Blog

Emily Thornberry – 2026 Speech on Venezuela

The speech made by Emily Thornberry, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

If a large and powerful country abducts the leader of another, however abhorrent that leader is, and tries to intimidate the smaller country to, as it says itself, gain access to its resources, does the Foreign Secretary not agree that this should be called out not just by Britain, but by our western allies? We should be calling it out for what it is—a breach of international law. It is not for the country breaking the law to say whether or not it has broken the law; it is surely for the west to stand up and call it as it is. Does she not therefore share my concern that there may be a profound risk of international norms changing? If we do not call it out, this may become okay, and we risk living in a world where might is right, which is surely not in Britain’s interests.

Yvette Cooper

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and I recognise that she has been consistent in her opposition to the Maduro regime, even when she was under pressure not to be through many years. She and I would probably agree that a man who is currently being investigated for crimes against humanity and has such a history of political repression, as well as economic destruction and corruption, should not be leading a country.

My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the issues of international law. I have set out our commitment to international law, and she will know that my predecessor as Foreign Secretary talked about progressive realism. We have set out the progressive principles we follow—including how important international law is, because the framework it sets does not just reflect our values, but is in our interests—but also that we have to engage with the world the way it is. I can assure her that, as part of that, I have raised the issue of international law with Secretary of State Rubio and made it clear that we will continue to urge all countries to follow it.

January 5, 2026
Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Speech on Venezuela

The speech made by Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

I would like to start by associating myself with the condolences expressed by the Foreign Secretary about the awful tragedy in Crans-Montana. I also thank her for her statement on Venezuela, although I am disappointed that it was not the Prime Minister who delivered the statement, because many of us in this House and beyond want to know how he is going to respond to the situation.

Nicolás Maduro was a tyrant who criminally abused the Venezuelan people and destabilised the region. It is no surprise that there is jubilation in the streets, because Venezuelans remember what their country was like before it was ravaged by years of socialist dictatorship. For years, the Conservative Government refused to recognise the legitimacy of Maduro’s horrific regime of brutality and repression, and we were pleased to see the Labour Government follow suit. However, we are in a fundamentally different world. The truth is that while the likes of China have been strategic and aggressive in strengthening their influence across the world, including in South America, the west has been slow.

Foreign policy should serve our national interest. It should be about keeping Britain safe. We should be clear-eyed. The United States is our closest security partner. We must work with it seriously, not snipe from the sidelines. The Opposition understand why the US has taken this action. As the Foreign Secretary said, UK policy has long been to press for a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to a democracy. That never happened. Instead, Venezuelans have been living under Maduro’s brutal regime for many years.

The US has made it clear that it is acting in its national interest against drug smuggling and other criminal activity, including potential terrorism. We understand that. However, we have concerns about what precedent this sets, especially when there are comments made about the future of Greenland. It is important that the United Kingdom supports its NATO ally Denmark, which has made it categorically clear that Greenland is not for sale, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks in that regard.

What is critical now is the stability of the region and the wider world. It is important that we listen to those who have been risking their lives for freedom and democracy in Venezuela. Opposition leader María Corina Machado, when asked about US action, said that Venezuela had already been invaded: by Iran, by Russia, by drug cartels, and by Hamas and Hezbollah. It is clear that Venezuela had become a gangster state.

I am pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary has spoken to María Corina Machado, but can she also update the House on whether the Prime Minister has spoken to President Trump? I ask that because the Government talk up their relationship with the US, but we keep finding that we are not in the room when big decisions are made.

We should be under no illusions, because a democratic transition in Venezuela will be far from straightforward, so when the Foreign Secretary speaks of democratic transition, what does that actually mean to the Government in practice? Can she also set out what will now happen to the UK’s Venezuela sanctions regime.

In a world changing as it is, we must be serious and responsible about our security and standing. We know what the strategy of the President of the United States is, because his Government set out their national security strategy last year. The US is acting in its national interests, and we need to do the same. We should be working to protect the rules-based order, and we should be standing up to hostile actors that want to undermine us, but what are our Government doing instead? They are giving away the Chagos islands, and paying £35 billion for the privilege, with no strong legal basis to justify doing so.

