) the effectiveness of the provisions in the Act for supporting persons, including public officials, making protected disclosures and for reporting wrongdoings to an inquiry or investigation following a major incident.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report before both Houses of Parliament.

(4) The first report must be laid within the period of 12 months of the passing of this Act.

(5) Each subsequent report must be laid annually beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to commission and publish annually an independent report with the purpose of providing an oversight mechanism to monitor compliance with duties under the Act.

New clause 4—Conduct of public authorities and access to legal aid for seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries—

“(1) Legal aid must be made available, without a means test, to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where there are reasonable grounds for believing the matter under investigation relates to the conduct of public authorities tasked with carrying out public functions, or public officials working for bodies in a public capacity, in connection with the discharge of their public duties.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, make regulations to—

(a) add civil legal services to Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in connection with proceedings relating to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries as under subsection (1);

(b) amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/104) for the purposes of providing criteria for a determination for legal representation in respect of cases under subsection (1).

(3) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.

New clause 5—Review of the merits of establishing a national oversight mechanism for ensuring candour and transparency of public authorities in respect of inquests and inquiries—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, carry out a review to determine the merits of establishing an independent oversight mechanism to help ensure candour, transparency and follow up with respect to the actions of a public authority arising from the conclusions and recommendations of inquests and inquiries.”

New clause 6—Monitoring the standards of ethical conduct of officials in response to the recommendations from inquests and inquiries—

“In discharging its duty under section 9(1) of this Act a public authority must monitor the standards of officials in response to the recommendations from inquests and inquiries to ensure they are acting with candour, transparency and frankness.”

New clause 7—Public interest—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must define in regulations what constitutes the “public interest” for the purposes of section 1(1)(b).

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to define public interest for the purposes of this Act by regulations.

New clause 10—Expected standards of conduct and duty of NHS boards to report medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings—

“(1) This section sets out a duty for boards of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in England to adopt codes of conduct mandating reporting of concerns in relation to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within an NHS body.

(2) A member of the board of directors of an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust in England must report any evidence or reports they have seen of systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within the trust to—

(a) the Care Quality Commission,

(b) the Department of Health and Social Care, and

(c) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.

(3) The board of directors of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust in England has a collective duty to—

(a) refer the trust to the Care Quality Commission, and

(b) alert the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, if staff employed by, or acting on behalf of, the trust raise concerns of systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety.

(4) In discharging its duties under subsection (1), an NHS trust board must, in particular—

(a) adopt a code of conduct which sets standards expected of members who serve on the boards of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust, and

(b) ensure that the code of conduct is published.

(5) An NHS trust’s code of conduct must in particular—

(a) require members of a board of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust to act in accordance with the duty of candour in reporting concerns relating to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within a trust,

(b) require members of the trust’s board to promote ethical conduct, candour, transparency and frankness within all parts of the NHS trust or foundation trust for which they work,

(c) contain information about the steps that a person who works for an NHS trust should take if they believe that a member of a trust’s board has failed to act in accordance with the code of conduct.

(6) In this section—

‘systemic medical malpractice’ means an action or omission in the provision of health care that falls below the expected standard of care and indicates a widespread, patterned, or recurring failure within the systems, processes, or governance of the trust.

‘wrongdoing’ includes abuse of authority, perverting the course of justice, neglect of duty and the exploitation of vulnerable people.”

This new clause sets a duty for boards of NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England to adopt codes of conduct mandating reporting of concerns in relation to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within a trust.

New clause 11—Duty of candour and enforcement of standards of ethical conduct in DHSC—

“(1) In discharging its duties under section 9 of this Act, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), must, in particular—

(a) set out the steps DHSC will take to ensure that legal services provided to NHS bodies and other relevant health-related organisations are consistent with the statutory duty of candour and the principles of openness, transparency and learning following patient safety incidents.

(b) set out which oversight body is responsible for ensuring the standards set out in DHSC code of ethical conduct are adhered to and enforced.

(c) set out provisions to allow a relevant oversight body to examine on its own initiative suspected serious or systemic breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct.

(d) set out a mechanism for ensuring that any breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct are recorded and that proper data is kept and published that records the extent to which complaints have been made regarding its ethical conduct and their outcome.”

This new clause would set out additional requirements for the DHSC in respect of the statutory requirements it must fulfil under section 9 of this Act.

Amendment 13, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, after “public authorities” insert

“, Members of both Houses of Parliament”

This amendment is connected to Amendment 14.

Government amendments 151 and 152.

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(ca) where the authority or official has relevant records, including digital messages and communication, retain and disclose those records;”

This amendment would add the disclosure of digital messages and communication to the assistance that a public authority or official must provide to an inquiry or investigation.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(f) ensure all relevant public officials can safely disclose information to an inquiry, investigation or inquest.”

This amendment requires public authorities or officials who are assisting an inquiry, investigation or inquest to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to an investigation.

Amendment 150, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(4A) Where in exercise of its duties under subsections (1) to (4) a public authority or public official intends to provide information to the inquiry or investigation, and that information includes information about a person who has or may have been caused harm in the incident under inquiry or investigation it must, subject to subsection (4B) below, provide to that person, or if deceased, the person administering their estate, such part of that information as is relevant to the nature and cause of the harm they have or may have sustained.

(4B) The obligation described in subsection (4A) above does not apply if the chair of the inquiry or investigation directs, either on application or their own motion, that the subsection should not apply, or where the chair directs that subsection (4A) shall apply subject to conditions specified in the direction, the subsection shall apply subject to those conditions.”

This amendment would require a public authority or public official to provide information to a person, or the relatives of that person, who was affected by an incident under investigation subject to the chair of an inquiry or investigation directing otherwise.

Government amendment 153.

Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 19, after “authority” insert

“or any sub-contractor in any chain of provision to a service provider”

This amendment ensures that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider which was subcontracted will fall under the duty to comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry or investigation.

Amendment 5, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by—

(a) a public authority, or

(b) a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act,

the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority or a corporate body with public responsibility under Clause 4 for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance.

Government amendments 26, 28 and 154 to 157.

Amendment 20, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) Where an obligation to give notification would have arisen under section 2(3), save for the exemptions in subsection (2), the head of the relevant intelligence service must provide a written notification to the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament summarising the acts that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation.”

This amendment aims to provide accountability for intelligence services and their operations in relation to the duty of candour and its exemptions from them.

Amendment 199, page 6, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) Where, in compliance with the obligation under section 2(4), a person who works for an intelligence service, a military intelligence service, the National Crime Agency, Counter Terrorism Command, or one of the armed forces, would be required to provide security or intelligence information, the obligation applies in respect of that information only if the head of the service or agency consents to it being provided.

(2B) The head of an intelligence service, the head of military intelligence service, the head of the National Crime Agency, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing UK, or the head of one of the armed forces may withhold consent under subsection (2A) only if it appears to the head that either of the following conditions is met.

(2C) The first condition is that it is necessary for consent to be withheld in the interests of national security or otherwise for the purposes of the proper exercise of the functions of the service.

(2D) The second condition is that the information would not be of assistance to the inquiry or investigation in meeting its objectives.

(2E) Where the head of an intelligence service, the head of military intelligence service, the head of the National Crime Agency, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing UK, or the head of one of the armed forces withholds consent under subsection (2A), the head must notify the person leading the inquiry or investigation of that fact.”

This amendment ensures that the duty of candour and assistance may require a person who works for an intelligence service, military intelligence, the NCA, Counter Terrorism Command or the armed forces to provide security or intelligence information with the consent of the head of their service.

Government amendments 32 and 33, and 158 to 168.

Amendment 2, in clause 9, page 8, line 3, after “work” insert

“including the retention and disclosure of digital records including messages relevant to their public functions”

This amendment ensures that digital messages and records are added to the duty of candour in relation to inquiries and inquests.

Government amendment 37.

Amendment 6, page 8, line 18, after “disclosures” insert

“and to whom such disclosures should be made;

(ba) how a person making a protected disclosure under paragraph (b) is protected;

(bb) a list of prescribed people and bodies to whom a potential whistleblower may speak to in confidence about a relevant concern.”

