Andy Slaughter
MP for Hammersmith and Chiswick · Labour · United Kingdom
“I welcome the Bill, and thank the Government for introducing it and bringing it back to the House before the summer recess. It is the result of years of committed campaigning, led by the families of the victims and survivors of Hillsborough.”
“I know that case means a huge amount to the hon. Lady as a constituency MP, and I thank her for all the work she does on the Justice Committee. I think we have only begun to scratch the surface. This Bill will be a transforming piece of legislation. I will make one final comment.”
“This would be a new, independent public body that collated, analysed and followed up on the conclusions and recommendations made after official investigations into deaths and state failings, in order to improve oversight and implementation of them.”
“I think I have taken enough time, but I thank the Member for that intervention. This afternoon, the Justice Committee signed off a new major report on legal aid, which will be published on Friday. Those who are interested can read more there.”
“In the time that I have, I will focus my remarks on clauses 1 to 16, which create a new appeals body for immigration and asylum cases known as the independent immigration appeals authority.”
“From that visit, our diagnosis was that these are operational problems. There are two key questions for the House: will the IIAA fix the problems with the current system, and will it be truly independent from the Home Office?”
The complete record
Every one of 7,200 lines we hold for Andy Slaughter, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 144.
“My constituency neighbours Kensington, where Grenfell is located, and many of my constituents live in high-rise blocks only a few moments’ walk from Grenfell Tower. I am conscious of the fact that so much more needs to be done on fire safety. The all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue has done a very good job in keeping this issue alive, but it is quite clear from what we saw only a few days ago in Glasgow that the danger from fire is great. New risks also appear: Grenfell was an electrical fire, like many fires are, but we increasingly have the danger of lithium batteries—explosive devices that anyone can take into their own home, but which can wreak havoc. This debate is specifically about the memorial, so let me say a few words about that.”
“The Grenfell Tower fire was a momentous as well as a tragic event. It fundamentally changed the way we look at fire safety, social housing and the emergency services. Most of all, it changed the lives of many people—not just those who lost their lives or were injured and traumatised, but their family, their community and people across a much wider swathe of west London. Indeed, there were ramifications across the whole country and beyond. I pay tribute to all the Front Benchers for supporting this Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for showing his usual sober but committed attitude towards his constituents and to ensuring that the wrongs of Grenfell are righted. Nine years on, and there is still no justice for the Grenfell families, but that reckoning must come.”
“Given the current dire situation, with many victims waiting two or more years for their cases to be resolved and defendants spending far too long in custodial remand, the Government are right to propose structural change; otherwise, they would be endorsing perpetual delay.”
“The number of outstanding cases in the Crown court is 79,619. The outgoing Conservative Government promised to reduce the backlog; it should have been 53,000 by April last year. Their abject failures led the present Government to ask one of the country’s most foremost experts on the criminal courts, Sir Brian Leveson, to propose comprehensive court reforms—reforms without precedent in half a century. Sir Brian produced his review in two parts, totalling over 1,000 pages and 180 recommendations. The Bill legislates where legislation is necessary to implement parts of Sir Brian’s review.”
“To those concerns should be added the differing eligibility for legal aid in the Crown and magistrates courts and concerns that the loss of a lay presence in determining innocence or guilt risks losing diversity and adding unconscious bias.”
“I am concerned that those are very ambitious targets, and that even if the recruitment bear fruit, they will not meet the challenge of diverting 24,000 days of complex hearings from the Crown court each year while dealing with the existing problems in the magistrates court, which has its own backlog. Clause 7, which seeks to reform appeals from the magistrates court, will require electronic recording of proceedings. That strikes me as a significant change. The impact assessment is not clear about how much that will cost, but I doubt whether it can be delivered either quickly or cheaply. Another area of concern is the process for allocating cases for judge-only trials. Prosecution and defence lawyers will wish to make written and oral submissions, and some may seek to challenge decisions on allocation by judicial review.”
