By BRENDAN CARLIN

Published: 13:25 EDT, 14 March 2026 | Updated: 14:04 EDT, 14 March 2026

A former Labour minister who was famously confronted by Joanna Lumley live on television has died from brain cancer aged 66.

Sir Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led tributes today to Phil Woolas who passed away on Saturday after a brave battle against the disease.

The former Oldham East and Saddleworth MP served as a minister under both the Blair and Brown governments.

And today, Sir Tony hailed him as a ‘greatly respected and admired colleague.’

Mr Brown said: ‘Phil Woolas was a brilliant MP, a highly-effective minister and a very generous and popular friend who fought a brave struggle against an incurable cancer and will be sorely missed.’

It was when as Immigration Minister in 2009 that he was confronted live on television by national treasure Ms Lumley over plans by the Brown government to restrict the rights of retired Gurkhas to settle in the UK.

At the time, Ms Lumley was spearheading the Gurkhas Justice Campaign fighting the Government’s plans.

Former Labour minister Phil Woolas (pictured) passed away on Saturday after a brave battle against brain cancer

When serving as Immigration Minister in 2009, Mr Woolas (right) was famously confronted by Joanna Lumley (left) on television over plans by the Brown government to restrict the rights of retired Gurkhas to settle in the UK

But after the confrontation, she declared: ‘I have met Mr Woolas now and I am reassured again – because I know we are going to assist Mr Woolas in making the strongest guidelines possible.’

First elected in the Blair landslide of 1997, former NUS president and TV producer Mr Woolas represented his Oldham seat for 13 years.

He won the seat again at the 2010 general election but in extraordinary legal battle, a rarely-convened election court ruled that he had lied about his Liberal Democrat opponent and his victory was declared void.

Mr Woolas admitted one of his election leaflets had ‘sailed very close to the wind’ but insisted he did not believe he misled anyone.

A statement attributed to his family and close friends announcing his death yesterday said that he had ‘battled the brain cancer, glioblastoma.’

It read: ‘Phil Woolas, former Labour MP and minister, has died aged 66.

‘For more than a year he battled the brain cancer, glioblastoma.

‘He leaves his wife Tracey, his sons Josh and Jed and a new grandson, and many friends and former colleagues who will all miss him greatly.

‘Before entering Parliament, Phil was NUS president, TV producer and GMB union communications director.

‘He served as MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth from 1997 to 2010, and a minister in both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments – appointed successively: whip, deputy leader of the Commons, local government minister, environment minister and immigration minister.’

After his political career finished, in 2011 he set up and ran his own political and risk consultancy.

His family added that for over 25 years, he was chair of the Oldham charity The Ace Centre which helps people with communication difficulties,

Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle also paid tribute to Mr Woolas and sent condolences to his family.

The Labour aide who signed off Lord Mandelson’s US ambassador role was later forced out of the Party over his own links to a paedophile, it has emerged.

Yesterday, files released by the Government showed Prime Minister Keir Starmer had taken a minimal role in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US – not even speaking to Mandelson personally before giving him the job.

This was despite being presented with evidence that the New Labour architect’s friendship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein continued after he was jailed, and warnings from senior officials. 

Now it has been revealed that the person who did sign off Mandelson’s influential position was none other than Lord Doyle – Sir Keir’s former communications director who was suspended from the Labour Party under investigation last month, after it emerged he campaigned on behalf of a child sex offender. 

The peer, who was close to Lord Mandelson for over two decades, approved Mandelson’s controversial appointment, the Telegraph reported. 

The news threatens to undermine the Prime Minister, who has repeatedly claimed Lord Mandelson lied to No10 about his links to Epstein, and said he was not aware of his full relationship to the paedophile. 

Lord Doyle, one of Sir Keir’s most senior aides at the time, is also being asked to address questions about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein during the vetting process. 

Last night, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused the PM of a ‘dereliction of duty’, after No10 admitted he did not speak to Mandelson before making him US ambassador. 

Sir Keir with Mandelson during a welcome reception at the US ambassador’s residence on February 26, 2025 in Washington DC. It emerged this week that Sir Keir Starmer did not personally speak to Mandelson before his appointment

Lord Doyle (pictured) is currently under investigation by the Labour Party over his own links to a paedophile

Downing Street said there was ‘no requirement’ for the PM to interview the disgraced peer before handing him the most high-profile and sensitive post in the diplomatic service.