This amendment would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information on whom a person can make a protected disclosure to and how that person would be protected.

Amendment 7, page 8, line 23, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State must introduce a standard template for ethical code of conduct for completion by public authorities which satisfies the requirements in this section and which may be added to by public authorities to include information specific to their organisation or function.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce a standard template to ensure a consistent and high standard approach to completion of code of ethical conduct documentation across public authorities.

Government amendments 38 and 39.

Amendment 14, in clause 11, page 9, line 22, after “public authority” insert

“, Member of either House of Parliament”

This amendment expands the offence of misleading the public to apply to Members of either House of Parliament.

Amendment 15, page 9, line 23, after “authority” insert “, Member”.

This amendment is connected to Amendment 14.

Amendment 25, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(1A) An act under subsection (1)(a) includes the provision of misleading information to a person acting for the purposes of journalism (as described in subsection (4)(b)) carried out via a press statement, media briefing, or other communication intended for dissemination by a recognised news publisher.”

This amendment would ensure that the offence of misleading the public would include a public authority or public official providing misleading information to a recognised news publisher.

Amendment 16, page 9, line 38, after “authority” insert

“, Member of either House of Parliament”

This amendment is connected to Amendment 14.

Government amendment 40.

Amendment 8, page 10, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 17, page 10, line 8, at end insert

“, or

(c) in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament.”

This amendment is connected to Amendments 13 to 16 and 18. It provides that the offence of misleading the public does not apply to any act done in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament.

Government amendments 41 and 42.

Amendment 19, page 10, line 23, at end insert—

“(7A) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.”

This amendment requires the Attorney General to consent to the prosecution of anyone for the offence of misleading the public.

Amendment 18, page 10, line 37, at end insert—

“(8A) A certificate signed by the appropriate authority (as defined in section 34 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000) certifying that an act is done in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.”

This amendment is connected to Amendments 13 to 17.

Government amendments 43 to 51.

Amendment 12, in clause 15, page 13, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) References in this Part to a person who ‘holds public office’ include references to an individual who was, but is no longer, such an office holder, in respect of conduct occurring while they held such office.”

This amendment would ensure that public officials would still be liable for misconduct during their time in public office if they resign or retire.

Government amendments 52 to 69.

Amendment 11, in clause 23, page 22, line 20, at end insert—

“(6) For the purposes of this Act, any duty or liability imposed on a public official or a person holding public office applies in respect of any act or omission occurring while the person held that office or performed those functions, notwithstanding that the person has subsequently resigned, retired, or otherwise ceased to hold that office or perform those functions.”

This amendment would ensure that the duties and liabilities in this Bill apply to public officials during their time in public office even if they have since resigned, retired or ceased to hold a public office.

Government amendments 70 and 71.

Amendment 9, in clause 25, page 22, line 30, leave out subsections (1) to (8) and insert—

“This Act shall come into force on Royal Assent, save for sections 9, 10 and 18, which will come into force six months thereafter.”

This amendment clarifies that the Act should come into force straightaway except for those sections which require the provision of codes or guidance.

Government amendments 72, 76 and 169 to 178.

Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 29, line 9, after “an inquiry” insert

“, independent panel or review established by a Minister”

This amendment ensures that the statutory duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown.

Amendment 146, page 29, line 9, after “an inquiry” insert

“, independent panel, review established by a Minister, or independent panel or review established by a local authority.”

This amendment ensures that the statutory duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown and by local authorities.

Government amendments 78 to 80, 91, 93 to 97, and 179 to 198.

Amendment 149, in schedule 2, page 47, line 22, at end insert—

“(4A) Notwithstanding regulations made under sub-paragraph (4) a statutory water company holding an appointment under Chapter I of Part II of the Water Industry Act 1991 as a water undertaker (company) must meet the obligations set out in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of this Act for public functions in connection with their duties to—

(a) provide water supply within their area;

(b) supply water that is wholesome for domestic or food production purposes;

(c) provide, improve, and extend a system of public sewers and to treat sewage within their area;

(d) comply with water quality regulations;

(e) ensure long-term resilience of water supply and sewage networks against climate change, population growth, and consumer behaviour changes;

(f) maintain their assets to prevent sewage from polluting watercourses; and

(g) reduce sewage pollution.”

This amendment would place privatised water companies in England and Wales under the obligations of Chapter 2 of Part 2 on the face of the Bill for the functions for which they are responsible of a public nature.

Government amendments 98 to 142.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am proud to have sponsored the original proposal, promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and I salute the survivors and the victims’ families. I am glad that the UK Government have listened to them, and that the Bill reflects the level of accountability required of our public authorities. Plaid Cymru stands in firm solidarity with the Hillsborough families and other families in their long campaign for justice. Considering the Labour Government’s reset next week, will the Minister assure me that this law will be implemented in partnership with devolved Governments, and that constructive engagement with Wales and elsewhere will be ensured throughout the legislative process?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I know that this is a highly sensitive debate, but interventions must be short and to the point. Lots of colleagues want to get in on the debate.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank the right hon. Member for her intervention. She has my assurance that we are clear that the Bill needs to apply across the United Kingdom, and we are working with devolved nations to ensure that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

If I can just wait—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Minister, either you take an intervention or do not. Please do not continue a conversation when Members are seated.

[Catherine Atkinson]

It is important to stress that nothing in this Bill, and nothing about its practical effect, changes our position in relation to national security. Many in our public services work in sensitive roles, and revealing their identity could put them or others at risk. The Bill does not require anyone to breach any other law. It expressly states that it does not override existing legislation, including the Official Secrets Act 1989. The Bill contains a specific protection from the requirement to notify for employees of the intelligence services and other select bodies, where they cannot come forward.

However, there may be other situations where notifying may carry a similar risk. I want to make it clear that a public servant does not have to come forward until it is safe to do so, but steps must be taken without delay to ensure that a notification can be made safely. The Bill requires notification to be made as soon as reasonably practicable, after the authority or official becomes aware of the investigation. The explanatory notes will clarify that it would not be considered reasonably practicable if that meant a person was at risk of harm in making that notification. In those rare circumstances, the official must contact their current or former employer, or another third party if necessary, so that arrangements can be made with the inquiry or investigation for a notification to be made safely. Those actions must be taken without delay. Those leading inquiries and inquests must act reasonably, and authorities have a responsibility to protect their current and former employees.

We will also set out guidance to accompany the duty. It will explain what individuals should do, and will make it clear that public authorities and investigations must work together to put arrangements in place for authorities and individuals to meet their duties while protecting personal safety and national security. If the investigation cannot provide those means, existing legal processes already provide ways to convert it into a form of investigation that can.

Now that we have the right model for applying the duty in a national security context, we are extending that model to Defence Intelligence, the National Crime Agency and Counter Terrorism Policing, where the same considerations about the sensitivity of their information and work apply. Clause 8 includes them in the list of relevant public authorities for the purpose of clause 6. We have also made several amendments to ensure that the compliance directions operate as intended. The explanatory notes for schedule 1 clarify that directions should be made only where the person leading the investigation believes that a compliance direction would genuinely assist, and that they are not, for example, obliged to issue multiple directions to individuals who may all have the same information.

We have also made a small change to clause 2 to make it clear that we are not inviting individuals to speculate on what may or may not be relevant. It is for the inquiry or investigation to define relevance through its terms of reference or equivalent. Finally, we have amended schedule 1 to require the investigation lead to consult the head of the public authority before issuing a compliance direction to an individual employee where national security is concerned. This aligns the new duty process with existing practice, in which public authorities and chairs of inquiries work together to determine how protected information can be provided safely. This will assist inquiries or investigations in practice because, given the way national security bodies operate, they will not usually know which individuals hold the relevant information, or how to receive it without creating unnecessary risks.