Last year, the Defence Committee warned that the UK was not adequately prepared to defend herself from attack. The Government are still stalling on defence spending. The Conservatives want to see defence spending increase to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, given the changing world. Why have the Government not matched that commitment?

It has never been more important for the UK to have a coherent foreign policy strategy. Right now, Labour does not have one. If it does, we would like the Foreign Secretary to tell us what it is, because I did not hear anything that sounded remotely like one in her statement. Let us be honest: old strategies will not work. We are living in an increasingly dangerous world, and the axis of authoritarian states seeking to undermine us respects just one thing: strength. Britain must be ready and willing to defend our own interests, to protect ourselves from those who would undermine us, to protect the unity of the western alliance, and to support democracy and freedom around the world.

Yvette Cooper

I must just say to the Leader of the Opposition that, while I obviously welcome her support on Switzerland, Greenland and Denmark and so on, it felt like the tone of her response was very poorly judged. It was really all over the place. Many times when we were in opposition, we set out our agreement with the Government in the national interest and recognised that there are some cross-party issues. I suspect that had the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), responded to our statement, she probably would have done that.

In fact, on the different issues the Leader of the Opposition talked about, she seemed to agree with us. On Venezuela, she said that the Maduro regime has been deeply damaging, corrupt and deeply destructive, and therefore that no one should shed any tears for its going. She also—I think this was implicit when she talked about the rules-based order—recognised the importance of precedents, the importance of international law and the complexity of the world we face. She also said that she thought we should show support for Denmark and Greenland. In fact, I could not see in her response a single detailed thing that she disagreed with, except for the fact that she seemed to want to express opposition for opposition’s sake.

On the overall approach, I think everyone recognises the leadership this Prime Minister has shown on the international stage: chairing the coalition of the willing, and leading the European and international support for Ukraine against Russia; and agreeing three trade deals with India, Europe and the US, after her Government ripped up the trade and co-operation deal and trashed the UK’s reputation across the world. We have the biggest increase in defence investment since the cold war, properly supporting UK security, and we have had the most successful state visit of the US President, leading to major tech investment in the UK. The Prime Minister talks frequently to the US, and we have deep partnerships on security, intelligence and the military. There is now our close working on Gaza and the peace process, on the crisis in Sudan and, of course, fundamentally on Ukraine.

Many times in the past we took a cross-party approach, and I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to do the same on what really matters for the future of this country. This Government will continue to stand up for Britain’s interests, our prosperity and our values.

January 5, 2026
Yvette Cooper – 2026 Statement on Venezuela

The statement made by Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

I want to begin by expressing my condolences to all those affected by the terrible tragedy in Crans-Montana, and my support for the Swiss authorities. The British embassy has been supporting the family of Charlotte Niddam, who was educated in Hertfordshire and in north-west London. I can confirm that yesterday Charlotte’s family were given the devastating news that her remains had been identified. Charlotte was just 15. The whole House will be thinking of her and her friends and family now.

Let me turn to Venezuela. Over the weekend, the United States conducted air strikes on a series of Venezuelan targets, and confirmed that it had captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They have been indicted on narcoterrorism, drug smuggling and weapons charges. I can confirm to the House that the United Kingdom was not involved in these operations.

UK policy on Venezuela has long been to press for a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to a democracy that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people, maintains security in the region and is in line with international law. That remains our position and our determined view about what must happen in Venezuela now. Over the weekend I discussed this with the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and the UK Government are in close contact with our international partners on the issue.

The first duty of government is the safety and security of our citizens, and my Department is working tirelessly to ensure the safety of British nationals. Over the weekend I also spoke to the UK chargé d’affaires in Caracas. All our embassy staff are safe and accounted for, and working to support the approximately 500 British nationals in Venezuela. Our travel guidance currently advises against all travel to Venezuela, and British nationals in Venezuela should closely follow that travel advice, which will be kept up to date.

