Nick Timothy
MP for West Suffolk · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I was nine years old at the time of the Hillsborough tragedy, and I remember listening to the news of the terrible events on the radio, sitting behind my parents in the car.”
“I think the hon. Lady, whether it is by design or by mistake, misunderstands my point. Of course, there should be accountability and transparency, and there are many ways in which we can do that, but there are ways of doing it that do not jeopardise the operations of the most sensitive organisations in the country by revealing their sourc…”
“My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Prime Minister said this was going to be one of his first acts as Prime Minister; it turns out it is going to be his final act as Prime Minister.”
“They have known grief and suffering none of us would ever wish to experience. This is not a debate about the need for transparency. I am proud to have played a modest part in bringing that about when I worked in the Home Office. Nor is this a debate about the need for accountability.”
“I am confused by that intervention from the hon. Lady, who was the Minister in charge of this Bill. The argument I am making is consistent with the position she brought to the House in January, only to back down when it became controversial.”
“I am tempted to say that the hon. Lady should have a conversation with the Attorney General, who used to prosecute British soldiers and was still appointed to one of the highest offices in the land.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Nick Timothy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“Of course, we may be informed by the trauma, pain and emotion that come from terrible tragedies—tragedies that have, in some instances, been compounded by undue secrecy and even outright dishonesty from the state itself—but it is our job in this place to get the law right, for if we do not, we may find ourselves back here in future debating another tragedy that could have been stopped had it not been for the unintended consequences of what we are debating today.”
“Today we are considering one specific issue among several: is the proposal to extend the duty of candour to the intelligence agencies, the military, military intelligence, Counter Terrorism Policing and the National Crime Agency, which all necessarily work to some degree in secret, appropriate? Does it deliver accountability, and does it allow these sensitive services to do their work to the best of their abilities? Our job today is to consider that question and that question alone.”
“They have known grief and suffering none of us would ever wish to experience. This is not a debate about the need for transparency. I am proud to have played a modest part in bringing that about when I worked in the Home Office. Nor is this a debate about the need for accountability. I have spent many years in different roles making the case for better police accountability and, indeed, working with those who lead and work in our security and intelligence agencies. They themselves would be the first to say—though their work is by definition often secret—that they need to be accountable. They are only citizens of this country, just like everyone else. I am sure that everyone here today agrees on the need for accountability. The question is, how should this accountability work?”
“I was nine years old at the time of the Hillsborough tragedy, and I remember listening to the news of the terrible events on the radio, sitting behind my parents in the car. I was 32 when, while working in the Home Office, I received a copy of the report by the Hillsborough independent panel, which detailed the full horror of that terrible tragedy. In my time in the Home Office I saw many intelligence reports and papers about serious crimes and terror plots, but the Hillsborough report was undoubtedly the most shocking thing I read. More than two decades passed between the tragedy itself and that moment of truth and transparency, and we can only imagine the pain felt by the victims and their families who fought for years for justice. I pay tribute to them and would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister.”
“Allied military and intelligence partners—most notably, the US and other Five Eyes partners—will look at what the Government are doing today and question what can be done to protect them and their methods. The Justice Secretary is once again not here today.”
“I am confused by that intervention from the hon. Lady, who was the Minister in charge of this Bill. The argument I am making is consistent with the position she brought to the House in January, only to back down when it became controversial. As I was saying, this could lead to intelligence that should, for good reasons, remain secret being published, which undermines the way the intelligence agencies and others work. We know this is a matter of grave concern for the agencies, the military and those in law enforcement because they have told us that. The Government know this, because the same people have told Ministers, and we know that the Government accepted this, because that was why they tabled the amendment in January, which they have since dropped.”
“Nobody can say that, because this Bill will change the behaviour, decisions and actions of those we ask to keep us safe, because it might change the terms of the relationships with our allies, and because we cannot anticipate the decisions made by individual heads of future investigations and inquiries.”