The Bill also includes a power to extend the duty of candour to other types of investigations. We intend to make broad use of this power, and will bring forward secondary legislation, following consultation with the relevant sectors and investigatory bodies. I can confirm that that will extend the duty to investigations into police misconduct; to serious healthcare incidents, including major maternity reviews, such as the Leeds and Sussex maternity services reviews; to serious health and safety investigations; and to key ombudsman investigations, transforming the ability of these investigations to get to the truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell]

My hon. Friend is most welcome. I am grateful for all the amendments that the Government have tabled, but I remain concerned that the current civil legal aid rate is £40 an hour. She has referred to security-vetted counsel. Is it likely that security-vetted counsel will be prepared to work for £40 an hour, when those of us who have done legal aid work know that, frankly, half the work that we do is unremunerated?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I just point out that many colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, so I hope she is coming to her conclusion soon.

[Catherine Atkinson]

My hon. Friend has been a passionate advocate in relation to legally aided work, and I know that she will take every opportunity to raise concerns about the rates. The amendments mean that the expansion will operate efficiently from the outset, giving bereaved families the support that they need while avoiding delay.

Let me turn to the amendment relating to archivists. They play an important role in preserving historical records, but do not account for the actions within them, so we have tabled Government new clause 8 to ensure that public record officers and keepers of public records are not subject to the duty of candour in relation to their record-keeping duties.

We have worked closely with the devolved Governments on the Bill, and I am grateful for their co-operation and collaboration. We have tabled amendments to ensure that the offence of misleading the public and the two statutory misconduct in public office offences apply on a UK-wide basis. Those are amendments 40 to 42 and 70, and new clause 9 and amendments 44 to 51 respectively. At the request of the Scottish Government, we have also extended access to legal aid in Scotland for fatal accident inquiries where the state is represented. That will include a power for regulations to establish detailed criteria, which will be agreed by the Scottish Parliament.

Before I close, let me address concerns that have been raised about implementation. The Government are well aware that the Bill is long overdue. Families and victims rightly deserve no further delay, but this is about cultural change, and change of such breadth and depth cannot be achieved by legislation alone. Some measures can come into force quickly; others depend on guidance and systems being in place to ensure that they work as intended. We are therefore stress-testing the earliest possible commencement points for each measure. We will update the House as soon as possible and publish a clear timeline for implementation.

We are, as we have been throughout, absolutely committed to working with the families and other stakeholders to ensure that the Bill delivers real change. Everyone should be able to expect honesty from the state when the worst happens. They should expect a system that helps them establish the truth, rather than forcing them to fight for it. That is the purpose of this Bill.

[Catherine Atkinson]

The Bill allows a Minister to extend the duty and allows the flexibility to apply it to reviews where it would be most beneficial. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned long on this point, and I would be happy to talk to her about how that takes place.

In conclusion, the Bill is about restoring trust between the public and the state, ensuring that when public bodies fail, they respond with openness rather than defensiveness and with support rather than obstruction. Above all, it is a testament to the families who have, despite every setback, courageously campaigned for change and their determination to ensure that no other families ever again suffer as they have. I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their extraordinary bravery. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I was nine years old at the time of the Hillsborough tragedy, and I remember listening to the news of the terrible events on the radio, sitting behind my parents in the car. I was 32 when, while working in the Home Office, I received a copy of the report by the Hillsborough independent panel, which detailed the full horror of that terrible tragedy. In my time in the Home Office I saw many intelligence reports and papers about serious crimes and terror plots, but the Hillsborough report was undoubtedly the most shocking thing I read.

More than two decades passed between the tragedy itself and that moment of truth and transparency, and we can only imagine the pain felt by the victims and their families who fought for years for justice. I pay tribute to them and would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister. They have known grief and suffering none of us would ever wish to experience.

This is not a debate about the need for transparency. I am proud to have played a modest part in bringing that about when I worked in the Home Office. Nor is this a debate about the need for accountability. I have spent many years in different roles making the case for better police accountability and, indeed, working with those who lead and work in our security and intelligence agencies. They themselves would be the first to say—though their work is by definition often secret—that they need to be accountable. They are only citizens of this country, just like everyone else. I am sure that everyone here today agrees on the need for accountability.

The question is, how should this accountability work? Today we are considering one specific issue among several: is the proposal to extend the duty of candour to the intelligence agencies, the military, military intelligence, Counter Terrorism Policing and the National Crime Agency, which all necessarily work to some degree in secret, appropriate? Does it deliver accountability, and does it allow these sensitive services to do their work to the best of their abilities? Our job today is to consider that question and that question alone.

Of course, we may be informed by the trauma, pain and emotion that come from terrible tragedies—tragedies that have, in some instances, been compounded by undue secrecy and even outright dishonesty from the state itself—but it is our job in this place to get the law right, for if we do not, we may find ourselves back here in future debating another tragedy that could have been stopped had it not been for the unintended consequences of what we are debating today.

Early Release of Prisoners

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We have a moment of what I believe is cross-party unity, because behind the Minister, I believe that those on the Back Benches of the Labour party do not want the Government to go down this course. On the Opposition Benches, we do not want the Government to go down this course. We want to make sure that there is a solution that supports and protects victims—the people who Ministers said would be protected but who have not been as a result of the measures in the Sentencing Act.

It is important to act. As has already been pointed out, there are acres of legislative time and opportunities. It is not as if the general debates that are pencilled in, as worthy, important and valuable as they are, could not be moved to facilitate the legislation and the votes in this House to get this corrected. I would say to the Ministers that they must not sit there passively acting as a shield for their absentee Secretary of State, who does not seem to care or be interested in the victims who are being impacted by his legislation—not our legislation, but his.

Action is required, and if Ministers sit there and do not take the action that is required, they will be as guilty as the Secretary of State is for bringing such flawed legislation to the Floor of this House in the first place. Do not sit by as victims suffer. Do not sit by as people worry, stress and fear about what will happen to them in the weeks ahead, while the Labour party is going through internal trauma and is not providing a clear and direct way to help these victims. I implore the Minister to be bold, to act and to show some leadership, which has been completely absent from the Secretary of State.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

In the wind-ups, I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I have a really easy question. The Minister is talking about grooming gang perpetrators and the like. How many of them will be released as a result of this policy? How many spaces are they taking up that you need to free up?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I know that this is a very sensitive debate, but we do not use “you” and “yours”.

[Catherine Atkinson]

There is no specific offence on grooming gangs. This Government have been absolutely clear that we will ensure there will always be prison cells for people when they are convicted and sentenced to custody. The Conservative Governments committed to delivering 20,000 additional prison places by the mid-2020s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way just now; she may choose to do so in a moment.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I trained to be a barrister and spent my first years in practice at a time when victims waited months for their court trials, rather than years. At that time, the previous Labour Government were delivering the prison places we needed, but I then watched from inside the profession as 14 years of Conservative-led Governments dismantled it, bit by bit and piece by piece. Cases were delayed for years, courts were shuttered, and offenders were released with nowhere safe for probation to send them. That is not a coincidence; it is a choice, repeated by successive Governments for 14 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me on whether the Minister, in summing up the debate, is meant to touch on the motion at hand? It seems to be being largely ignored at present.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The right hon. Member, who has been here longer than I have, fully understands that I am not responsible for the content of the Minister’s speech. The Minister may comment, if she so wishes.

[Catherine Atkinson]

What I wish to do is pay tribute to the work of our prison and probation officers, many of whom do some of the hardest jobs in public life.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) spoke about the need to speed up criminal justice, about the number of people on remand and about the need to reduce reoffending, which is what this Government are doing. He also spoke about foreign national offenders, and this Government are deporting such offenders in greater numbers than ever before.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) criticised the time taken to lift the cap on sitting days, although it was the Conservatives who capped sitting days in the first place. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) repeated the famous quote that justice delayed is justice denied. That is absolutely true, and this Government are taking action on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. I listened very carefully to the Ministers who opened and closed the debate, and the position appears to be that while the Government Whips feel that this is a proposition that cannot be defended, the Ministers at the Ministry of Justice think that it must be defended. In fact, the Ministers in effect said that, regardless of the result of this vote and regardless of the will of the House being expressed, the policy will continue. Could you advise me on whether this contempt for the will of the House is in keeping with the business and the rules of this place, as well as the ministerial code?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member has most definitely put his point on the record, but it is not a matter for the Chair. The Table Office can advise him further. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench will also have taken note.

