Category: Criminal Justice

  • Andy Slaughter – 2026 Speech on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    Andy Slaughter – 2026 Speech on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    The speech made by Andy Slaughter, the Chair of the Justice Committee, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    In the light of these escapes from a class D prison, will the Government look again at the policy and process for moving prisoners to open prisons earlier in their sentence as a consequence of prison overcrowding? Does the legacy of the previous Government mean that prisoners may be located in prisons because of the space available, rather than their suitability for the type of offender?

    Alex Davies-Jones

    I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his probing. He will be aware that to deal with the crisis in prison capacity that the Tories left us, this is what we had to do. The policy of moving prisoners to open prisons began under the Conservatives. Typically, they tried to keep quiet about it when they were in government. We have been open and transparent. We have looked at exactly how we have done this as part of our strategy to deal with overcrowding and, thankfully, through our Sentencing Bill—which the Tories are trying to wreck, by the way—we will ensure that our prisons never ever reach breaking point again. However, open prisons are part of the course to rehabilitation and part of ensuring that we make better citizens rather than better criminals, and they have worked and operated effectively under successive Governments.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2026 Speech on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    Robert Jenrick – 2026 Speech on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Justice Secretary, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    So a murderer is on the loose—a murderer and a violent offender. Once again, the Justice Secretary’s strongest ever checks have been a resounding failure, and once again there is a manhunt under way. Precious police resources are being wasted to fix Calamity’s latest cock-up. And where is the Justice Secretary? The Ministry of Justice seems to lose its Secretary of State as much as it does its prisoners. Has his aunt taken him to the January sales to find him a new suit, just in case he gets let loose on Prime Minister’s questions again?

    Let me ask the Minister instead: why was someone who robbed and brutally killed a man by bashing him on the head with a brick—a man who led a prison riot and attacked prison officers repeatedly—deemed safe for open prison? Why, as we have just learned, did it take 48 hours for the police to raise the alarm? How many other murderers are there in open prisons? How many more mistaken releases have there been since the Justice Secretary last came clean? Once again, the safety of the public is being compromised by the breathtaking incompetence of his Department.

    What a Christmas it has been for the Justice Secretary. On Boxing day, he said he was delighted to welcome into Britain an extremist who hates our country. The following day, it was revealed that he had invited a disgraced ex-Labour politician convicted of spreading homophobic smears to his official swearing-in as Lord Chancellor. Days later, he paid an Islamist double murderer thousands in compensation, alongside hundreds of thousands in legal fees, much of it to the Justice Secretary’s own colleague’s spouse. Then the Prime Minister’s mentor, a leading KC who clapped him into Downing Street, slammed his shameful plan to slash jury trials. To top it all off, on new year’s day we learned that these prisoners had been let loose. Well, happy new year from the Justice Secretary. It is little wonder that in his first interview of 2026, he said that he was seeking divine retribution—sorry, he meant to say divine intervention. Well, with more of this, God help us all.

    Alex Davies-Jones

    I am afraid that it is a new year but the same sad, old Jenrick. The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not done his homework. He does not seem to know the difference between releases in error and absconds. This is a Member who wants to be the Lord Chancellor and the next Leader of the Opposition, and he is deliberately muddying the waters here to suit his own agenda.

    We are seeing the deep-rooted issues caused by years of chronic underfunding and mismanagement by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government play out. The crisis that our prisons face today was built up over 14 years and the Tories are the chief architects. This did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable. It was the choice of the Conservatives, made again and again for 14 years. They abandoned their posts and put public safety at risk by allowing our prisons to reach bursting point. He talks about public safety, but they left our prisons at breaking point with not enough room to lock up any dangerous criminals. If it were not for the decisive action that this Government took, the police would have been unable to make any arrests, courts would have ceased to function, and there would have been a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times.

    Those who abscond face serious consequences. We take our responsibilities very seriously, and that is one of the reasons why there has been a dramatic fall in the number of absconds over the last 20 years. It is one of the success stories that the Tories actually had in government, and the right hon. Gentleman should celebrate that because elsewhere their record is much less rosy.