“The work of the magistrates court is delivered by a range of dedicated public servants: magistrates, district judges, legal advisers, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, probation, the Crown Prosecution Service and legal aid lawyers. However, we know that recruiting and retaining many of those key personnel are long-standing problems. The Lord Chancellor wrote to the Justice Committee last week and told us that the Ministry of Justice hopes to recruit thousands of magistrates and hundreds of legal advisers and district judges over the next year or two.”
“Of the 3% of criminal cases that currently go before a jury, about a third—some 4,000—of the less serious of those offences, such as possession of class A drugs, car theft, affray and large-scale waste dumping, will now go before a judge alone. I do not believe that undermines the jury system, although it will undoubtedly change how some cases are tried. Therefore, arrangements for judge-only trials in the Crown court need to be carefully reviewed once they are in force to test whether they deliver the time saving promised without undermining the right to a fair trial. I turn to my reservations on the proposals. I am concerned that magistrates courts will not be able to cope with the increase in caseload envisaged by the Bill.”
“I accept the Government’s argument that there is a strong case for modernising how the Crown court operates. Some improvement will be achieved through adopting the measures on efficiency set out in part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, or the additional resources promised under the concordat with the Lady Chief Justice that will remove restrictions on court sitting days, but those are unlikely to be enough on their own. Given the crisis that the criminal courts are facing, I am willing to support the creation of the Crown court bench division and the other measures in part 1 of the Bill. I do not accept the case made by some that the proposals represent the end for jury trial and that the Bill should be opposed on that basis.”
“That will deliver on the main objective of these reforms, which is to ensure the capacity of the Crown court to try the most serious criminal cases in a fair and timely manner. There has been less scrutiny on how magistrates will cope with their new responsibilities; I will deal with that in a moment. Clauses 3 to 5—the provisions that have attracted the most debate—will establish the Crown court bench division to enable cases with a likely sentence of three years or less to be tried on indictment without a jury. Clause 4 will allow trial by judge alone for some complex and lengthy cases. Compared to the other measures in part 1 of the Bill, those will have a less significant effect on the backlog, but a still substantial 5,000 Crown court days will be saved.”
“Not yet; I am conscious of the time. The removal of the right to elect for either way offences in clause 1 is the single most significant measure in reducing the caseload of the Crown court, with the Bill’s impact assessment indicating that that change will see 16,000 fewer sitting days in the Crown court each year. In clause 6, the Government propose to increase the maximum sentencing power of the magistrates court to 18 months. We are told that will save a further 8,000 sitting days in the Crown court. Taken together, those two measures—ending election and extending magistrates’ powers—represent a sizeable shift of the caseload out of the Crown court and into the magistrates court.”
“I also pay tribute to the campaigners who worked tirelessly for the removal of the presumption of parental involvement. Those measures will help to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our society are protected by our courts. Finally, I know that the Lady Chief Justice will be pleased that the Government have found a legislative vehicle to bring the leadership of tribunals within the wider courts structure. That is a good thing. Overall, this is a necessary package of reforms. I look forward to working with the Government to improve it as it progresses through Parliament.”
“As the Bill progresses, I hope that the Government will listen to Members of this House and the other place and to those with an interest in the criminal justice system—from lawyers to victims—on how it can be clarified and improved. The Justice Committee has held evidence sessions and been in detailed correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, the Courts Minister and Sir Brian for several months. Our current call for evidence closes tomorrow, and on 17 March we will hold a further evidence session. I do not have time to cover the other important but less controversial parts of the Bill, but I would like to recognise the Law Commission, which has done the hard work on the proposals on evidence in sexual offence prosecutions that lies behind clauses 8 to 12.”
“That is exactly the point that I somewhat briefly alluded to; I am glad that my hon. Friend outlined it in more detail. The Government really must address that before the Bill concludes its passage through this House and the other place. In relation to both restriction of jury trials and the decision not to accept Sir Brian’s recommendation that a judge should sit with lay magistrates in the Crown court bench division, the point has been made that the lay element is being limited too far. I could say a lot more, but I am conscious of the time. Many details need to be worked out. I see why the Government are giving themselves until March 2028 to implement the Bill’s proposals.”