Victims and Courts Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I can inform the House that Lords amendments 4 and 7 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

After Clause 7

Access to free court transcripts for victims

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 7 and the Government motions to disagree.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful for the opportunity to once again be speaking on the Victims and Courts Bill as it returns to this House. This is fundamentally a Bill for victims. At its core, the measures seek to ensure that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the entire justice process. The Bill will ensure that offenders are held to account by giving judges the power to impose prison sanctions on offenders who refuse to attend their own sentencing hearings—something that the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa have campaigned tirelessly for. It places the welfare of children firmly at the centre by restricting the parental responsibility of the most serious offenders, including child sex offenders and those who have conceived a child through rape. The Bill also strengthens the power of the Victims’ Commissioner by giving them greater authority to act in individual cases that raise systemic issues and by requiring an independent assessment of compliance with the victims code.

I am grateful for the scrutiny of the Bill in the other place. The Lords amendments we are considering reflect a shared determination across both Houses to improve outcomes for victims. However, while the Government share that objective, we must ensure that the reforms are workable, proportionate and capable of being delivered effectively.

I turn to the seven non-Government amendments made in the other place. First, Lords amendments 1 and 3 relate to court transcripts. Through the Sentencing Act 2026, the Government have already introduced a major expansion to transcript provision, which will, for the first time ever, give all victims the ability to request free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks directly relevant to their case from Spring 2027. That is a significant step forward for victims, improving access to clear information about how decisions are made and strengthening their ability to navigate the justice process. This is a significant operational undertaking. We must ensure that this major expansion for victims is delivered effectively and in a way that is operationally sustainable. We are working at pace to deliver this, and it is essential that we get it right so that victims receive this important information in a timely way. It will help them understand the sentence that has been passed and will support their recovery.

However, we recognise the strength of feeling around transcripts, particularly from victims, and I want to reference that strength of feeling in this House towards the subject, too. I want to be clear that the Government are approaching this with care and ambition to go further. Access to what was said in court matters deeply for victims’ understanding, confidence and sense of justice, and the steps that we are taking to expand the free provision of sentencing remarks represent real progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am afraid that the hon. Member must not have heard what I said before I came to non-legislative changes. The Government are committed to bringing forward legislative changes on that time limit and to consider out-of-time applications by families. We have listened directly to the families about what they want. We could have brought forward an amendment that simply extended the time limit, but the families told us directly that that was not what they wanted. I listened to victims, the Government listened to victims, and in this victims Bill we will do as the victims have asked.

We will continue to test on getting this right, because it is important that we get it right first time. We are confident that we will soon be able to update the House on a workable legislative solution. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept Lords amendments 5 and 6.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In a week when the Government have been reprimanded for letting foreign criminals out of prison without proper checks or safeguards, have been found to have done absolutely nothing as a firm that was due to build thousands of prison places went bust 18 months ago, and ended short-term sentences, allowing prolific shoplifters and other criminals to escape prison, it is beyond disappointing that they seek today to overturn perfectly sensible Lords amendments. The amendments would make the criminal justice system more transparent and give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences.

We must ask: why are this Government so afraid of the public? Why do Ministers not trust the people? Why do they want to keep injustice—from rape gangs, to serious criminals getting away with a few brief years in prison—out of the spotlight? [Interruption.] Labour Members sigh and moan when I raise the rape gangs. That is exactly the mentality that the country is sick of, and it lies behind the failure to prosecute those cases.

We support Lords amendment 2 on expanding the victims code for murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad. We support Lords amendment 4 to remove clause 12 from the Bill, because that clause will deliver few savings while undermining access to justice. We support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which strengthen the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Amendment 5 introduces an exceptional circumstances clause that allows the deadline to be extended beyond 28 days, and amendment 6 requires the Justice Secretary to ensure that victims and their families are aware of their rights under the scheme. Those are welcome suggestions. I pay tribute to Katie Brett and the rest of Justice for Victims, and to Tracey Hanson, for their campaigning on this front. They have been consistent in making clear that they want meaningful change, not half measures.

Just last week, I wrote to the Attorney General about the case of Mohammed Abdulraziq, who dragged a five-year-old girl off the street so that he could sexually assault her. He was sentenced to only 11 years in prison, and in all probability, he will be out in just seven. Monsters like him need to be kept away from children. The Government’s opposition to these amendments weakens justice and reduces public protection. I heard what the Minister said about looking at legislation in future, and we will hold her to those words.

The failure to trust the people goes not just for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but for wider transparency in the criminal justice system, and it is on that point that I will focus the rest of my remarks. We Conservatives do trust the people, so we support Lords amendment 1, which entitles victims to free transcripts of route-to-verdict and bail decisions, and Lords amendment 3, which requires the publication of Crown court transcripts of judges’ sentencing remarks, online and for free, within 14 days of a request made by any member of the public.

The Minister explained the Government’s position on those amendments, and amid the verbiage I could discern only excuses. She sounded like the driver of a broken-down train, who, with passengers stranded miles from the nearest station, was doing her best to assure everyone that the train was indeed moving. Of course everyone knows that there is no movement; the train that we are on is entirely stationary. This is an important lesson for the Minister and other members of the Government: the repetition of fiction does not make something fact. We can all see exactly what is and is not happening.

I want to explain why this is so important. Of course, we want to see how the provisions of the Sentencing Act are implemented, but it is simply not acceptable for victims to be charged as much as £7,000 for a transcript. It is vital that we allow transparency, to make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to see what is going on in our courts and detect patterns. We know from too many tragedies, and too many cover-ups, that sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

Let us consider the Courtsdesk scandal. When the Justice Secretary tried to shut down that vital, searchable archive of court hearings, he caused an outcry. Before Courtsdesk, official court listings matched reality just 4.2% of the time. Two thirds of courts routinely heard cases that the media never knew about. From crimes committed by illegal immigrants in asylum hotels and weak sentences for paedophiles, to people dragged through the courts for breaking lockdown rules years after the pandemic and offending by convicted criminals who should have been tagged but were not, Courtsdesk helped journalists to join the dots, securing justice for victims and exposing failures in policy. I still want to know why the Justice Secretary wanted to delete that archive, and why Ministers blamed Courtsdesk for a serious data breach, when documents released since show that the Ministry of Justice considered the breach low risk and not worthy of a referral to the Information Commissioner. I will give way if the Minister wishes to explain. [Interruption.]

[Alex Davies-Jones]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The normal protocol is that a Member wishes to intervene, but I appreciate the encouragement—and the Minister has risen to it, so well done, Mr Timothy.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The shadow Secretary of State will know that Courtsdesk is a private company that provides a subscription-based specialist data platform aggregating magistrates court data and offering specialist services to journalists. The proposal did not stop data sharing with Courtsdesk at all, and it was not about reducing transparency. It was merely a commercial sensitivity proposal to take the archive offline temporarily while we determined new contracts. It was not about transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate. I first spoke on this Bill on Second Reading, when I said that victims in Bolton had waited far too long for a system that truly works for them. This Bill delivers critical reforms to protect victims and rebuild confidence in our justice system, from powers to tackle non-attendance at hearings to measures strengthening the rights of victims. It will help victims to get the justice they deserve, and I am pleased that this Labour Government are getting on with the changes that victims and campaigners have needed for far too long.

I am particularly pleased to support the measures in this Bill that strengthen victims’ rights to receive information. The dedicated victim helpline and the updated victim contact scheme will help end uncertainty and stop victims having to keep chasing for basic updates. I understand the intention behind Lords amendments 1 and 3, on court transcripts, which try to address the same basic problem: victims not getting clear enough information about decisions that affect them. Victims deserve clarity, and the process must be more transparent, but the Government have been consistent in saying that these amendments go further than is currently operationally feasible. If we create duties that the courts do not have the capacity to fill safely, victims will be let down once again. If we promise a process that cannot be delivered in practice, we are not building trust; we are undermining it.