    As the Tories were packing their bags to leave office, temporary release failures hit a 13-year high on their watch. The prison system was in chaos, and they presided over 17 releases in error a month in their last six months in office. They said that they were the Government of security and safety, yet they oversaw violent crime and crumbling courts and prisons. To cover up for their failures, they covertly let out 10,000 prisoners early as part of their chaotic early release scheme. The Tories claim to be the party of law and order; instead, their legacy was lawless disorder. Now they have the barefaced audacity to come to this House and make demands as if they had never been in government, as if they had never ever overseen a crisis in our criminal justice system.

    What is the right hon. Gentleman’s solution to this crisis? To do nothing—to ignore the evidence that places people in open conditions to help them prepare for life outside and reduce their risk of reoffending, and to turf people out of prison with no support and just hope that everything turns out okay. The Tories are not serious people. They are not serious or ready for Government. They have no solutions to the problems that they created.

  • Alex Davies-Jones – 2026 Statement on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    Alex Davies-Jones – 2026 Statement on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    The statement made by Alex Davies-Jones, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    A happy new year to you and to all in the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    On 1 January 2026, three prisoners absconded from HMP Leyhill, an open prison: Mr Thomas, Mr Washbourne and Mr Armstrong. This was discovered during routine roll checks, and their absence was followed up immediately. On 3 January, the police issued a public appeal to assist with their recapture. As you have stated, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the prisoners, Aaron Thomas, has since been arrested and is scheduled to appear before magistrates today. He will then be returned to closed conditions. The other individuals remain unlawfully at large, and police are actively pursuing them. The Government take every abscond seriously. In line with the prevention of abscond policy framework, the prison group director for HMP Leyhill has commissioned a review, which will be completed within 20 days.

    These individuals had been moved to open conditions at different points in 2025 after recommendations made by the independent Parole Board. There was no recent intelligence regarding a potential abscond by these prisoners. When it comes to an offender serving a life sentence or an indeterminate sentence for public protection, as these prisoners are, a transfer to open conditions will be approved only following a recommendation by the Parole Board, other than in exceptional circumstances. Before making a recommendation, the Parole Board conducts a thorough assessment of the offender’s risk of harm and risk of absconding. At the time these risk assessments were completed, the prisoners were deemed suitable for open conditions. We are continuing to work and engage with the victims and the victims’ families, either through the victim contact scheme or via the police where relevant. Currently, we have made contact with two victims through the victim contact scheme.

  • Douglas Hurd – 1987 Statement on Wapping Disturbances

    Douglas Hurd – 1987 Statement on Wapping Disturbances

    The statement made by Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 16 January 1987.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the disorder at Wapping on Saturday evening.

    I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the disorder followed a march from central London marking the anniversary of the News International dispute. The police estimate that 12,500 people took part. When the march reached Wapping at 7.15 pm disorder broke out almost immediately. Cordons of police officers in ordinary uniform came under attack with missiles. At about 7.40 pm, a lorry being used by the demonstrators was overturned, and an attempt was made to set it on fire. Disorder then continued for some hours. Missiles were thrown at the police, including rocks, bottles, ball bearings, darts, railings, scaffolding poles and pieces of paving stone. The police used mounted officers, and foot officers in protective equipment, to restore order. I understand that calm was restored by about midnight.
    In all, 162 police officers were injured. The injuries included a broken bone in the hand, injuries to the face and legs and concussion. Two officers were detained in hospital overnight. I am glad to say that they have now both been discharged. The police know of 40 members of the public who were injured; there will have been others whose injuries did not come to police attention. I understand that 67 people were arrested, of whom 65 have now been charged with public order and other offences. Fifteen of those 67 people arrested are print workers.
    This is the latest in a series of disturbances connected with demonstrations at Wapping. Over the past year, including last Saturday, 572 police officers have been injured, 1,462 people have been arrested, and over 1·2 million police man-hours have been spent. The total additional policing cost up to the end of 1986 is estimated at £5·3 million.