We should be under no illusion as to the nature of the Maduro regime. A once functioning democracy has become a hub for very dangerous organised criminal gangs—corrupt links have involved Iran, with Hezbollah increasingly present in recent years, as well as malign support from Russia—and a regime that has facilitated illicit finance, sanctions evasion and organised criminal activity, including narcotics trafficking and illegal gold trading. That undermines the security of the whole region, including UK overseas territories, as well as the United States and other regional partners. The country has been driven into economic ruin, with an 80% drop in its GDP in a decade. More than 8 million people have left, which has caused instability elsewhere in the region.

We have seen Maduro’s regime systematically dismantle democratic institutions, silencing dissent and weaponising state resources to maintain power through fear and corruption. The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into possible crimes against humanity, following reports of hundreds of extrajudicial killings, including at the hands of Venezuela’s security services and paramilitary groups under the regime’s command. UN investigators have repeatedly reported a pattern of arbitrary detentions, tortures and killings.

In the July 2024 presidential election, millions of Venezuelans voted, but the official results have never been published. The opposition leader, María Corina Machado, was banned from standing by Maduro. International observers cited basic failures of election integrity. Independent tallies covering 80% of polling stations showed a clear victory for Edmundo González, yet Maduro claimed victory.

Most recently, in October, the UN independent fact-finding mission reported on state security forces using firearms against protesters after the elections 18 months ago, where 25 people died. González has been forced to leave the country and claim political asylum in Spain. Machado was forced into hiding for her own safety and had to be spirited out of the country to receive her Nobel peace prize in Norway last month.

These are the hallmarks of a regime that clings to power through fear, coercion and violence, not through democratic consent. That is why, as the Prime Minister said on Saturday, we can shed no tears for the end of Maduro’s rule.

Let me turn to UK policy. The UK has long been an advocate for a democratic Venezuela and a vocal critic of the Maduro regime. Since 2019, successive UK Governments have refused to recognise the regime. Through the G7 and the UN, with partners and directly, we have continued to call out the Maduro regime and its appalling human rights violations.

We have also, in some areas, taken a different policy approach from some of our allies. Our other Five Eyes partners have closed their embassies, but we have maintained our diplomatic mission in Caracas at a much more senior level than many of our partners and are seeking dialogue, sustaining direct contact with the opposition, supporting Venezuelan civil society and advocating for British interests.

A year ago, around Maduro’s inauguration, the UK acted alongside partners and announced a wave of new sanctions. We targeted 15 individuals, including judges and senior-ranking officials in Maduro’s regime responsible for undermining democracy and the rule of law, and for human rights violations. We have imposed sanctions on individuals, but not on sectors of the economy, and we have not supported or been involved in blockades or strikes against drug boats. We have continued to directly promote the interests of the British overseas territories, which need to see stability in the region.

Of course, throughout we have promoted and maintained support for international law. The commitment to international law, as the Prime Minister set out on Saturday, is immensely important to this Government. Those principles guide the decisions that we make and the actions that we take as part of Britain’s foreign policy. That commitment to international law is part of our values; it is also strongly in the UK’s national interest. Our manifesto talked about a foreign policy that is progressive and is also realistic, engaging with the world as we find it, in the interests of UK security, prosperity and our values. That means upholding international law and defending democracy, and it means confronting the complex, evolving and hybrid threats that we and our allies face in the world today.

Those principles and values also guide the conversations that we have with our allies across a range of issues where we agree and disagree. In my discussions with Secretary Rubio, I raised the importance of complying with international law, and we will continue to urge all partners to do so at every stage. It is, of course, for the US to set out the legal basis for its actions. The UN Security Council is discussing Venezuela this afternoon. These issues will continue to be matters for international discussion.

I discussed with Secretary Rubio what should happen next and our continued commitment to a transition to a peaceful and stable democracy. Our collective immediate focus must be on avoiding any deterioration in Venezuela into further instability, criminality, repression or violence. That would be deeply damaging for the people of Venezuela, our own overseas territories, our allies in the US and other regional partners.