“The point is that this is a new duty, which is backed by criminal sanction, and that is why it is different from the status quo. As I was saying, the Justice Secretary is a Privy Counsellor. He is the Deputy Prime Minister. He was once the Foreign Secretary—the man to whom MI6 and GCHQ were accountable. He knows that these sources of intelligence from allies are essential. They support our national interest, protect our way of life and save the lives of innocent people. Neither he nor the Minister can, hand on heart, stand here today and say that they know for sure that this Bill does not endanger that intelligence.”
“What the hon. Lady says is not entirely relevant to this proposition. This is about the provision of information to particular investigations and inquiries, and we do not know—indeed, we cannot know—the identities of the people who lead those investigations and inquiries. That is one of the reasons why this is such a step into the dark.”
“We are sent here to scrutinise legislation. That is what we are doing. We have talked to people in the intelligence agencies, the police and others who are very concerned about this. The concerns that I am expressing were shared by Ministers themselves, which is why the amendment we are proposing today reflects the amendment that the Government themselves brought to the House in January.”
“My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Prime Minister said this was going to be one of his first acts as Prime Minister; it turns out it is going to be his final act as Prime Minister. He is only doing it by the skin of his teeth, because he is presenting a proposal to the House that none of us got to see even this weekend, and those who had been drawn into the consultation process and had been privately consulted say that this bears no relation at all to what they have been shown, even very recently. The Government are clearly doing this on the hoof, and it is very worrying. It is no exaggeration to say that some of those people who may be appointed to lead investigations and inquiries might be influenced or pressured by those whose purpose is the destruction of the British state and British sovereignty itself.”
“These are the reasons that my party proposes an amendment, informed in part by the Government’s own proposed amendment back in January, to give control of secret material back to service leaders, who are rightly then accountable to elected Ministers, in not only the intelligence services but the armed forces, the National Crime Agency and counter-terrorism policing.”
“I can hear sighs and complaints from Government Members, but they do not seem to understand that new laws—especially when they are to be taken in balance with existing laws—are tested in the courts, and their interpretation widens. That is a fact, and it is one of the concerns expressed by the intelligence agencies, the police and others. If Government Members think they are above listening to those people, I am very sorry about that. There are questions, too, about the role of investigations and inquiries set up by the devolved Governments, including in Northern Ireland. I was alarmed by the Minister’s earlier answer to a question about the need to reveal information about intelligence agency sources in that context.”
“I am tempted to say that the hon. Lady should have a conversation with the Attorney General, who used to prosecute British soldiers and was still appointed to one of the highest offices in the land. Irish republicans, Islamist extremists, useful idiots deployed by Putin’s Russia—they will all see the opportunity in this law, as we know they have seen the opportunity in examples of lawfare fought elsewhere, including Northern Ireland. These are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns. [ Interruption. ] There is an additional risk that the security services will be tied up in court cases, thanks to differing interpretations of the legislation, or that the scope of the Bill and the information that must be disclosed will be widened over time.”
“Those employed in other parts of the public sector, such as the welfare system or the health service, might also be affected. These measures also risk snarling up the police and others in time-consuming and costly litigation. There is also a serious risk that the new crime of misleading the public could stifle legitimate political disagreement and debate, criminalise honest mistakes, or punish people for making statements that we only later learn are wrong when the facts change. That is why a lock on such prosecutions, with a requirement for the Attorney General to approve them, is absolutely essential, and we invite hon. Members to support our amendment to ensure that this evening.”
“I think the hon. Lady, whether it is by design or by mistake, misunderstands my point. Of course, there should be accountability and transparency, and there are many ways in which we can do that, but there are ways of doing it that do not jeopardise the operations of the most sensitive organisations in the country by revealing their sources, their methods and their technological capabilities. There are also serious flaws in the proposals to create a new duty to prevent death or serious injury and the new crime of misleading the public. Senior police officers are concerned that the new duty will have a chilling effect on operations. Police officers may be deterred from taking vital split-second decisions to give chase or to restrain, for fear of being sued or charged, placing their careers and livelihoods in jeopardy.”