    It is clear that some of those attending Saturday’s demonstration armed themselves with ferocious weapons intent on violent attacks against the police. No serious attempt was made to stop the lorries leaving the plant, and they were able to do so without significant difficulty.
    It also seems clear that the organisers of these demonstrations are unable to prevent violence or to control the activities of all their supporters. They must now, in my view, find some other way of making their point without providing occasions for violence and disorder.

    I have conveyed to the Commissioner my full support for the action taken by the Metropolitan police to deal with this disgraceful incident, and my sympathy for the police officers who have been injured. The vicious attack on Saturday evening had nothing to do with peaceful protest or the peaceful furtherance of a dispute within the law. I trust that it will be condemned unreservedly by both sides of the House.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs

    The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2025.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your permission I will make a statement on the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs, the appointment of its Chair and panel, and the inquiry’s terms of reference.

    I know that, for many, this day is long overdue. For years, the victims of these awful crimes were ignored. First abused by vile predators, they then found themselves belittled and even blamed, when it was justice they were owed.

    In January, my predecessor asked Baroness Casey of Blackstock, who’s here with us today, to conduct a National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse.

    With devastating clarity, Baroness Casey revealed the horror that lies behind that jargonistic term. It is vital that we too call these crimes what they were: multiple sexual assaults, committed by multiple men, on multiple occasions.

    Children were submitted to beatings and gang rapes. Many contracted sexually transmitted infections. Some were forced to have abortions. Others had their children taken from them.

    But it was not just these awful crimes that now shame us.

    There was also an abject failure by the state, in its many forms, to fulfil its most basic duty: protecting the young and vulnerable.

    Worse still, some in positions of power turned a blind eye to the horror, even covered it up.

    Despite a shameful lack of national data, Baroness Casey was clear that in some local areas, where data was available, and I quote:

    “Disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds” were “amongst the suspects”.

    Like every member of my community who I know, I am horrified by these acts.

    We must root out this evil, once and for all. The sickening acts of a minority of evil men – as well as those in positions of authority, who looked the other way – must not be allowed to marginalise – or demonise – entire communities of law-abiding citizens.

    What is required now is a moment of reckoning. We must cast fresh light on this darkness.

    In her audit, Baroness Casey called for a national inquiry.

    In June, the government accepted that recommendation.

    Today, I can announce the Chair of the inquiry and panel that will form the leadership of the inquiry, and a draft of the Inquiry’s terms of reference.

    The inquiry will be chaired by Baroness Anne Longfield.

    As many in this place will know, Baroness Longfield was the Children’s Commissioner from 2015 to 2021. She has devoted her life to children’s rights, including running a charity supporting and protecting young people, and working for Prime Ministers of different political parties.

    In recognition of her service, Baroness Longfield was elevated to the Lords earlier this year.

    At that point, she took the Labour whip, which, on taking up this appointment, she will now resign.

    Alongside her, I can also announce her two fellow panellists.

    The first is Zoë Billingham CBE.

    Zoë is a former Inspector at His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, and currently serves as Chair of Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.

    She brings deep expertise in safeguarding and policing, specifically in holding forces to account.

    The second panellist is Eleanor Kelly CBE.

    Eleanor is the former Chief Executive of Southwark Council.

    In 2017, she supported the survivors of the London Bridge terrorist attacks, and the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire of the same year.

    Together, the Chair and panel bring deep experience of championing children’s rights, knowledge of policing and local government, and, crucially, a proven track record of holding powerful institutions to account.

    Each individual was recommended by Baroness Casey.

    And her recommendation follows recent engagement with victims.

    The first thing the Chair and Panel will do, alongside Baroness Casey, is meet with victims later this week.

    Today, we also publish the draft terms of reference which I will place in the library of the House.

    Baroness Casey was clear this inquiry must be time-limited to ensure justice is swift for those who have already waited too long.

    For that reason, it will be completed within three years, supported by a £65 million budget.

    The inquiry will be a series of local investigations overseen by a national panel with full statutory powers.