This Bill marks an important step forward in strengthening the rights of victims, ensuring that offenders are held to account and rebuilding confidence in our justice system. For victims in Bolton who have waited far too long to be properly informed, supported and heard, this Bill will make a real difference, and I am proud to support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

This Bill returns to us from the other place, where my Liberal Democrat colleagues tabled a number of crucial amendments that come before us today, which concern changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, the victims code, access to free court transcripts and more. I am really pleased to hear the Minister support those amendments in principle, and to hear her commitment that she will take them away with her team to make sure that they are workable before bringing them back to this place. Of course, the Liberal Democrats will hold the Government to account on all those amendments and make sure that they are implemented as quickly as possible for the sake of victims.

On Lords amendment 1, I am proud that my colleagues in the other place have been building on the successes of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who has fought a long-running campaign for free court transcripts for victims. The amendment would give victims a right to receive court transcripts of the route to verdict, and of bail decisions relating to their particular case, free of charge. At present, such transcripts are available to victims only where a defendant has been convicted of an offence. We Liberal Democrats will vote for the amendment in order to build on this Bill and to make further much-needed progress by extending the current scheme. I urge all colleagues from across the House to join us in doing so.

On Lords amendments 5 and 7, we Liberal Democrats, led by Baroness Brinton in the other place, have sought to clarify and amend the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The scheme ensures that victims who feel that an offender’s sentence is unduly lenient can appeal to the court. However, in practice, many victims are completely unaware that this mechanism exists, and are often told about it after their short 28-day appeal window has closed. Some of these cases involve families of victims who have faced some of the most horrific crimes, including brutal murder cases, with harrowing details about what has happened to them or to members of their family laid out before them in court, in full, for the first time. Understandably, this can put them through severe emotional strain and trauma, and have other distressing effects.

For many families of victims, the last thing on their mind are procedures such as appeals. Once they reach a stage where they have processed their grief, the short 28-day window has sometimes already passed—and they may not have even been aware that they could appeal. To address this issue, the new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats seek to make allowances for the 28-day timeframe to be extended in exceptional circumstances, and to place much greater responsibility on criminal justice agencies to ensure that victims are fully aware of their rights to appeal and of how quickly they must do so. For example, greater awareness of victims’ rights in relation to the unduly lenient sentence scheme could form part of a judge’s sentencing remarks following a trial, rather than being left as an afterthought that might not be covered at all.

Lords amendment 2 relates to changes to the victims code. It would require the Secretary of State to outline how the rights in the victims code apply to the families of those killed as a result of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK. The amendment follows the outstanding work of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who pushed for these changes at an earlier stage of the Bill’s passage. Although I understand that it would be unreasonable for us to mandate other countries to enforce the UK’s victims code, we are seeking to afford the families of such victims the same rights and to treat them as victims under the code. I am therefore very pleased that our colleagues in the other place have given this sensible and much-needed amendment a chance in this place once again.

I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families. I hope the Minister will come back to the House to confirm precisely when they can be brought forward by the Government in workable legislation. For the record, I commend the work of our colleagues, both in this House and in the other place, on these issues, which are so vital to victims’ rights and to our justice system as a whole.

Asbestos-related Lung Cancer: Compensation Act 2006

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Shannon, were you here at the beginning of the debate? You were 90 seconds late—faster next time.

[Jim Shannon]

You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker—I ran the whole way. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward the debate. Over the years as an elected representative—as a councillor and as an MLA back in Northern Ireland—I had a number of constituents who had unfortunately succumbed to mesothelioma and lung cancer as a result of working in the Harland & Wolff shipyard over the years. The illnesses took 10 or 20 years to catch up with them. Perhaps the Minister could look towards Northern Ireland and what has happened there—as ever, I am trying to be helpful. Northern Ireland has its own set of guidelines, called the green book, for assessing damages. General damage for lung cancer and mesothelioma in Northern Ireland is typically estimated at between £125,000 and £250,000. While symptoms from negligent causes are similar, the distinction between the treatments remains in place. Does he agree, as I think he does, that the loophole must be closed once and for all? Perhaps we can start that tonight by the Minister doing that very thing. Thank you for letting me in, Madam Deputy Speaker —you are very kind.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It would not be an Adjournment debate without Mr Jim Shannon, would it?

[Douglas McAllister]

The hon. Member is correct to recognise that point. This issue cuts across all nations in the United Kingdom, not least Northern Ireland, with its rich and proud shipbuilding past. I thank him for his considered intervention.

The difficulty is that the principle relating to mesothelioma does not apply to sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer, despite the fact that the diseases are strikingly similar. Both are caused by asbestos exposure and have incredibly similar symptoms, to the extent that medical professionals struggle to differentiate the two. Both are devastating and often fatal—in fact, around 60% of people diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer die within a year, which is a higher proportion than those diagnosed with mesothelioma—yet the law treats the victims of the two diseases very differently when it comes to compensation.

That difference is not based on medical evidence or moral principle; it exists simply because asbestos-related lung cancer cases were not considered when the legislation was introduced in 2006. Does the Minister agree that this situation is irrational and unfair? I emphasise that this debate is not to do with the legality of proving whether the cancer is asbestos related or not; it relates specifically to cases where the patient has been formally diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer.

For people with asbestos-related lung cancer, the current legal framework creates a significant and deeply unfair obstacle. In many cases, individuals were exposed to asbestos by multiple employers over the course of their working life. Under the current legal framework, compensation must be apportioned between the different employers responsible according to the extent to which each contributed to the risk of the disease. Victims must therefore bring claims against every employer responsible in order to recover full compensation.

Of course, the problem is that these illnesses often develop 30 or 40 years after exposure. By that point, many employers no longer exist. Companies have closed, industries have declined, and insurance records have been lost or destroyed. As a result, victims are frequently unable to trace every employer who exposed them to asbestos, or their insurer. When that happens, they are able to recover only the proportion of compensation attributable to the employers that can be traced. That means that people suffering from a terminal disease can lose substantial amounts of compensation simply because some negligent employers have disappeared over time.

That double standard of sorts has had profound consequences. In numerous cases, victims have lost tens of thousands of pounds in compensation because former employers could not be traced. The shortfall in compensation payments can be seen clearly. In one case in England and Wales, compensation that should have amounted to £112,000 was reduced by more than £76,000. In another case, a victim lost almost 70% of the compensation that would otherwise have been awarded. Across 33 documented cases concluded over the past seven years, the total compensation lost in this way amounts to less than £900,000, so this is not a vast sum in the context of the wider compensation system, but for the families involved it would make the world of difference to their quality of life at a time of immense hardship.

One case that illustrates the human impact particularly clearly is that of James Leo Heneghan. Mr Heneghan was born in 1938 and spent much of his working life exposed to asbestos dust. He died from lung cancer in 2013. After his death, his son, Carl Heneghan, pursued a claim for compensation on behalf of the family. Six of Mr Heneghan’s former employers were successfully traced and admitted liability for exposing him to asbestos. However, several other employers who had also exposed him to asbestos could not be found, and neither could their insurers. As a result, although the full value of the claim was £175,000, the family received just £61,100. Nearly two thirds of the compensation was effectively lost. Had Mr Heneghan been diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer strikingly similar to asbestos-related lung cancer, his family would have received full compensation. The disease did not affect Mr Heneghan any less severely because some employers could not be traced. The suffering endured by his family could have been eased, but because of the specific terms set out in section 3 of the 2006 Act, their rightful compensation was slashed.

The solution to this problem is simple and not unprecedented. Parliament has already established the appropriate legislative model. Extending the principle contained in section 3 of the Act to asbestos-related lung cancer would allow victims to recover full compensation from any one negligent employer or insurer. The responsibility would then fall on that employer or insurer to pursue contributions from other responsible parties. This approach ensures that compensation is delivered quickly and in full to the person who needs it most, while still allowing the costs to be shared appropriately among those responsible.

It is important to emphasise that the scale of this reform would be modest. Specialist practitioners estimate that fewer than 100 asbestos-related lung cancer claims are brought each year, and only a portion of those would involve missing employers. The number of people affected is therefore relatively small, but for those individuals and their families the consequences would be great.