Mrs Badenoch said on Friday: ‘The fact Keir Starmer did not even meet with Peter Mandelson before appointing him as Britain’s ambassador to Washington is a total dereliction of duty.

‘Starmer likes to tell everyone how much of a hot-shot lawyer he was, yet he was handed a dossier clearly showing Mandelson’s close links to Epstein and didn’t even bother to interrogate the man he was about to appoint to high office.

‘These latest releases show yet again the appalling judgment of this weak, distracted Prime Minister. The country deserves so much better.’

Documents made public this week reveal that the Prime Minister was warned in writing that Mandelson’s ‘particularly close’ friendship with Epstein continued for years after the financier’s conviction for child-sex offences in 2008. 

But despite this, Sir Keir allowed Lord Doyle and Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister’s then-chief of staff, to handle the process in Downing Street instead. 

Mr McSweeney resigned last month over his role in the appointment and stated that he asked Mandelson just three questions as part of the vetting process. Lord Doyle reviewed the responses and reported that he was ‘satisfied’ with them.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said on Friday: ‘The fact Keir Starmer did not even meet with Peter Mandelson before appointing him as Britain’s ambassador to Washington is a total dereliction of duty’ 

A sensational new photo also emerged on Friday of what is thought to have been Peter Mandelson’s first meeting with Jeffrey Epstein. The former peer and disgraced former prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor were both pictured in bathrobes next to the paedophile financier

But both men are known to be proteges of Mandelson. Former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith said it was ‘an absolute absurdity’ to leave the scrutiny of Mandelson’s links to Epstein to two of his friends.

Mandelson was asked to explain why he had stayed in touch with Epstein after the New York financier’s conviction for sex offences in 2008, why he had stayed at one of Epstein’s homes, and why he had associated with a charity founded by Ghislaine Maxwell – who is currently jailed for child sex trafficking. 

There is no evidence that Sir Keir asked any follow-up questions, despite being told that Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s New York mansion while the paedophile was in prison for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

Asked whether Sir Keir spoke to Mandelson before appointing him to Washington in December 2024, the PM’s spokesman replied: ‘The full process at the time of the appointment was followed. There was no requirement for a formal interview with the PM as part of that process.’

The spokesman added: ‘It is clear there are lessons to be learned from this… shortcomings have been highlighted.’

Sir Keir has previously said Mandelson lied in his answers and that the further information about their friendship was only revealed months later. 

Mandelson denies this and says his responses during the vetting process were honest and not misleading. The exchange between Mr McSweeney and Mandelson has not been made public due to concerns it could be prejudicial to the investigation. 

Meanwhile, Lord Doyle, who is currently suspended from the Labour Party under investigation over his links to convicted paedophile Sean Morton, said he was ‘satisfied’ with Mandelson’s responses and approved them. Sir Keir was then advised that the appointment could proceed. 

Sir Keir Starmer was accused of a ‘dereliction of duty’ after No10 admitted the Prime Minister did not speak to Peter Mandelson before making him US ambassador

The Mandelson files also revealed Lord Doyle had socialised with Mandelson in December 2024 – the same month his appointment as ambassador was approved. The pair have been friends for decades after serving under Sir Tony Blair’s government. 

In the past few years, Lord Doyle has also attended dinners at Global Counsel – Lord Mandelson’s now-closed lobbying firm. 

In March last year, Lord Doyle resigned from his Downing Street role following criticism of the Government’s communications strategy. 

He was made a life peer in December, but was later forced to resign from the Labour Party whip over his links to Morton – a former Scottish Labour councillor who admitted possessing indecent images of children in 2018 and was later convicted.

Lord Doyle apologised ‘unreservedly’ for campaigning in support of Morton after he was charged, saying Morton was maintaining his innocence at the time. 

Sir Keir was criticised for granting Lord Doyle a peerage even though Downing Street had been aware of his connection to Morton. A No10 investigation into the issue was signed off by Tim Allan, Lord Doyle’s successor as communications director, instead of civil servants.  

Tory frontbencher Alex Burghart has already written to the PM’s standards adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, asking him to investigate whether Sir Keir misled Parliament in making the claim to MPs.