    Baroness Longfield has confirmed that Oldham will have a local investigation.

    The Chair and panel will determine the other locations in due course.

    And no location will be able to resist a local investigation.

    These terms of reference are clear on a number of vital issues:

    The inquiry is focused, specifically, on child sexual abuse committed by grooming gangs.

    It will consider, explicitly, the background of offenders – including their ethnicity and religion – and whether the authorities failed to properly investigate what happened out of a misplaced desire to protect community cohesion.

    The inquiry will act without fear or favour, identifying individual, institutional and systemic failure, inadequate organisational responses, and failures of leadership.

    It will also work hand in hand with the police.

    Where new criminality comes to light, be that by the perpetrators or those who covered up their crimes…

    The Inquiry will pass evidence to law enforcement, so they can take forward any further prosecutions, and put more of these evil men behind bars.

    The inquiry must, and will, place victims and survivors at the forefront, with a charter setting out how they will participate and how their views, experiences and testimony will shape the inquiry’s work.

    As I have said already, the terms are in draft form.

    The Chair will now consult on them with victims and other stakeholders.

    They will be confirmed no later than March, when the Inquiry can begin its work in earnest.

    Alongside launching this inquiry, Baroness Casey’s audit contained a number of other recommendations, which the government accepted in full.

    As the inquiry begins its work, we continue righting these wrongs.

    I can announce today that I have commissioned new research from UK Research and Innovation to rectify the unacceptable gaps in our understanding of perpetrators’ backgrounds and motivations, including their ethnicity and religion.

    My predecessor wrote to all police forces calling on them to improve the collection of ethnicity data, and while the Home Secretary does not currently have the power to mandate that this is collected, I will rectify this by legislating at the earliest possible opportunity.

    The Department for Education is currently interrogating gaps in “children in need” data, identified in the audit, which seem to under-report the scale of this crisis.

    My Rt Honourable Friend the Education Secretary will soon publish the findings of an urgent review of this data conducted by her department.

    Across government, the audit identified that poor data sharing continues to put children at risk.

    As a result, we are introducing a legal duty for information sharing between safeguarding partners.

    We are creating a unique identifier for each child, linking all data across government.

    And we are upgrading police technology to ensure data can be shared across agencies.

    The audit also identified an absurdity in our legal system that saw some child rapists convicted of lesser crimes.

    As a result, we are now changing the law to make clear that children cannot consent when they have been raped by an adult, so perpetrators are charged for the hideous crime they have committed.

    While the law has protected abusers from the consequences of their crimes, it has too often punished victims. Some survivors were convicted for crimes they had been coerced into, continuing their trauma to this day.

    We are already legislating in the Crime and Policing Bill to disregard offences related to prostitution, and the Ministry of Justice is now working with the Criminal Cases Review Commission to ensure they are resourced to review applications from individuals who believe they were wrongly criminalised.

    The National Audit identified further weaknesses in relation to taxi licencing.

    Abusers were applying for licences in areas where controls were lax, to circumvent protection put in place by local councils to tackle abuse.

    My Right Honourable Friend the Transport Secretary will soon be legislating to close this dangerous loophole in the regulation of taxis.

    The audit was clear that justice has not been done. Baroness Casey requested that a new national police investigation was required to bring offenders to justice.

    Last month the National Crime Agency launched Operation Beaconport, reviewing previously closed cases of child sexual exploitation.

    It has already flagged more than 1,200 cases for potential reinvestigation, more than 200 of which are high-priority cases of rape.

    The evil men who committed these crimes – and thought they got away with it – will find they have nowhere to hide.

    The audit finally called on the government to fund the delivery of its recommendations.

    Alongside investment in the Inquiry itself, I can announce today that a further £3.65 million will be committed this year to the policing operation, survivor support and research into grooming gangs.

    This work, Madam Deputy Speaker, is essential.

    But without truth, there can be no justice.

    Today, I have announced the Chair and panel of an Inquiry which will shine a bright light on this dark moment in our history.

    They will do so alongside the victims of these awful crimes, who have waited too long to see justice done.