Beyond giving compensation to those who rightly deserve it, this small change to the Act would have wider benefits beyond the individual claimants. Patients with asbestos-related lung cancer often need a lot of care and support. With adequate compensation, they can afford additional care, specialist equipment, or medical treatments that may not be immediately available through the NHS. This gives patients the dignity and choice they deserve and eases the pressure on already stretched public services. Making sure negligent employers and insurers pay the full compensation would also prevent the burden from falling on the state through the benefits system. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder the financial consequences of workplace negligence.

The Compensation Act 2006 was a great piece of legislation brought in under the previous Labour Government. It just contains an unintentional oversight, and one that is easily rectified. Parliament did not deliberately choose to treat victims differently; asbestos-related lung cancer was simply not considered when the law was changed in response to legal developments concerning mesothelioma. There is a gap in the legislation. Closing that gap would not require a fundamental overhaul of the law; it would simply involve extending an existing and widely supported principle to a closely related group of victims.

It is a simple solution, and it comes down to fairness. There is absolutely no justification for treating sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer any differently from sufferers of mesothelioma. When compensation cannot be recovered from some employers because they have disappeared, who should bear the financial burden? At the moment, that burden falls on the victim suffering asbestos-related lung cancer. The law should allow those people to recover full compensation from any one employer who is responsible. That employer can then seek a contribution to the damages awarded from other responsible employers or insurers.

In my frequent meetings with the Clydebank Asbestos Group, I have heard personal stories about how this has affected people in my community and across the UK. It is outrageous that victims and their families are not being given the support, dignity and rightful compensation they deserve. The time for sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer to receive the same recognition as those with mesothelioma is long overdue.

It is incredibly significant and appropriate that we debate this today because 2026 marks 20 years since the last Labour Government introduced the Compensation Act. That is 20 years of sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer not getting the compensation they rightly deserve, and it is time to make that change. Will the Minister agree to meet me and to work with me and the relevant organisations involved with this issue to review the Compensation Act 2006 and discuss how we can make the necessary improvements by way of amendment, so that people suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer and their families can finally access the full and fair compensation that they deserve?

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of the loyal Opposition has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I think that all of us across the House share the Justice Secretary’s passion for delivering justice more quickly for victims. I visited Isleworth Crown court at lunch time on Friday and spoke to barristers there. They impressed upon me that it is extremely rare that juries and jurors are the cause of delays to court cases. Recently, there have been delays because the cells have been too cold for defendants or Serco staff to use. Defendants are routinely delivered late by Serco, and there are no contractual penalties. That is pushing cases back repeatedly. Why will the Justice Secretary not take action on those things, rather than restricting trial by jury, which will make a limited difference?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Lord Chancellor responds, let me say that many Back Benchers wish to contribute. No doubt he is coming close to a conclusion sometime soon-ish.

[Mr Lammy]

We are piloting the national listing scheme at Isleworth Crown court. I refer the hon. Lady to my speech setting out what we are doing in relation to part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review. She is absolutely right: we have to address all of the problem. Sir Brian was absolutely clear that we need investment, that we have to deal with the inefficiencies that the hon. Lady has talked about, and that we have to modernise our courts, but we also need reform. Look at the tables and graphs that the Institute for Government has corroborated today. If we are to see the backlog fall by the next election, we have to do all three things, not just cherry-pick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

Absolutely. I also want to refer to the case of Claire Throssell—she is in the Gallery—and her sons, Jack and Paul. Claire’s loss is beyond words. She is with us today, and I know that the whole House joins me in paying tribute to her for her courage and her tireless campaign to ensure that others do not suffer as she has done.

Finally, the Bill brings the leadership of our tribunals in England and Wales, which have until now been separate, into the 21st century. The Bill brings tribunals into a judicial structure headed by the Lady Chief Justice. It modernises magistrates’ expenses rules, so that they reflect modern working life; that will help us to increase the number of magistrates across the country. The Bill also preserves the unique status of the Old Bailey as the central criminal court.

At its best, Labour has always been a party of institutional renewal. We do not worship at the altar of how things have always been; we ask how things can work better. We have a record of reforming public services that are failing working people. Despite opposition from small-c conservative institutions at the time, our movement delivered trade union legislation before we ended up in government. Bevan created the national health service, despite fierce opposition from the British Medical Association. Against economic orthodoxy, we introduced the minimum wage. Labour has a proud record of putting victims’ voices into the system. We introduced the victims code; we introduced the Victims’ Commissioner; and we bring experiences to this House, including those of Morwenna Loughman, Katie Catt, Vicki Crawford, Jade Blue and Charlotte Schreurs, some of whom are in the Public Gallery. Since taking office again in 2024, we have put victims first. We are introducing protections, so that therapy notes cannot be used against women. The tightened safeguards around how we use their sexual history are important and fundamental to this Bill.

The choice before the House is stark, and we cannot continue with the rising backlog. Clause 40 of Magna Carta is clear:

“To no one will we…deny or delay the right to justice.”

Today, that promise will ring hollow if we do nothing. Let us be the Parliament that chose to act. Let us be the Parliament that turned the tide. Let us be the Parliament that restored swift and fair justice to this country. I urge the House to support this Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Lord Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

I will not give way again.

We are talking about a fundamental change in the way that we try criminal cases, and the cases in scope are not minor; they are cases where the likely sentence is between 18 months and three years in prison. Before Government Members decide how to vote this evening, they need to search their souls and ask themselves three vital questions. Is this Bill just? Is it thought through? Is it going to make our courts more efficient? If they are honest with themselves, and if they ask judges, lawyers and their own colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, they will know that the answer to all three questions is no. None of the great Labour Prime Ministers would ask them to take this step—not Clement Attlee, not Harold Wilson, and not James Callaghan, as the Justice Secretary earlier claimed. As Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins would never have invited MPs to put their conscience aside and vote for what they believe, deep down, to be wrong—and, as I understand it from the media briefings, neither would the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).

Government Members know the policy was not in their manifesto, they know that there has not even been a consultation, and they know that it is wrong to rush this through the House after just five days of scrutiny in Committee. They know, too, that in perhaps just a few months, this Prime Minister will be gone. I do not believe that they wish to look back in the years ahead and remember voting to attack an ancient English right and to undermine what makes ours the best legal system in the world, all for a Prime Minister who takes them for granted and who they will soon replace. We will vote against this terrible Bill today, and so should they.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

There are shy of 60 people wishing to contribute. I urge Members to keep their contributions brief.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I have been friends for some time. I think you were elected in 2015. Soon after that, your talents were recognised and you were quickly given a ministerial brief. You know my politics, as we have crossed swords many a time, so you know it pains me to congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), the shadow Justice Secretary, on his outstanding contribution; there was really nothing in it that I could disagree with. None the less, I do welcome the intervention of my right hon. Friend, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, because it is true that since he has been in post, he has secured the biggest investment for the criminal justice system in decades, amounting to something in the region of £2.5 billion. I commend my dear friend for that work, which I know will have taken some serious graft with the Treasury officials and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

It is true that much of this Bill is absolutely critical, including the actions to reduce the backlog. No Member of this House wants to see victims of crime languishing, waiting for months and years for their cases to be heard. The Labour Government’s policy on reducing violence against women and girls is crucial as well. It is also right to say that the previous Government savaged the criminal justice system, underfunding it during the austerity years. But I have to be honest: it was not just the previous Tory Government who did that. The criminal justice system has been badly treated and badly funded for decades.

There are parts of this Bill, though, that are unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary, including jury trial curtailment, the extended powers for sentencing in the magistrates courts, and the removal of the right to elect jury trial for offences with less than three years’ tariff. It is concerning that the Government are doing away with the automatic right of appeal in the magistrates courts—that is essentially what is happening—because, as I said in an intervention, about 0.4%, or around 5,000 cases, go to appeal and 41% of those appeals are successful.