“It is a pity that the shadow Minister is reducing this issue to one of his conspiracy theories, because I know that the Minister is an advocate of open justice, and the Government are doing a lot on open justice by televising the family courts, publishing transcripts and other means. Courtsdesk gave evidence to the Select Committee in its 2022 inquiry into open justice, and it is, I think, the only centralised source of information for journalists. It is an important tool, because court reporting and local journalism have suffered greatly over the past years. We do need a service of this kind, so when can the Minister tell us what will replace it? In the meantime, will she continue to talk to Courtsdesk, notwithstanding what she has said today, to ensure that the information can be provided for journalists in a legitimate and legal way?”
“Does the Minister have plans to introduce a national social tariff? It was not in the recent White Paper, but Independent Age, which is a national charity based in my constituency, estimates that such a tariff could lift up to half a million pensioner households out of water poverty entirely.”
“Now we have Sir Brian Leveson’s full review, it is clear that very few of the 180 recommendations relate to jury trials. The most controversial is really the use of a single judge in the new Crown court bench division. Given that that provision will likely not contribute very much to reducing the backlog, does the Solicitor General think that we should look again at that—maybe at the length of sentence that is dealt with by that particular provision?”
“Given what Minister said about adherence to international law, will he just put on the record why the Government have not responded to the advisory opinion of the ICJ for over 18 months now? Is it because the consequence of that response is that there would have to be sanctions against settlements, which are illegal under international law?”
“There is a lot of focus on replacing juries with a single judge in some criminal trials, but the Government also intend to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers, so that they can give sentences of up to 18 or 24 months, which is beyond what Sir Brian Leveson suggests. Is it the Government’s intention that district judges sitting alone will be able to sentence offenders to up to 24 months?”
“The Secretary of State will shortly make a statement on violence in separation centres. I apologise that I will not be here for it as the Select Committee has a long-planned court visit, but I will read Sir Jonathan Hall KC’s report carefully. Will the Secretary of State also look at violence on the youth estate and the 44% year-on-year increase in assaults on staff by children? What are the Government doing about that?”
“In the long term, stopping reoffending is the surest method of controlling prison numbers, so will the Minister comment on the hugely disappointing news in his response to our report that core education in prisons—one of the keys to rehabilitation —is being cut by an average of 20% to 25%?”
“The prison population is comprised in significant part of cohorts of prisoners who, for a variety of reasons, should not be there in current numbers. That includes prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, foreign national offenders, remand prisoners and, according to press reports today, record numbers of recalled offenders, only around 20% of whom have committed new offences. What more can the Government do to reduce the numbers in prison without any threat to public safety? Should the annual statement not also include statistics on rehabilitation, as the Justice Committee called for in its recent report?”
“Last night, a 30-inch water main burst at Holland Park roundabout on the boundary of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). Homes and cars were flooded to a depth of 3 feet, and since the water was diverted away from the burst, thousands of residents across west London have had little or no fresh water, schools are closed and traffic is in chaos. This and hundreds of smaller bursts in the recent cold weather are the legacy of Thames Water’s failure over not years but decades. Can I thank the Minister for her statement? For my constituents, effective inspection and regulation cannot come soon enough.”
“I apologise that I was not here for the Minister’s opening speech; I was chairing the Justice Committee. I do not think that matters, though, because I agree with him on the amendments. They strengthen the Bill considerably. They bring more openness and transparency, and we welcome all the recommendations here, whether in relation to the Sentencing Council, to the prison capacity report, to the transcripts through the amendments in lieu, or to IPP prisoners. They are all welcome improvements on the Bill. We think that they need to go further in some areas, particularly in relation to IPP prisoners, but this is a good step along the way.”
“It is the first step towards ensuring that prisons are not only a place of safety, but a place of rehabilitation and reform.”
“Without reform and investment, we are unlikely to tackle sophisticated supply networks, deficiencies in treatment, the lack of purposeful activity, the poor condition of the prison estate and serious capacity pressures. Prisons will remain unstable, unsafe and incapable of gaining control over the drugs crisis. We know that the Prison Service and the ministerial team are committed to taking tangible and practical steps to control the prevalence of drugs in prison. Failure to do so undermines the Government’s whole programme of prison reform and their sincere intent to tackle the crisis in our prisons, which they inherited. This is a problem for the current Government to solve. I hope they will look again at some of the recommendations that we have made, and increase the intensity with which we drive down the drug culture in prisons.”