“We know that these Ministers are in office, but not in power, so will the right hon. Member for Makerfield tell us, and the victims of these criminals, what will happen? We should remember how we got here, for this is an ideologically anti-prison Government, and many of their policies look likely to continue under the new Prime Minister. [ Interruption. ] The sentencing Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. I understand why he is anxious; I have seen the tweets that he sent about the right hon. Member for Makerfield, and I am sure that the next Prime Minister has, too. He said he was going to be “worse than Jeremy Corbyn” and had the “political antennae of a dead cat”.”
“The House is sitting this week and next before the summer recess; there is plenty of time to act. The Government could amend the Sentencing Act 2026 to exclude rapists and child sex offenders through emergency legislation. They could lay new commencement regulations, delaying the instruction of the early release scheme, and give the new Prime Minister enough time to get his act together. We have invited the Government to do those things in the motion before the House, and we understand that they will not contest it. After voting for the Sentencing Act and against our amendment to exclude sex offenders from the early release scheme, today they have folded, but they still cannot tell us the plan. Will they bring forward emergency legislation? Will they bring forward new commencement regulations?”
“They say that his advisers are working on primary legislation, but they also say that as the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is not taking office before the summer recess, they might not be able to act in time. That is what is very strange about this dangerous moment. We have a Prime Minister squatting in Downing Street, holding on until the world cup final, recording videos in empty rooms about his achievements and legacy, and pretending that he will intervene to overturn Jarell Quansah’s red card, with no mandate, no purpose and no authority; and we have the next Prime Minister—indeed, the only candidate to become Prime Minister—saying that he disagrees with what the Government whom he is due to lead will do this September, but that he lacks the time or the power to do anything about it. That is pathetic.”
“Among them, as things stand, will be many violent criminals, including killers, rapists and child sex offenders, because Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted against our amendment to exclude them from the early release scheme. Thanks to those Labour and Lib Dem votes, some of those released may be convicted members of the rape gangs. Our position remains clear: not one of these dangerous, disgusting people should ever have been included in Labour’s early release scheme. It seems that the next leader of the Labour party—the next Prime Minister—disagrees with the Justice Secretary and with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards)—the sentencing Minister—and agrees with us. His people told the Sunday Times that he wants to prevent child sex offenders from walking free.”
“I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to exempt from automatic early release under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 2026 any offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence against an adult or a child, including rape and grooming, or convicted of the attempt, conspiracy, or incitement to commit such offences; further calls on the Government to bring forward legislation to enact this change immediately; and regrets that the Conservative amendment to the Sentencing Act 2026 that would have secured these exemptions was not agreed to. We gather for this important debate at a dangerous but very strange moment. It is dangerous because from September, the Government will start releasing serious criminals from prison part-way through their sentences.”
“Thank you for correcting me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was quoting the tweets so exactly that I forgot my responsibilities. As I was saying, this is an ideologically anti-prison Government, and many of their policies look likely to continue under the new Prime Minister.”
“I think the hon. Gentleman would do well to not take the Whips’ questions, when the Whips have just given up, in the face of the wall of opinion in the parliamentary Labour party, and having given ground in this debate.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend. What I was trying to say gently to the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) was that, if the argument is still that this Government need to let sex offenders out of prison because of a capacity problem, Labour Members will be embarrassed by the policy that is about to be introduced by the new Prime Minister, who agrees with us, not with the hon. Member.”
“They want to increase the age of criminal responsibility to 14, so that criminals such as the killers of Jamie Bulger and one of the Fordingbridge gang rapists can avoid criminal trials. They even want to weaken sentences for some murderers.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Over a period, the construction of prisons has become needlessly expensive and needlessly time-consuming, as has the development of other critical infrastructure in our country. As we come forward with our plans to increase the capacity of our system, we will definitely look at those barriers. The Prisons Minister says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. The sentencing Minister says that a pretty big chunk of the prison population should not be there. The Government have legislated to get rid of short-term sentences, effectively decriminalising shoplifting and many knife crimes. They want to reduce sentences for criminals based on their age and, unsurprisingly, their identity. For some, they want to scrap custodial punishment altogether.”