I am afraid to say that the analogy used by the Justice Secretary, of somebody stealing a bottle of whisky, is an unfortunate one. I do not pretend to be a terribly eminent lawyer—I was prosecuting and defending the theft of Mars bars in my second six pupillage before I was elected to this House in May 2010—but never did I see a situation in the magistrates court in which a defendant was advised to elect for a trial when they had allegedly nicked a bottle of whisky. That scenario is for the birds, to be perfectly honest. It is on the same level as the Justice Secretary, in his MOJ video, referring to a scraped knee in an A&E triage situation—it is unfortunate and disappointing, and he could do much better. The Institute for Government report, published today, states that the MOJ modelling is sound, but that it relies on several uncertain assumptions. That is a very grave concern.

I am not going to detain the House terribly long. Yesterday evening, I had what I can only describe as an incredibly honest and robust, but constructive, discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister, and I am glad to say that that discussion produced something of an offer. I think it is absolutely imperative that one of our number—one of those of us who are opposed to these changes for principled reasons—has a seat on the Public Bill Committee. Colleagues told me that this was impossible. They said, “It’s never going to happen.” They said that the Chief Whip would never concede to allowing one of the so-called rebels on to the Bill Committee. But, following the Deputy Prime Minister’s representations to the Chief Whip, that guarantee was made. For that reason and for that reason alone, I will abstain from voting on the Bill today.

Let me put it in this way: I will abstain today because I think there is a possibility of making progress, and because I trust my right hon. Friend to negotiate in good faith with colleagues who are opposed to the Bill. What I do not appreciate is MOJ officials spinning the line that “even Karl Turner was unable to persuade enough people to rebel against this Bill.” That is not right, it is unfair and, frankly, it is unbecoming of a Secretary of State in any Department. None the less, I abstain today and I sincerely urge my colleagues to abstain as well. I am more confident now than ever before that the worst parts of the Bill will be defeated by amendments. I sincerely ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to let the Bill pass its Second Reading, so that we can make progress on getting rid of the bits of this Bill that are completely unworkable, unpopular, unjust and unnecessary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We are now on a speaking limit of six minutes. I call Catherine West.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

I hope to be a little more brief and less pompous than previous speakers. I am indebted to the many who serve, day to day, in the Wood Green courts, and in other parts of the London circuit. I thank them for their hard work in this rather thankless legal environment. I commend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services on her active engagement with Members across the House on these principles and proposals. I also thank the Select Committee for its important work scrutinising the Bill. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) say that he was looking to abstain in the vote on Second Reading, so that he could hear more debate as the Bill passes through the House. That is the spirit in which debate on the Bill should be listened to; there should be less bombast, and more practical solutions for victims of crime.

We need to end the court backlog and ensure access to justice for all. We also need to properly fund our justice system. Congratulations to the team who have got £2 billion out of the Treasury to fix our courts. I welcome the recent announcement of the investment in criminal legal aid—the 24% overall uplift in funding—and of the £287 million to be invested in vital repairs and digital upgrades to court buildings. The day I visited Wood Green, it was a heatwave. We were sitting there—everyone had all their legal coats, dresses and wigs on—and I had the most ordinary plate of fish and chips from the canteen that I have ever had. Given the basic conditions that victims, security teams and legal personnel experience when they go to court, we need to get this money out the door and spent on improving the estate, so that we can have more confidence in the system.

We need to be aware that the legal aid funding for magistrates court cases often barely covers costs. That is one of the serious concerns that I know Labour Members have about what is being proposed. As it stands, there is an automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction in the Crown court. Forty per cent of appeals against conviction from the magistrates court to the Crown court are successful. The Bill would end the automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction, which is one of the concerns raised by the eminent legal constituents who contacted me yesterday.

Thinking more in depth about the legal aid question, the means-tested threshold is just £22,000. Those in full-time, minimum-wage jobs may not qualify for that in a high-value, expensive city like London. If the Bill becomes law as it stands, will our defendants who are not eligible for legal aid, but who barely manage to keep their heads above water, be expected to draft their own grounds of appeal? I suspect that might lead to more costs in the long term, so we need to look at that.

Why is the court backlog so great? Will the Minister say more about defendants? I am sure that some people will make points about defendants possibly gaming the system—that is what I have been hearing. I have no doubt that there is an element of that, which has to be clamped down on, but let us not ignore the delays in police investigations, often due to the cuts that the police endured over the previous decade, and the sheer churn. If a woman has to wait four years for her case, how many police officers does she see? How many times does she have to repeat her dreadful situation to them? That is a trauma in itself. How many victims’ champions have had to listen to story after story?

Let us not ignore all the other elements of this system, such as delays to do with the police, and sometimes the Crown Prosecution Service. There is also a large churn in expertise there; it has become an unattractive place to work, due to the stretch on the service provided. Decisions are therefore being made at a slow pace; it is quite frustrating, on all counts.

One of my constituents, a practising legal aid solicitor of many decades’ standing, recently told me that his 19-year-old client was just sentenced for an incident that occurred in November 2024 when he was 17 years old. The client was not gaming the system; he pleaded guilty, yet he faced all those delays, so the delays are very real.

The preferred option, from my point of view, would be to have a pilot scheme, and to see after three or four years which system is best: the pilot scheme, or the scheme that we have. Of course, for that to happen, I would have to vote for the Bill’s Second Reading, wouldn’t I? I am being pragmatic and helpful, and am following the lead of Members who have given a lot of thought to this, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East, as well as the Select Committee. I look forward to following the Bill closely as it goes through its stages, including in the upper House, and to coming up with a good solution at the end of this process.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

Separation Centres Review

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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

Jury Trials

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

What has been missing from this debate is the word “victims.” We inherited a system in which there are criminals who will have chosen to spend Christmas at home with their children. They will still be at home with their children next year, and the year after that, because we have a system that allows them to kick justice down the road. Meanwhile, women will have been raped this Christmas, and they will have to wait half a decade for justice. How can Members defend that system?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions should be short and colleagues should have been here at the beginning if they wish to intervene—[Interruption.] I was not here at the beginning, but I do not need any help. Members must have been here at the beginning of the speech of the Member on whom they wish to intervene. Please keep interventions short.

[Sarah Sackman]

As so often, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) is a powerful advocate for women and for victims. As I have said, the reforms that the Government are bringing forward are laser focused on swift justice for victims. I wish to address the point about investment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

On the point of saving time through fewer jury trials, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is not just about the amount of time a jury is in the courtroom? It is about all the other factors within the criminal justice system that contribute to the time taken—the time it takes for back office staff to organise jury selection and summonsing, the time it takes for the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare reams and reams of paper for jury bundles, the time it takes to deal with the expenses, and so on. This is about the criminal justice system as a whole, not just the time spent in the courtroom.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the Minister responds, and to save another Member from any embarrassment, coming in halfway through a speech and trying to intervene is not acceptable.

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend speaks with ample experience from two decades spent working for the Crown Prosecution Service. She knows exactly how the system works, warts and all. The realism and pragmatism she brings to this debate speaks to the really important point that operating a jury system is expensive and takes a lot of time, which is why we have to deploy it in a timely and proportionate way for the most important cases. At the moment, it is available for 3% of cases, but so many of those cases are running in such a delayed fashion that they are collapsing at the 11th hour and justice is not being served. We are actually undermining the jury system by allowing it to run out of control. It is because we want to preserve that feature of our legal system that it is so important that we heed the recommendations of the independent review, make the necessary investment and modernise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I will make a commitment to publish an impact assessment, an equalities impact assessment, and the evidence of the independent review in the usual way when we bring forward our formal Government response and the necessary legislation. Parliament will have a chance to scrutinise that legislation, to interrogate it, and to express its opposition if that is the conclusion that is reached.

Let me be absolutely clear, though. When I was in practice, when I used to appear in court and I made a proposition, the judge would say, “Where’s the evidence for your proposition?”, as I am being asked now. There is authority behind the proposition I am making—that, if vital institutions are not working for the British public, we should be open to changing them in three ways. Those are by making investment, which we are beginning to do; through structural reform, which is what is on the table; and through modernisation. The evidence base for that structural reform is as follows: the international comparisons; Sir Brian Leveson’s independent expert review; and—this is critical—the fact that we know from Ministry of Justice data that triable either way cases, which could be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court, are heard four times faster in the magistrates court. If we take cases that are not suitable for the Crown court and hear them in the magistrates court, we free up capacity for the Crown court to hear the most serious cases, so it stands to reason that they will be heard faster. However, we will of course publish the detail at the appropriate time for all to scrutinise.