“We called for substance misuse treatment to be commissioned separately from general healthcare contracts—a move supported by evidence from Dame Carol Black. The Government’s plan to transition responsibility to NHS integrated care boards falls short of that. The period immediately following release is a time of vulnerability, but the Government have rejected our recommendation to introduce a universal roll-out of take-home naloxone kits for those leaving custody, citing concerns over value for money. Given that 61% of post-release deaths are drug related, we believe that saving lives must be the priority. The Government response lacks the comprehensive plan needed to gain control over this crisis.”
“Without access to work, education or therapeutic programmes, prisoners are left in a state of idleness, where drugs become a primary coping mechanism to get through their sentence. The Government have accepted our recommendation to expand access to purposeful activities, but that will be contradicted by rumoured cuts in prison education. The physical and operational toll of drug use is catastrophic and is characterised by a surge in medical emergencies, known as code blues. These incidents divert essential healthcare resources and force regime restrictions, further reducing access to the purposeful activities that might steer prisoners away from drugs. This environment has left frontline staff desensitised to the daily suffering and at risk of illness themselves due to secondary exposure to drugs.”
“As long as these criminal networks can communicate reliably through illicit smartphones to co-ordinate debt and supply, the crisis will only deepen. We acknowledge the £40 million investment in security infrastructure. However, the Government’s commitment to the Committee’s specific recommendations for disruption remains limited. While partially accepting our calls for better security, the Government have yet to commit to the rapid, estate-wide development of a SkyFence system, which is working well in Guernsey. We also addressed the drivers of demand. Our report found that 49% of prisoners enter the system with an identified drug need, yet the environment they find themselves in—routinely locked in cells for up to 22 hours a day—drives them further towards drugs as a form of escapism.”
“One of the most concerning findings of our report is the dominant role that organised criminal gangs now play in the prison drugs trade. We have moved away from what was described as a cottage industry of small-scale smuggling towards a sophisticated, gang-led structure. These gangs monopolise the lucrative prison market, where drugs can sell for up to 100 times their street value, fuelling debt, intimidation and violence. Debt incurred by drug users is often collected from family members who, if they cannot pay inflated bills, are coerced into cuckooing or criminal activity. Prisoners in debt are also used as guinea pigs to test the potency of new, untested drugs. We called for systems capable of tracking the electronic financial transactions that underpin organised crime operations within prison walls.”
“Our Committee recommended that the Government commit to this lifelong vetting model as the minimum operational standard. In their response, the Government stated that they “do not accept the need for a lifelong vetting model as the minimum operational standard”. Instead of the continuous lifelong assessment described to the Committee in the ministerial session, the Government have opted to re-vet staff only once every three to five years. We are alarmed by the paradigm shift caused by drones, which now deliver bespoke packages of drugs and other contraband, such as phones, directly to cell windows. There was a 770% increase in drone sightings between 2019 and 2023. An official at the Ministry of Justice told us that they had seen drones that could lift a moderate-sized person.”
“We recommend that all frontline staff undergo a mandatory face-to-face interview, led by governors, to improve screening. The Government have only partially accepted that. We believe that bypassing governor scrutiny in the hiring process facilitates criminal activity. During our inquiry, we took evidence from the Prisons Minister and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service officials. We were provided with what we believe to be a clear and ambitious vision for vetting reform. We heard that HMPPS was moving towards a lifelong vetting model, ensuring that security assessments are not just a one-off event at entry, but a continuous process throughout an employee’s career. We were told that the organisational position was to align the standards of HMPPS vetting with other tier 1 agencies, such as the police.”