The UK has long been clear that the leadership of Venezuela must reflect the will of the Venezuelan people, so the international community must come together to help achieve a peaceful transition to a democratic Government who respect the rights and will of their people. That must mean action on the economic crisis, the release of political prisoners, the return of opposition politicians, an end to political repression, respect for human rights, and plans for the holding of free and fair elections. I urge the acting President, Delcy Rodríguez, to take these steps forward, because the people of Venezuela have a right to decide their own future.

The US Secretary of State and I discussed the particular role that the UK can play to support a peaceful democratic transition and stability. Drawing on our embassy in Caracas and on the work that we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities and regime, and of course our relationship with the US, to that end I have also spoken today with Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado. Her unwavering fight for democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Venezuela, and against oppression, is inspirational. We will keep in touch over the days and weeks ahead.

Finally, let me turn briefly to another matter. The House will have seen recent comments from the United States and from Denmark regarding Greenland. Let me be very clear on the UK’s position: Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Our close European partners, our long-standing NATO allies and all our countries work closely together on security issues and will always do so. The future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes, and no one else. I commend this statement to the House.

January 5, 2026
James MacCleary – 2026 Speech on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

The speech made by James MacCleary, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes and Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike by removing legal avenues to justice and eroding public trust. Elements of the Government’s new Bill are welcome, particularly the desire to move towards reconciliation and information recovery, but those aims cannot come at the expense of justice and fairness, or the rights of those who served. Our concern is not to shield wrongdoing; it is to ensure fairness for those who acted within the law as it stood at the time. Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection.

Recruitment and retention is already an acknowledged challenge for our armed forces. Given the flaws in the Bill, an impact in this area could only further the case against it. What steps is the Minister taking to protect personnel who served during the troubles who followed the laws of the day? Given the extreme concern across the armed forces community about the impact that this legislation could have, will he consider halting the Bill, and replacing it with one that puts veterans at its heart?

Al Carns

I have been really clear: I have been working with veterans across the whole UK, with Northern Ireland and with the commissioners to ensure that the protections that we put in place are written into legislation and are well thought-through, so that the process does not become the punishment. People have said in Northern Ireland that the prospects of prosecution are vanishingly small. We must also ensure that other groups, such as families who lost loved ones in the troubles, get truth, reconciliation and justice, but in doing so, we must absolutely protect our veterans. We will put six protections in place; we will get five of them straight into the Bill, and written into law. We are working through the sixth one, a protocol to ensure no cold calling. It will ensure that anybody who is required to give evidence remotely, rather than by going to Northern Ireland, is engaged with by either the MOD or a regimental association. The main aim of involving our veterans was for them to help me articulate how we can stop this process from being wielded as a punishment against those who served our country so valiantly and honourably in Northern Ireland.

January 5, 2026
James Cartlidge – 2026 Speech on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

The speech made by James Cartlidge, the Shadow Defence Secretary, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

Our legacy Act ensured that those who served bravely in Northern Ireland could sleep soundly in their beds at night, knowing that they would not be hauled before the courts for protecting all of us from terrorism decades ago. But when our Act was challenged in the courts, instead of appealing, Labour immediately caved and is now scrapping those protections. This will reopen cases, such as Loughgall, from 1987, when IRA members were shot while mounting a bomb attack on a police station, having fired first on the Army.

Loughgall involved 24 SAS soldiers, so it is no wonder that on 30 December, seven senior former SAS officers wrote an extraordinary letter stating:

“Commanders now hesitate, fearing years of litigation. Troops feel abandoned…This self-sabotage needs no foreign hand…In this Troubles Bill, the Government is complicit in this war on our Armed Forces.”

The Minister knows the operational importance of special forces as much as anyone. Does he recognise the huge hit to morale if cases like Loughgall are restarted because of the troubles Bill?