To conclude, everyone in the Chamber today has agreed that we are in a state of crisis. The difference between His Majesty’s Opposition and the Government is that I reject the learned helplessness that festered under the previous Government. This Government have a choice to make, and we are making it. We are making the decision to use a crisis and turn it into an opportunity—to bring down the waiting lists and modernise the system in the process. People ask me, “Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?” I say yes, because we need a better system, one in which courts, not criminals, triage cases. We need a system that makes better use of jurors’ time and ensures that someone accused of shoplifting is not in the same queue as a victim of another crime. No one has had the guts to take on a programme of reform of this scale, but this Government have the guts. The Conservatives had 14 years to fix the system, but they ran it into the ground. We make a different choice; we are bringing forward change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. To ensure that everyone is able to contribute to the debate, there will be a speaking time limit of eight minutes to begin with, but it will come down further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The time limit has now dropped to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I hear everything my hon. Friend says. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) laid out a number of matters that could be acted on immediately to improve efficiency and ensure that we maintain the pillar of society that is our jury trials. Do you agree that we should be focusing immediately on that, rather than demolishing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. No “yous”—it is not me responding.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will touch on some of those points in a moment.

There has quite rightly been much reliance on Sir Brian Leveson’s report; he is a jurist of great distinction, and his work deserves careful reading, rather than convenient citation. Notwithstanding his analysis, this is a fundamental change to our legal system, and what is conspicuously absent from the Government’s argument is compelling evidence that jury trials are the principal driver of delay. If we are serious about confronting the backlog, we must look unflinchingly at the real causes: the prosaic but decisive failures of capacity, of which the jury trial is merely the most visible casualty.

The first issue is judicial sitting days. Courts cannot hear cases without judges. For too long, we have rationed judicial time as though it were a luxury, rather than the lifeblood of the system. Courtrooms stand idle not because juries cannot be summoned, but because there are no judges available to sit.

The second issue is the court estate. In too many parts of the country, criminal courts are dilapidated, unreliable and, frankly, unfit for purpose. Trials are delayed because of leaking roofs, broken technology and inadequate facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

If the hon. Lady had listened carefully, she would have heard that I did not say that jury trial was an inalienable right. The law says that one has a right to a fair trial. However, we have established historically that jury trials mean that we do not see unconscious bias. There have been archaic and appalling cases that have shown that one individual making a decision about others is often not fair, transparent or right. As we heard from Sir David Davis, there is a greater number of retrials when an individual made the decision in a trial than when a jury made the decision.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Just to make sure that the hon. Member does not make a further mistake, I remind her not to mention colleagues by their first name.

[Alicia Kearns]

My sincerest apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. A year of maternity leave does leave one with a few cobwebs.

The British people are very clear that they do not want this fundamental change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Who would have thought that a Government led by a human rights lawyer would be leading the charge to remove one of our most basic human rights, trial by jury? The Government are removing the right to a jury trial for any offences that carry a likely sentence of less than three years, supposedly to reduce the backlog of cases waiting to go to trial—but let us look at the evidence.

There is a backlog of 78,000 cases. There are around 1.3 million prosecutions in England and Wales every year, and 10% of those cases go before a Crown court. Of those, three out of 10 go to trial. These reforms mean that more than two out of 10 will still go before a jury. Given those figures, there will be no realistic change to the waiting times from removing that fundamental right. Who was doing the maths for this—the “Mastermind” Lord Chancellor? No wonder the Prime Minister appointed him.

My constituents in Tatton, from school pupils to the leader of the northern circuit and barristers from the Middle Temple, urged me to speak today to say that this is an absolute disgrace, and they put forward some of their suggestions. A barrister at St John’s Buildings said, “Actually, I don’t believe at all that cutting trial by jury will get down these lists and sort out the problem. In fact, I’m deeply concerned that such proposals will further erode the trust of the public in our justice system. It will remove their participation in criminal justice. There is no evidence that it will have any impact on the delays. A better solution for the backlog would be to stop the cap on the number of sitting days and let courts sit around the clock, and also to sort out the failure of the prisoner transport system, which does not get defendants to court, or that gets them there late and wastes time.”

Another barrister—a King’s Counsel criminal barrister at Lincoln House Chambers in Manchester—said, “I’m very concerned that curtailing jury trials is based on no credible evidence at all. In particular, there has been no pilot scheme. It appears that the suggested savings of 20% have been pulled out of thin air. Very importantly, it will erode a deeply entrenched constitutional principle that a jury may acquit as a matter of conscience in these cases. It will remove a bulwark against misuse of the criminal court by the Government and those in authority, and the ability of a jury to take a view favourable to a defendant for reasons other than evidence of guilt.”

What about the Lord Chancellor? Until a few weeks ago, he believed in juries and trial by jury, too. This is one thing that Government Back Benchers should really be concerned about: constituents have said to me that for such an important change to our unwritten constitution, there should have been mention of it in the Labour party manifesto. One person said, “That would have factored into my voting decision, and it could well have been—if not would have been—a very different decision.”

The debate has been revealing. There are no data, no impact assessments and no pilot. The Minister herself, who even suggests—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The speaking limit is now three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The right to a trial by jury is one that has stood at the very centre of our criminal justice system for centuries. It is a crucial check on the power of the state as it undertakes one of the most solemn duties: to try a citizen and to determine guilt or innocence. That principle is, in the words of the Lord Chancellor himself, “a fundamental part” of our democracy. Instead of taking practical and obvious measures, such as fully utilising courtrooms that sit empty to address the serious backlog in the criminal justice system, the Government have instead chosen the destructive option that, in reality, is unlikely to adequately address the pressure on the system at all.

The Government’s approach rests on the flawed assumption that only certain cases are serious enough to merit trial by jury, but who is to decide what counts as serious? Horrific crimes such as murder and rape are rightly treated with the utmost gravity, but offences deemed lesser can still ruin lives: a theft accusation can end a career; an assault can leave lasting physical and psychological harm; a reputation can be destroyed beyond repair. Our justice system is not merely about classification but about justice itself. It works by consent and is the stronger for it. Trial by jury embodies that public consent. Without it, we risk victims’ trust in its fairness and defendants’ confidence that they will be judged fairly by their peers.

This debate is also about judicial decision making. The reality is that not all judges are created equal. No one is infallible. Judges can get things wrong and they can do so on more than one occasion. The strength of the jury system lies in renewal. Each case is considered by a fresh group of citizens. If a judge becomes the sole arbiter of guilt, there is a risk that errors—conscious or unconscious—can be repeated. The jury system makes our criminal justice system more robust, more resilient and ultimately more trustworthy.

Jury trials also play a vital role in ensuring justice is done, because they are drawn from the communities they serve. That point was made to me by Daniel and Grace Robinson, who are constituents of mine and experts in addressing modern slavery and criminal exploitation. From the hundreds of cases they have seen, they note that juries often recognise indicators of modern slavery much more than would have happened without them. That is because they bring a broad range of experience.

The Government seek to justify their changes on the basis of backlog reduction and cost, but we must not weaken the system that is respected across the world—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Lewis Cocking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have just been informed that the hon. Member walked into the Chamber only about five minutes ago—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) has been here for a while. He was not allowed to make a speech because he was not here at the beginning of the debate, but he has been here for a while.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make progress.

No one who voted for Labour voted for this seismic change. It is rushed, knee-jerk and smacks of a Justice Secretary who is still smarting from his demotion from one of the great offices of state and is now overcompensating by attempting to make his mark. I urge the Government to reconsider, and I urge those on the Government Benches who plan to rebel today to do so with a clear conscience, knowing that they are simply cutting out the middle man, because the Government will inevitably end up where those rebels already are.