    This inquiry is theirs, not ours.

    So I call on all those present to put politics aside, for a moment, and to support this Chair and her panel in the pursuit of truth and justice.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

  • Jess Brown-Fuller – 2025 Comments on Limiting Right to Jury Trials

    Jess Brown-Fuller – 2025 Comments on Limiting Right to Jury Trials

    The comments made by Jess Brown-Fuller, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Justice, in the House of Commons on 27 November 2025.

    The leaked memo from the Ministry of Justice, which reveals plans to rip up our criminal justice system, is particularly surprising, given that the Deputy Prime Minister himself has stated that “Jury trials are fundamental”. In a report that he wrote, he called jury trials

    “a success story of our justice system”.

    Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; that was complacency from the former Government and a failure to grip the issue by this Government, totally failing the victims who are currently waiting. Will the Minister clarify whether this MOJ proposal is a suggested temporary emergency measure or a permanent erosion of our criminal justice system? Does she share my concern that the Office for Budget Responsibility is showing a real-terms cut of 3% a year to the MOJ’s capital budget after the Budget yesterday? Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s diagnosis from opposition that the Government should

    “pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country”

    in order to clear the backlog?

    Sarah Sackman

    As the hon. Member heard me say a moment ago, the constitutional right that we guarantee every citizen in this country who comes before our criminal courts is the right to a fair trial. When victims are waiting for years for their day in court, right now justice is not being served. When the Secretary of State made those comments, it was obviously in a very different context, not one where the Conservatives had allowed the backlogs to run out of control. As I said clearly earlier, the right to a jury trial and the jury trial will always be a cornerstone of the British justice system. That will not change. It does not change in Sir Brian’s report, in which he recommends the restriction of jury trials in certain cases, and it will not change in the plans that the Government are bringing out. She is right that we need a combination of structural reform and investment and, indeed, we are making that investment. We have increased capital investment in court maintenance and buildings to £148.5 million. We are opening new criminal courts, for example in central London, in Blackpool and in other parts of the country. We have to build system capacity, with more judges, more lawyers and more staff to man those cases, but ultimately we must be laser-focused on the need to deliver swifter justice for victims. In order to do that, we will, in due course, in response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations, bring forward very careful plans that protect people’s rights, including that right to a fair trial.

  • Sarah Sackman – 2025 Statement on Limiting Right to Jury Trials

    Sarah Sackman – 2025 Statement on Limiting Right to Jury Trials

    The statement made by Sarah Sackman, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, in the House of Commons on 27 November 2025.

    This Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts, with record and rising caseloads, leaving the victims behind each and every one of those cases facing agonising delays and waiting to see justice done, while some defendants hope that their accusers simply give up on justice.

    That is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson, a pre-eminent jurist and one of our most experienced judges, to undertake an independent review—a once-in-a-generation review—of our criminal courts. We have been carefully considering his recommendations and agree that a crisis of this scale requires bold action to get the system moving and to deliver swifter justice for victims. No final decisions have been made on exactly how to take forward the blueprint that Sir Brian and his expert panel have set down, and I suggest that the House waits for that response.

    Let me be clear: jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice. This Government will do whatever it takes to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Great British justice system, with all its traditions, would never let victims wait, in some cases for four years, for justice. There is indeed a clash of ideas between those of us on the Government Benches and the Opposition. We are on the side of modernisation, defending our values, and swifter justice for victims, while they are prepared to watch the system rot, not offering any answers. The old adage rings true in the current crisis: justice delayed is justice denied. The system was simply not designed for a scenario where tens of thousands of victims are facing agonising delays for justice.

    The vast majority of cases in our courts are already heard without juries. Around 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with robustly and fairly by magistrates, with no jury. The country deserves meaningful reforms that back victims, modernisation and fairness over those gaming the system, and that speed up the courts and get victims the swifter justice that they deserve, resolving the court backlog and ensuring fair justice. As I have said, we intend to respond to the first part of Sir Brian’s review very soon, so I am afraid the House will have to wait a little longer for that response.

    Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)

    Or read the papers.

    Mr Speaker

    No more leaks just yet, please.

    Robert Jenrick 

    While this Government lurch from one outrage to another, yesterday the Chancellor shredded her promises and dropped a £26 billion tax bomb on working Britain. Meanwhile, we learned that the Justice Secretary is plotting to discard centuries of jury trials without so much as a by-your-leave—and where is the Justice Secretary to answer for this? Do we need to send out a search party to Saville Row in case he has gone suit shopping again this morning? Or perhaps he could not face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the very principles he once championed.

    Jury trials are

    “fundamental to the justice system…fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”

    Those are not my words, but those of the Justice Secretary himself. This time, he was right: there is wisdom in 12 ordinary citizens pooling their collective experiences of the world. Yet, now that he is in government, he is doing the complete opposite. He blames the court backlog, but if the courtrooms standing empty this year were used, the backlog would be down by 5,000 to 10,000 cases. He pleads poverty on law and order, but yesterday the Chancellor came here and found £16 billion more to spend on benefits.

    The truth is that the Labour party just does not think that ordinary people are up to it. It does not trust them with these decisions. Give away the Chagos islands, shackle us to the European convention on human rights, scrap jury trials—all because lawyers know best. And when the Justice Secretary is summoned here to the people’s House, what does he do? He cowers away. Well, the people who make up juries—the British people—will not wear it any more.

    I have one simple question for the Minister he sent in his stead. Will she protect what is fundamental to our democracy, or will she stand by as the Justice Secretary casually casts aside centuries of English liberty?

    Sarah Sackman 

    How extraordinary, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman claims to care about the rule of law; he claims to care about ancient legal traditions. This is the same shadow Justice Secretary who denigrates our independent judges and our legal community standing up for rights. I have already said it, and I will say it again: the right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition.

    Since he is so fond of quoting our ancient principles and quoting Magna Carta, let me remind him of what is our constitutional right. Magna Carta states:

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

    The right to a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness. When we have the crisis we inherited from the Conservative party, with a backlog now of some 80,000 cases—and behind each and every one of those cases is an actual victim and somebody accused of a crime—in the current system, we are denying a fair trial. When victims and witnesses pull out of the process, as is increasingly happening, that denies fairness.

    I say this while wearing this pin, which shows that we stand in 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls: a woman reporting a rape today in London will be told that her trial may not come on until 2029-30. That is not justice at all, and it is a consequence of allowing the Crown court backlog to spiral out of control while doing nothing and offering not a single answer. That is not upholding the fundamental British constitutional right to a fair trial; it is exactly the opposite.

    I for one, certainly, and as part of this Government, am not prepared to sit idly by. That is why we have gripped the crisis, making record investment in sitting days, extending magistrates court sentencing powers, investing in legal aid and asking one of our finest jurists, Brian Leveson, to conduct an independent review to provide us with a blueprint for how we get out of this mess. The Conservative party likes to call itself the party of tradition and the party of law and order, yet it presided over a justice system in which the British public can no longer have confidence.

    I am afraid that I am not prepared to let victims down. This Labour Government are finally putting victims first. That is why we will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations. It is why we will undertake to implement his blueprint, which takes as its fundamental premise this: the system is broken. There is no one in this House, no one in the community that represents victims and no one in the legal community—no judge, no one operating and working hard in the system to keep it going—who thinks that the system is not broken. We have to fix it.

    Sir Brian Leveson tells us that investment alone will not fix it. We need investment coupled with structural reform and modernisation. That is exactly the blueprint that this Government will bring forward, because, as I said, we believe in the right to a fair trial, we believe in British justice and, unlike the Conservative party, we will deliver swifter justice for victims.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Government’s Asylum Policy

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Government’s Asylum Policy

    The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 17 November 2025.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.

    This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.

    The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.

    I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.

    Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.Toggle showing location ofColumn 510

    My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.

    Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.

    In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.

    I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.

    Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed.Toggle showing location ofColumn 511

    We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.

    The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.

    We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.

    Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.

    Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.