“We heard of drugs being concealed in babies’ nappies or new psychoactive substances being sprayed on to fake legal correspondence and children’s drawings. A major failure of security is disrepair in the prison estate, which allows access through broken windows and collapsed netting. We recommended that prison governors be able to procure critical security repairs within 72 hours. The Government have rejected that in favour of existing facilities management contracts. When we visited HMP Brixton, we heard that it took one year to repair netting that had collapsed due to snowfall. Although most prison staff are dedicated professionals, a small minority are manipulated by organised criminal gangs into smuggling drugs into prison.”
“We asked for mandatory drug testing to return at least to pre-pandemic levels, and for waste water testing to be rolled out faster. Those are essential steps just to identify the source, scale and nature of the drug problem. We called for more drug-free wings and for full body scanners to be provided in all prisons. Those are essential steps to controlling drug ingress. However, these recommendations were not agreed. The chief inspector of prisons, Charlie Taylor, has described a “menu of drugs” entering our prisons through a variety of methods. Traditional routes, such as social visits and post, continue to be significant channels for smuggling in drugs, as do throw-overs—packages thrown over prison walls.”
“We found a system struggling to keep pace with changing drug use, where established substances are being replaced by highly potent synthetic opioids and cannabinoids, often sourced by organised criminal gangs. The crisis is not merely institutional; it is a human tragedy. Between December 2022 and December 2024, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman investigated 833 deaths, of which 136 were classified as drug-related. Although the Government have acknowledged the seriousness of the issue, we are disappointed by their response to our report, which accepts only eight of our 29 recommendations, while partially accepting 19 and rejecting two. We feel that the Government’s response fails to match the urgency or degree of the drugs crisis in our prisons.”
“I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for me to make a statement on behalf of the Justice Committee on the Government’s response to the Committee’s sixth report in this Parliament, “Tackling the drugs crisis in our prisons”. The report was published on 31 October 2025, and the Government response was received on 29 December 2025 and published on 9 January 2026. Our inquiry was launched because the Committee was concerned by the growing level of drug use in prisons in England and Wales, and the profound damage that is doing to both the criminal justice system and individual prisoners. Our findings were bleak. The trade in and use of illicit drugs has reached endemic levels, creating a culture of acceptance where just shy of 40% of prisoners said they find it easy to acquire illicit substances.”
“I think it is particularly demoralising for prison staff and governors to see drones coming and going almost casually. The point I often make is that if this was happening around civil airports or military facilities, it would be stopped immediately. The problem, which is not unique to this Government and is in some way dictated by public mood, is that prisons take a lower priority, but we have heard that drones can now bring in bespoke packages and lift considerable weight—perhaps even the weight of a person. This has become an immediate crisis, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.”
“Like the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), my hon. Friend is a very active member of the Committee, and I thank him for making that point. A lot of people would say, “Why do you have drug-free wings? Shouldn’t prisons be drug free per se?” However, that ignores the reality of the situation. Providing more drug-free wings, as he suggests, gives an opportunity to prisoners who wish to come off drugs, but who find it difficult to do so if they are surrounded by a drug culture. That is one of the recommendations that I ask the Government to look at again.”
“Where prisoners are caught taking drugs through testing—we have said that we want testing increased—they need to be punished, but they also need to be offered treatment. We called for a dual approach in relation to that, and the Committee is undertaking a major inquiry into rehabilitation at the moment. We wanted to do the drugs inquiry as a preliminary to that, because without controlling the worst effects of drugs, rehabilitation is extremely difficult in prisons.”
“I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen some progress being made at HMP Wandsworth, and today we have the publication of the independent investigation there. Staff are working incredibly hard, and prison officers do a dangerous and difficult job—we cannot say that enough. After the disastrous actions of the previous Government, who reduced the number of prison officers to below safety levels, there has been a big recruitment campaign. The problem is that new officers do not have the experience, and we have lost a lot of experienced prison officers. It is a difficult and dangerous job to do, and we need not only to support those officers, but to provide them with the correct training.”
“As always, the hon. Gentleman gets to the heart of the matter. That statistic he quoted for the number of people who develop a drug habit in prison—they go in there clean, and come out with an addiction problem—says all we need to know about the endemic nature of the problem that I described. We will of course share the report, and I hope it will be useful in Northern Ireland.”