“That would be bad enough on its own terms, but the Government have completely lost control of the process for early release. They do not even know who is scheduled to be released, or when. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) asked Ministers to break down which offenders would be released when, and to disclose what crimes they had committed. The Minister told the House that it was “not possible to know future release data precisely so far in advance”.”
“More than 7,000 victims have received letters telling them that the perpetrators of the crimes against them may be set loose. No wonder the Justice Secretary is hiding in his ministerial office, rather than defending his record, or the policy that has now been abandoned. In January, as this House considered Lords amendments to the Sentencing Act, the Minister told the House that “nothing in the Bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes”. —[ Official Report , 20 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 199.] We all knew that was nonsense, because when we tabled amendments to exclude from SDS33 those convicted of the most serious offences—rape, sex offences, child sex offences and more—the Government whipped their MPs to vote against us.”
“It is no surprise, as prison governors have been lining up to tell the Government, that in the rush to let criminals out, more prisoners were released in error than at any other time on record. It is no surprise that prisons are finding it harder to ensure that released prisoners have a plan for housing and work—but that is not the only mess caused by this reckless policy. Prisoner recalls are at a record high. In fact, more criminals have been recalled to prison than released under SDS40, but Ministers refuse to tell us how many recalled prisoners were let loose through early release. Now the Government are going further. Under the Sentencing Act 2026 and SDS33, thousands of prisoners will be let out after serving just one third of their time.”
“The hon. Gentleman resembles one of those Japanese soldiers found in 1950 who were still fighting the second world war. The Whips and the Labour party have given up on this debate, and he is still reading out the planted questions given to him earlier today by the Whips, before they bottled it and folded. [ Interruption. ] I would be happy to give way again, if the hon. Gentleman wants to keep on with this argument, but he is chuntering from a sedentary position. The first action of this Prime Minister—the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), if hon. Members can keep up—was to announce that he would let tens of thousands of hardened criminals out of prison early. Between September 2024 and December 2025, under the standard determinate sentence 40 scheme, more than 50,000 prisoners were let out early.”
“I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. The statistics show that between 1993 and 2012, our prison population grew very significantly, and through that period, crime fell. It plateaued after 2012, as the population grew, and that was a mistake. The Opposition are willing to accept that that was one of the errors of the coalition Government and the Conservatives’ time in power. We need to move on from that, and we will develop policies so that a future Conservative Government can build the prison capacity that the country needs.”
“I agree; prison works. It works because it punishes the guilty, gives justice to the innocent and takes dangerous people out of circulation, away from the rest of society, and, in doing so, reduces crime. This is a matter of common sense for most people in the country, but it is a deeply controversial thing to say among many criminologists and policy wonks. I am very clear in my belief that prison works and that we need to use prison far more than we do. Only last week, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) asked the Minister to guarantee that convicted rape gang members would serve their sentences properly, he refused to do so. Lord Timpson, speaking for the Government on Channel 4, went even further: “It is impossible for us to say exactly who will be released, where and when”.”
“The Government say that the criminals they release early will be managed “under strict licence conditions” and can be recalled if those conditions are breached, as though this is some kind of special new initiative. Of course they are released under licence, but the Government refuse to say what those conditions will entail, whether they are new conditions or tougher conditions, what safeguards are in place and what resources will be deployed to ensure that these criminals do not reoffend or disappear from the radar. If they will not even tell us how many prisoners released under SDS40 have been recalled to prison, how can we trust them with what they say about SDS33?”
“Is the cost of this ineptitude yet more crime, yet more victims of crime and yet more lives ruined? A Government who cannot tell the public who they are releasing from prison have no business releasing any of these dangerous criminals. Today, the Government have caved under Conservative pressure, but we still do not know what the policy will be. We have a Minister unable to answer: a political eunuch humiliated by his current boss, the Justice Secretary, and his next boss—if he gets a job—with nothing to say but “Wait for Andy”. The approach of Ministers to all these concerns—legitimate concerns, shared by people up and down the country—has been to say, “Nothing to see here.” They still tell us that it will all be fine, but they have not had the nerve to ask their MPs to vote on it.”