Sir Keir told MPs last month that Lord Doyle ‘did not give a full account’ of his association with Morton to Mr Allan, in what some have called a similar response to his answer over Mandelson’s vetting. 

But Sir Laurie last night rejected the calls, saying he was satisfied that the ‘relevant process’ had been followed. The first batch of the Mandelson files, released this week, showed that national security adviser Jonathan Powell advised against the appointment and complained that it was ‘weirdly rushed’.

Tory justice spokesman Nick Timothy said: ‘Keir Starmer told Parliament he had followed “full due process” when he appointed Mandelson. It’s now beyond clear that this wasn’t true.’

The Prime Minister has also previously said a police investigation into Mandelson prevented the Government from releasing further details, including his full responses to the Epstein questions. 

Mandelson is under investigation after emails appeared to show he shared confidential information about Gordon Brown’s government with Epstein. He denies any wrongdoing. 

The news of Sir Keir not personally meeting with Mandelson before his appointment followed the bombshell release of a sensational new photo that was revealed in the Epstein files this week.

The photo appeared to show what is thought to have been Mandelson’s first meeting with Epstein, alongside disgraced former prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

The image, believed to have been taken in the US at the turn of the century, shows a smiling Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor sitting barefoot and dressed in bathrobes at a table with Epstein. 

Labour is also facing allegations of a ‘cover-up’, with Mrs Badenoch claiming that key files setting out the PM’s thinking are ‘missing’ or have ‘been removed’.

The files include the ‘due diligence’ document sent to Sir Keir which sets out Mandelson’s links to Epstein, plus accounts of his two previous Cabinet resignations and details of his business links to China and Russia. 

But the space where the PM’s comments and instructions should be recorded is blank.

In a letter to the PM’s chief secretary Darren Jones, Mr Burghart set out a list of 56 files that appeared to be missing. 

Mr Burghart said the documents were ‘relevant to the Prime Minister’s decision-making’ and said failure to provide them to Parliament could be a breach of the ministerial code.

Downing Street has denied claims of a cover-up. But the PM’s spokesman yesterday refused to say whether Sir Keir and key aides communicated through personal email accounts and phones to avoid their conversations being released. 

The British economy was flatlining even before the Middle East crisis erupted, grim figures revealed today.

GDP recorded no growth at all in January – worse than the 0.2 per cent analysts had expected – in another blow to Rachel Reeves.

Although UK plc remained marginally in the black over the past three months, the performance will fuel alarm about resilience with energy prices surging in the wake of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran.

Ms Reeves insisted Labour’s economic plan remained the ‘right one’, despite warnings that an inflation spike could deal a hammer blow to households and the public finances. 

Markets now believe there is no chance of the Bank of England cutting interest rates this month, raising the prospect of so-called ‘Stagflation’.   

Official figures showed GDP did not grow at all in January, in another blow to Rachel Reeves

Ms Reeves insisted Labour’s economic plan remained the ‘right one’

The ONS figures laid bare the limp recent performance of the economy 

Construction has suffered falls over the past year

ONS economic statistics director Liz McKeown said: ‘Growth ticked up slightly in the latest three months, partly reflecting the recovery of car manufacturing, following the cyber incident in the Autumn. 

‘Within services, which also increased, wholesale continued to rebound from a weak summer. However, the overall picture remains subdued, with no growth in the latest month.

‘There was another large fall in the construction industry in the latest three months, with continued contraction in housebuilding.’

Real GDP grew by 0.2 per cent over three months. But in January itself the powerhouse services sector stalled, while a 0.1 per cent fall in production offset construction expanding by 0.2 per cent.  

Ms Reeves said: ‘Our economic plan is the right one, but I know there is more to do. In an uncertain world, we are building a stronger and more secure economy by cutting the cost of living, cutting national debt and creating the conditions for growth to make all parts of the country better off.’ 

The oil price rose again overnight, hovering close to $100 a barrel. The Strait of Hormuz – through which around a fifth of the world’s supplies pass – has been effectively closed by Iran.

Brits are already feeling the pain at fuel pumps, although prices of goods will take longer to feed through and the cap on energy prices means bills will not go up until July.  

The UK government has been preparing for a ‘worst-case scenario’ where the Middle East chaos continues to rage for months to come.