    While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.

    Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.

    We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.

    It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.

    We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.

    I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • David Lammy – 2025 Speech at Lord Chancellor Swearing In

    David Lammy – 2025 Speech at Lord Chancellor Swearing In

    The speech made by David Lammy at the Royal Courts of Justice on 1 October 2025.

    My Lords, Ladies, friends, colleagues,

    Lady Chief Justice, thank you for that generous welcome, and your kind words.

    I am deeply grateful for your leadership…

    And look forward to working alongside you…

    In the months and years ahead.

    I congratulate my colleague and friend, Ellie Reeves…

    On her appointment as Solicitor General.

    Madam Solicitor, your dedication…

    Your expertise…

    And your energy…

    Will be of enormous value to this Government…

    And to this country…

    And I know you will serve the law with distinction.

    I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Shabana Mahmood…

    Who achieved so much in her time in this office…

    Steering the system back onto a steadier path…

    After such difficult years.

    It is the honour of my life to be sworn in as Lord Chancellor.

    The boy from Tottenham…

    Son of parents who came to this country from Guyana…

    Part of the great Windrush generation,

    Answering the call of a country…

    That needed rebuilding after the war.

    They came here with little, but gave so much…

    Because they believed in the values of this nation:

    In fairness, freedom, and equality.

    The boy whose Mum brought up five children alone…

    Working every hour god sent…

    Just to put food on the table…

    Teaching us the meaning of service, and sacrifice.

    The boy who fried chicken in KFC…

    But who carried aspirations far bigger than his uniform…

    Though not, perhaps, quite as big as this day…

    Nor indeed, quite as big as this uniform…!

    That boy could never have imagined…

    That he would be standing here, before you today.

    It has been a long journey…

    But in many ways, it feels like coming home.

    My whole life has been about justice.

    Growing up in the shadow of the Broadwater Farm Estate…

    Justice was not abstract.

    It was real.

    Ever-present.

    Often harsh.

    Too many boys who looked like me were written off.

    Too many were told to set their sights low.

    Too many found themselves on the wrong side of the law.

    But I was fortunate.

    Education gave me a way out…

    A gift that lifted my sights,

    … when others told me to lower them.

    Even then, though, I recall one teacher saying to me:

    “A barrister, David? Really?

    I think you should become a fireman.”

    But justice is what called me to the Bar….

    To advocacy…

    To giving a voice to those who had none…

    To defending the principle that all are equal before the law.

    It led me into public service…

    Into politics…

    And my work on the Lammy Review…

    Into racial inequality in our criminal justice system.

    From student, to barrister, to practice in California…

    Justice has been my compass.

    Justice has been my cause.

    And now, as Lord Chancellor…

    Justice is my charge.

    So I stand here humbled,

    I stand here honoured,

    And believe me when I say –

    I stand here feeling the full weight of this ancient office…

    More than a thousand years old.

    The names of its holders echo through history:

    Becket… Bacon… More… Wolsey.

    Some of them noble,

    Some… notorious.

    And I wonder what they would think about our nation’s first black Lord Chancellor.

    I think of those who came before me,

    Who gave new life to the ancient promise of Magna Carta:

    That no one is above the law…

    And that the law must protect the liberties of us all.

    I think of Lord Elwyn-Jones…

    Who, before he wore these robes, stood at Nuremberg…

    To face down the architects of racial hatred and war…

    Ensuring that even the most powerful can be held to account before the law.

    And who later passionately defended legal aid…

    So that fairness would not be the preserve of the wealthy.

    And I think of Lord Irvine of Lairg…

    Who brought the Human Rights Act into being…

    Weaving equality into the fabric of our common law.

    And so my task is threefold.

    First, to respect the rule of law.

    As Thomas Fuller once said – and Lord Denning often quoted –

    “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”

    That is the essence of our inheritance.

    No one is above the law, and all are equal beneath it.

    Woman or man.

    Rich or poor.

    Black or white.

    This is Britain’s greatest gift to the world.

    But we take these principles for granted…

    At our peril.