“This is my hon. Friend’s area of expertise. I mentioned the recommendations of Dame Carol Black, who is widely recognised as one of the best experts in this area; successive Governments have turned to her. She is very clear about the need to improve treatment. I have seen the correspondence from Collective Voice, which bears the authority of many organisations that engage with this issue across the country. This is a distinct problem that needs a bespoke remedy, and I hope the Government will hear that.”
“First, I am pleased that my hon. Friends are making links with their prisons. I hope all Members who have a prison will visit it regularly; I had the Scrubs in my patch for 20 years. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend wants to set targets for the Committee, rather than leave that for the Committee to deal with. We will monitor this and follow it up on a regular basis because, as I have said, without control of the drugs problem in prisons, so many other things become impossible to do. If he wants to set some benchmarks, I will ensure that we try to keep to them.”
“Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is also a very assiduous member of the Committee, and I want to finish on a positive note. In this report, we inevitably concentrated on the problems and issues on which we do not feel the Government are acting. However, I am fully appreciative that the ministerial team—and particularly the noble Lord Timpson—are keen to resolve the issues of not just prison overcrowding and conditions, but of criminal activity involving drugs in prison. The objective is to get prison numbers down not by early releases, but by rehabilitation and cutting reoffending, and I see this as a series of stepping stones along that route. Much of the work we do as a Committee is linked together to that end, and I know my hon. Friend will be part of that process.”
“Secondly, we must have the Government’s response to the report, saying which recommendations they accept entirely or in part and which they reject. Then will come the Bill putting necessary recommendations into law and accompanied, we are told, by an impact assessment giving greater statistical colour to the effect of the proposals on the backlog.”
“Sir Brian makes clear that all the recommendations and both parts of his report are a package, not a pick-and-mix selection. That is because he believes that the crisis in the Crown court, with trials for serious offences waiting three or four years to be heard, is so severe that every lever must be pulled to control and then reduce it, and in that he is surely right. Moreover, this is not a short-term problem. Changes in the complexity and detail of criminal cases mean that longer and more legally and factually difficult trials are here to stay. For that reason, Sir Brian does not recommend that changes should be temporary or curtailed, for example by a sunset clause, in any legislation. So what happens now? First, we must have Sir Brian’s full report to consider, and, as I have said, part 2 is due imminently.”
“The background to this debate is well known. Against that background of a historically high and growing backlog of cases in the Crown court provoked by the previous Government, the former Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an independent review of the criminal courts with the aim of bringing the backlog down. Part 1 of the review was published in July 2025, and suggests structural and policy changes. Sir Brian made 45 recommendations, a few of which concerned changes in mode of trial; those have become the main issue of contention, because they restrict the right to jury trial. The policy changes proposed came first because some require primary legislation, but in a matter of weeks we will also have part 2, which will look at greater efficiency in the Crown court and may be less contentious.”
“I certainly prefer their honest endeavour to the gamesmanship of the Conservative party, which broke the system and now seeks to use its dilapidated condition as a political tool.”
“We may have some criticism of the Bill or of the Government’s response to the review and seek to amend, but, like the Government and, I think, Members in all parts of the House, we hear every week of fresh indignities heaped on victims of crime, and on defendants too, who are made to wait for years beyond what is humane, often in a physical or mental prison, for a resolution of their cases. Not to consider them is not to be serious either about the damage that delay is doing to individuals or about the damage that it is doing to confidence in our courts. This is not a one-way valve; there are gains and losses, whatever course we take. For the present, I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt that they are looking for every possible measure to repair our battered justice system.”
“We are not going to get the answers to all these questions today, although I hope that we will before long. I prefer the Government amendment, which anticipates the provision of this information, to the Opposition motion, which prejudges what it will contain, and I acknowledge that the Government have already increased the budget and have already introduced greater-efficiency measures. The Justice Committee is seized of this issue. We heard evidence from Sir Brian Leveson in November and interrogated the Lord Chancellor in December, and next week we will hear from opponents and supporters of the proposed reforms and from the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, who opened this debate.”