Of course, the Government will say that we need the troubles Bill to pursue unsolved IRA crimes, but as the Prime Minister’s own appointed Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner David Johnstone warned last week, soldiers may be dragged before the courts, but IRA terrorists walk free because the weapons they used were decommissioned without forensic testing. Was the commissioner not right to say that veterans are treated “worse than terrorists”? Furthermore, last October the Government said that the troubles Bill would contain protections specifically for veterans. Will the Minister confirm that all the protections in the Bill also apply to terrorists?

In November, eight retired four-star generals and an air chief marshal described the troubles Bill as a

“direct threat to national security”.

The letter from seven former SAS officers said that they

“are not asking for immunity; they simply want fair procedures and decisive political leadership”.

With the threats that we face and the need to maximise recruitment and retention, can the Minister show decisive political leadership of his own and scrap the troubles Bill?

Al Carns

As the shadow Defence Secretary has raised a question about recruitment and retention, it is important that we look at the record of his own Government. Military morale fell to record lows under his Government, with just four in 10 personnel in the UK armed forces satisfied with service life; satisfaction fell from 60% to 40% in 2024. Is that surprising when there were real-terms pay cuts in nine out of the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power and over 13,000 housing complaints in a single year? I will not be lectured by the hon. Gentleman on this issue.

I would suggest that to mention that I have an insight into the operational imperative of our forces, as the tip of the spear, is a slight underestimation. I would argue that there are several people in this House who would understand that, including one who is stood here and another on the Opposition Benches. We have been left with a mess and our Northern Ireland veterans were in a legal wild west because of what the Conservatives did with the last legacy Act. No party in Northern Ireland agreed with that Act or supported it, so we had to sort that out—this Government will not allow that situation to continue.

Let me be very clear: we are listening. We have spoken to the Royal British Legion and other associations. I speak to military cohorts on a weekly, if not daily, basis and I speak to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner almost every day. We are working collaboratively and collectively to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose, that it protects the individuals, that the process does not become the punishment for those individuals, and that we do not allow any terrorist organisation to rewrite history through the courts.

January 5, 2026
Al Carns – 2026 Statement on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

The statement made by Al Carns, the Minister for the Armed Forces, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

This Labour Government are committed to renewing the contract with those who serve, and our commitment is reflected in our actions. That is why we have given our armed forces the largest pay rise in 20 years, committed to invest £9 billion to fix forces homes, scrapped 100 out-of-date medical policies for entry standards, and created novel ways of entry including our new gap year scheme and a cyber direct entry pathway with its first cohort graduating in November. It is also why, at Christmas, this Government funded travel for up to 35,000 service personnel to be with their families over the festive period.

The Government’s actions are having an effect. On recruitment, inflow continues to improve and is up 13% this year compared with September 2024. Applications to join the armed forces and intakes to basic training both continue to remain high. On retention, under the Conservatives morale had been falling year on year, with more people leaving than joining; we have started to reverse that decline with an 8% reduction in outflow this year compared with September 2024.

The question refers to the impact of the troubles Bill. The Government have brought forward the troubles Bill to effectively and legally deal with the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland. The complexity of dealing with this issue is not lost on me. The reality is that the previous Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 did not have unfaltering support, and we are focused on navigating a workable route through this incredibly emotive and difficult topic in a fair and proportionate manner.

The military cohorts most impacted by legacy processes are those at the very tip of the spear. There is no evidence to suggest that this Bill has had an impact on their recruitment or indeed retention. The House will understand that we do not comment on matters of special forces, but let me echo what the Defence Secretary has said directly to the community: we have your back. I am assured in my interactions with those in the command of, or serving in, our special forces that they continue to deliver at the very front edge of the nation’s effort to counter the threats that we and the UK face. I say to them: you have my support and this Government’s unequivocal support.

The Government owe all those who served in defence of peace during the troubles an immense debt of gratitude. We understand the immense psychological toll that legacy proceedings can have and the concerns of the veterans community. We are working closely with representatives of veterans and the armed forces community to understand their concerns and ensure that this Bill meets their need. But to link recruitment and retention with the Northern Ireland legacy Bill is incorrect.