    As rights are eroded abroad…

    As democracy retreats in too many places…

    I will do everything in my power to defend those values…

    At home, and overseas.

    Second, I am to defend the independence of the judiciary.

    That independence is part of our prestige…

    It is why our justice system is trusted the world over…

    And why international businesses choose our courts…

    And our laws…

    To settle their disputes.

    And I promise you –

    I will defend that independence to the hilt.

    In recent years we have seen troubling signs…

    Of judges denounced for doing no more than interpreting the law…

    And even attacked in their own courtrooms.

    And we have seen, at the darkest extreme…

    Where this road ends.

    We see it in Putin’s Russia…

    Where the courts no longer speak for justice…

    But for power…

    To crush, silence and oppress critics.

    I am clear:

    In Britain there will always be space for dissent.

    There will always be space for debate –

    The freedom to disagree is part of who we are.

    But debate must never become intimidation.

    Disagreement must never become violence.

    You must be free to do your work…

    To make decisions on the most difficult and contested questions…

    Without interference…

    Without influence…

    And without fear for your safety.

    Because when those who uphold the law are threatened…

    The rule of law itself is threatened.

    That is something no free society can ever allow.

    And on my watch, it will not be.

    Finally,

    I am charged with the efficient and effective support of the courts…

    Ensuring they are fit for the people they serve.

    I inherit a system that has been under too much pressure…

    For far too long.

    The past few years have tested the justice system like never before.

    From the pandemic…

    To the pressures now facing our courts, prisons and probation services.

    I know you, our judiciary…

    And so many others across our courts and tribunals…

    Have carried that weight.

    You have kept the machinery of justice turning…

    Never letting it falter.

    I am profoundly grateful.

    Thanks to my predecessor, the justice system is now stabilising…

    And we are on the road to recovery.

    It will be a long journey…

    But we walk it with determination.

    Those efforts have, necessarily, focused in on criminal justice…

    On prisons, and probation…

    On driving down the backlog in the Crown Courts.

    And I will carry on that transformative work,

    Through the Sentencing Bill…

    Delivering punishment that cuts crime…

    And Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review…

    So our criminal courts are not just fit for today’s demands…

    But resilient for tomorrow’s…

    And so justice is no longer delayed, and denied…

    To so many.

    At the same time, our justice system is far broader…

    Touching every single part of our lives.

    Workers, seeking redress against unfair treatment…

    Small businesses, fighting for payment owed…

    Separating families, securing their child’s future…

    All of them rely on our civil and family courts…

    And our tribunals.

    So I will strive to protect and advance every part of that system…

    From legal aid, that protects the most vulnerable…

    To support for victims of crime.

    And I will champion our world class legal services…

    Which power growth…

    Generating over £42 billion for our economy each year.

    That is something we shouldn’t whisper about, but shout with pride.

    As Foreign Secretary, I once found myself in a skyscraper…

    In the heart of Abu Dhabi…

    Some 4000 miles away…

    Yet in that glittering tower…

    Billions of dollars in transactions…

    Were carried out under English law…

    Just one illustration…

    Of the phenomenal reach of our greatest export.

    English law is now used in around 40 percent of all cross-border business and financial transactions…

    But – we can go even further…

    And, supported by our new English Law Panel…

    We will…                                              

    To reinforce our position as a global legal leader…

    For the prosperity of this nation.

    I’ll come to a close with this.

    I pledge that this office will stand, as it has at its best moments in history…

    For fairness…

    For dignity…

    And for the belief that every citizen is equal under the law.

    To my wife, Nicola, and to my children: thank you.

    None of this would be possible without your love and support…

    Your patience…

    And dare I say it, your tolerance.

    I am proud – incredibly proud – to be the first Lord Chancellor of African-Carribean heritage…

    And to swear this oath today is the greatest honour of my life.

    I will work with determination.

    I will serve with devotion.

    And I will defend…

    With every fibre of my being…

    The rule of law.

    The boy from Tottenham is now Lord Chancellor…

    And he remains, above all, a servant of justice.

    Thank you.