“I completely agree. I am happy to say that if the Government want to bring forward emergency legislation to fix this in primary legislation or, if they want to buy themselves a little more time to consider things more fully, to introduce new commencement regulations delaying the introduction of the early release scheme, the Opposition will completely support them in doing that. For now, however, we do not know. The Government are not in a position to tell us who will be released, what crimes they have committed and when exactly they will be released. When will Ministers know the identity of, and the crimes that have been committed by, those who are due to be released? Are we to wait until they have re-offended, and the details emerge as they are arrested, charged and prosecuted all over again?”
“It is shameful that the Justice Secretary has refused to come to the House today, and it is ridiculous that the Government have bowed to our argument and accepted our motion without telling us or the victims what they plan to do instead. Victims are left in limbo. Are we going to get emergency legislation? Are we going to get new commencement regulations? Which offences will be excluded from the early release scheme? How is this possible when Ministers previously said that it was not? The Minister is about to get to his feet, but I am afraid that he has no authority and no idea what will happen next. This dying Government need to be put out of their misery, and we need answers, not evasion, from the only person who can answer—the right hon. Member for Makerfield.”
“Fiona and several other victims—Sarah Wilson from Rotherham, Carly and Jessica from Huddersfield, Erin from Dewsbury, and the mother of a victim from Rochdale, who has since died—have written to all Members of the House. Several of those brave women and some others are in the Gallery today. They have asked us, in their words “to hear the pain behind this letter…support an amendment to the Sentencing Act” and exclude sex offenders from the early release scheme. We can only imagine the suffering and torment that these women have experienced. To be told that those who abused them over many years may now be back on the streets long before they were supposed to be is not just disgusting but terrifying to them.”
“As I was saying, if the Government are releasing record numbers of prisoners in error, how can we trust them to get these processes right? It is easy for debates like this to be lost in statistics, technocratic jargon and legal language, so I will end on this important note. Fiona Goddard was just 14 when she was abused by a rape gang. Seven of her abusers were convicted. In June last year, Fiona received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing her that her abusers were likely to be eligible soon for early release, having served just half their sentences. Last month she received another letter saying that under the Government’s Sentencing Act, her abusers may now be released after serving just one third of the time she was told they would serve in prison originally.”
“My right hon. Friend puts his finger on the button. This is what we have been saying, and the Government have been saying in response: “No, this is absolutely necessary. We must release these serious sex offenders otherwise there will be a crisis in the prison system.” It is clear that the right hon. Member for Makerfield—the next Prime Minister—agrees with us, not with them. That is why they have folded in this afternoon’s debate. I feel very sorry for the Minister. It is one man, two guvnors, and he is in a very difficult position. Of course it is possible, even if we accept that we need an early release scheme of the kind the Government are introducing, to exclude the sorts of offenders that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East has described.”
“We have brought this motion to the House. The Labour party has accepted that motion—it will not contest it and the House will not divide. Having accepted what we have put in the motion, will the Minister tell us what the plan is to ensure that rapists and sex offenders will not be released, starting from September? Will the Government bring forward emergency legislation before the summer recess? Will they bring forward new commencement regulations—yes or no? The Minister has our commitment of support if he does that. If he is not in a position to say so, because it is up to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and he does not yet know, the Minister can just say that.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. I listened very carefully to the Ministers who opened and closed the debate, and the position appears to be that while the Government Whips feel that this is a proposition that cannot be defended, the Ministers at the Ministry of Justice think that it must be defended. In fact, the Ministers in effect said that, regardless of the result of this vote and regardless of the will of the House being expressed, the policy will continue. Could you advise me on whether this contempt for the will of the House is in keeping with the business and the rules of this place, as well as the ministerial code?”
“The Justice Secretary and his ministerial team say that the attack on jury trials is needed to deal with the backlog in the courts. When the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) takes over and scraps the policy on jury trials, does the Minister predict that court backlogs will get worse?”