January 5, 2026
Dan Tomlinson – 2026 Statement on Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

The statement made by Dan Tomlinson, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for asking this question. I wish a happy new year to her and to all Members of the House.

The reforms announced in December go further to protect more farms and businesses while maintaining the core principle that more valuable agricultural and business assets should not receive unlimited relief.

The allowance for the 100% rate of relief for agricultural property relief and business property relief will be increased from £1 million to £2.5 million when it is introduced in April. That means that a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million of agricultural or business assets tax-free between them, on top of the existing allowances such as the nil rate band. Taken together with the reform announced at the recent Budget, widows and widowers will benefit from up to £2.5 million of their spouse’s allowance, even if their spouse passed away many years ago.

Our changes further reduce the number of estates forecast to pay more inheritance tax, and they further reduce the liability for many of the remaining estates. Compared with Budget 2025, the number of estates claiming APR—including those also claiming BPR—affected by the reforms in the coming tax year is expected to halve, from what would have been 375 estates to just 185 estates. That means that around 85% of estates claiming agricultural property relief in 2026-27 are forecast to pay no more inheritance tax on their estates under the changes.

The Government have announced these changes after listening carefully to feedback from the farming community and family businesses, and I am pleased that the National Farmers’ Union and others have welcomed the changes. Even after the reforms, the Government expect to raise around £300 million in 2029-30 from our changes to these tax reliefs. We are making fair and responsible choices to support the farming community, with a record £11.8 billion investment in sustainable farming and food production over this Parliament, and to modernise our tax system for the future.

January 5, 2026
Jess Brown-Fuller – 2026 Speech on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

The speech made by Jess Brown-Fuller, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Criminal Justice, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

The news that offenders absconded from HMP Leyhill on new year’s day is yet another example of the glaring incompetence of the MOJ when it comes to maintaining control of the prison population. This situation has yet again placed the public at risk and lets down victims. It also raises serious questions about why some of these prisoners were placed in a category D prison. Matthew Armstrong, a convicted murderer, has a history of violent incidents in custody, including leading a riot and attacking prison guards. Given that record, why did the MOJ feel able to approve his transfer to an open prison? What steps are the Government taking to review the criteria for violent offenders being assessed for transfer to category D prisons when they could pose a risk to the public again? What additional resources are being provided to the victims of these individuals, including the prison officer assaulted by Armstrong who is no longer serving? I hope that lessons are being learned from the case of Lenny Scott.

Does the Minister believe that poor transfer decisions are being made based on a lack of capacity in our closed prisons, or is she satisfied that the processes of the Parole Board and the Department are strong enough? Can she reassure the House now that we will not be coming back to have this same conversation again in 2027?

Alex Davies-Jones

I welcome the questions from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. To reassure the House, offenders who are serving a life sentence or an IPP sentence for public protection will be approved for a transfer to open conditions only in response to a recommendation by the Parole Board. Before making that recommendation, the Parole Board conducts a thorough risk assessment of the offender’s risk of harm and risk of absconding, taking into account all those assessments provided by qualified HM Prison and Probation Service staff and other agencies. The Secretary of State does have the ability to reject a recommendation from the Parole Board, but to do so they would need evidence to dispute the board’s assessment of risk. Officials, on behalf of the Secretary of State, concluded that there were no grounds under the published policy to reject the board’s recommendations for any of these three individuals.

On absconding more generally, it is important that I state categorically to the House that there were 57 absconds in the year ending March 2025, which is a 2% decrease from 58 the previous year. The number of absconds is falling year on year, and has fallen from 143 in the 12 months to March 2020. It is coming down substantially due to a sustained focus on this area. Open prisons work; they are a key part of the programme of rehabilitation and of reintegrating offenders into society. However, sometimes prisoners abscond and it is important that all steps are taken to bring them back into custody when that occurs.

January 5, 2026
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.

January 5, 2026
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.

January 5, 2026