“I listened carefully but do not think the Minister answered my question— [ Interruption. ] We will see, won’t we? I am replying to the Justice Secretary’s comment from a sedentary position. I think the Minister has just made it very difficult for herself to stay in the Ministry of Justice when the right hon. Member for Makerfield takes over. The Government are continuing to say that the attack on jury trials is vital and there is no alternative, but we know that is not what the next leader of the Labour party thinks. He has made it clear that he is going to scrap the policy, so will the Minister spell out what this means? She is saying that the right hon. Member for Makerfield is wrong, isn’t she?”
“The Government referred the sentences of the teenage gang rapists who attacked two schoolgirls to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient, but the Government also say that they want to increase the age of criminal responsibility, and the Bar Council has said that age should be 14. That is one year older than the age of one of those rapists—proof that young criminals can commit terrible crimes. Will the Justice Secretary rule out increasing the age of criminal responsibility to 14?”
“The Government’s Islamophobia definition is already being used to shut down legitimate debate over questions of religion, belief and public policy, as we warned it would be, and it falsely equates racial identity with religious belief. It is an Orwellian outrage. How do I ensure that the Minister for Women and Equalities withdraws her remarks, explains how she confused racial identity and religious belief, and apologises?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House may be interested in this following the earlier point of order. Earlier today, the Minister for Women and Equalities accused me of “racism” in reference to comments I made about the mass Muslim prayer in Trafalgar Square. Although the Minister did not inform me that she would mention me in the Chamber, I gave her advance notice of this point of order, but she has chosen not to come to the House to withdraw her remarks. Given past precedent, I would like your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether that is acceptable language for one Member to use about another. I also seek your guidance about the free speech of Members and those we represent.”
“It would be a city of the same population density as London, where on average 58 people live in each hectare. That would all be where today stand ancient villages, communities built on trust and reciprocity, beautiful countryside, family businesses, new tech firms, the international headquarters of horseracing and breeding, and the best arable farmland in the country. The most important thing to say about the plan is that its premise is absolute junk. The Forest City developers make specific claims regarding land assembly, compulsory purchase, affordability mechanisms, infrastructure funding, tax treatment and the scale of state involvement, none of which stands up to scrutiny. First, the resale model removes residential land value and caps resale at inflation-indexed build cost, excluding land.”
“I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also declare that my family and I are local residents affected by the development proposal we are about to discuss. I am grateful for this debate about the proposed Forest City, and I am especially grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing me to lead it, given my shadow Cabinet responsibilities. I sought this debate because Forest City is such a danger to our way of life in West Suffolk. For those who are unfamiliar with this monstrous proposal, this is it: a city of 1 million people—the size of Birmingham—between Newmarket and Haverhill in Suffolk, and over the border into Cambridgeshire. It would be a city of 1 million people, supposedly to service the needs of Cambridge—a city that is seven times smaller, with only 145,000 residents.”
“Even in China, though, people have simply chosen not to move to many of the new cities, and they stand partially empty. There are similar stories in Songdo in South Korea, Ciudad de la Paz in Equatorial Guinea, and Masdar City in the United Arab Emirates. The reasons for that failure are all too familiar to those of us who have studied the Forest City proposal. These cities are built speculatively, without real demand; there are massive infrastructure costs without feasible revenue generation; and they are elite-driven projects, disconnected from the needs of real people.”
“When their report, “We Can Build A City”, was published and sent to Ministers in April, it failed to address a single one of these very serious challenges. That is no wonder, because building a city is far more complicated than these cowboys pretend. Let us take the Government’s new towns programme as an example. Those are only towns, not cities, and only seven of the original 12 schemes are going ahead. Where whole cities have been built from scratch elsewhere in the world, many have failed. Those that have worked—to an extent—are often artificial new capital cities where the functions of government create jobs, such as Brasilia and Islamabad. Often they are in countries where there is still a great migration of people from rural areas to cities, such as in China.”