Internal analysis is said to have concluded oil prices could reach $150 a barrel if fighting continues until May, with gas costs also spiking.

Only a ‘best case’ presented to ministers, where the conflict ends within days, would see the price stabilising below $100 a barrel, according to Bloomberg.

Iran has been boasting that it can drive costs towards $200. 

The Resolution Foundation has warned that if oil prices remain at the levels seen this week the typical annual energy bill could rise by £500 when the cap changes in July.

That would more than wipe out the effect of government subsidies, which are helping to cut costs by £117 a year from next month.

Despite Donald Trump suggesting the war on Iran is ‘very complete’, there is little sign of the turmoil abating. 

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: Labour’s economic mismanagement has left us vulnerable to the potential impacts of events in the Middle East. 

‘They must now Axe the Fuel Tax, back North Sea Oil and Gas and come forward with a proper plan to cut the deficit and get the benefits bill down.’ 

Suren Thiru, ICAEW Chief Economist, warned of the threat of ‘stagflation’, with the Bank of England unlikely to cut interest rates until the Autumn at best.

‘These figures confirm that the economy was treading water even before the significant economic shock unleashed by the Middle East conflict took hold, as weak services and industrial activity helped suffocate overall output in January,’ he said.

‘The UK economy could well have returned to modest growth in February, aided by a stronger manufacturing and services output, particularly with activity in the month almost entirely pre-dating the current turmoil.

‘The Middle East conflict means that any lingering momentum in the economy has evaporated by now with the energy crisis and supply chain disruption pushing both the UK closer to stagflation and eroding the Chancellor’s fiscal headroom.’

Susannah Streeter of Wealth Club said the performance was ‘highly disappointing’. 

‘It doesn’t bode well for the resilience of companies ahead, faced with escalating energy prices which are likely to see many businesses battening down the hatches, putting investment plans on hold while hoping the storm subsides,’ she said. 

‘Stagflation is stalking the UK economy, with inflation set to rise while stagnation settles in, with risks increasing that the economy could go into reverse.’ 

Despite Donald Trump suggesting the war on Iran is ‘very complete’, there is little sign of the turmoil abating

Oil tankers in the Gulf near the crucial Strait of Hormuz this week

Keir Starmer finally offered a grovelling mea culpa on the Mandelson debacle today as he fights to contain Labour fury.

The PM admitted it was ‘me that made the mistake’ after shamelessly leaving junior ministers to field a backlash in the Commons yesterday.

On a visit to Belfast, Sir Keir added that meant he was the one who had to ‘make the apology to the victims of Epstein’. 

The comments came after papers showed government vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ‘close’ friendship with Jeffrey Epstein before he was made US ambassador.

The top mandarin at the Foreign Office and national security adviser Jonathan Powell also expressed misgivings during the process. 

Kemi Badenoch has complained of a ‘cover up’ and urged Labour MPs to oust Sir Keir, with backbenchers accusing the premier of ‘dragging the party into the gutter’.  

The government promised to publish a huge range of information about Mandelson after MPs rebelled in a Commons vote last month.

Sir Keir said: ‘The release of the information shows what was known.

‘That led to further questions being asked.

‘Unfortunately, because of the Metropolitan Police investigation, we can’t release that information yet.

‘But that doesn’t take away from the fact that it was me that made a mistake, and it’s me that makes the apology to the victims of Epstein, and I do that.’

In other developments today:

• Mandelson has been formally removed from the Privy Council after a meeting chaired by the King this week;
• Calls have been growing for Mandelson to hand back a £75,000 payoff he received after being ousted as ambassador;  
• The documents show the peer’s employment did not formally end until October 16 last year – more than a month after Sir Keir said he would have to leave his post on September 11. His salary over that period would have been around £13,000.      

On a visit to Belfast, Keir Starmer admitted it was ‘me that made the mistake’ on Mandelson after shamelessly leaving junior ministers to field a backlash in the Commons yesterday

Keir Starmer met NI First Minister Michelle O’Neill and her deputy Emma Little-Pengelly in Belfast today. He will finally face questions later on the damning Mandelson material

Lord Mandelson pictured in London yesterday. He has denied any criminal wrongdoing or acting for personal gain

The papers showed government vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ‘close’ friendship with Jeffrey Epstein (pictured together) before he was made US ambassador 

A note written by a senior No10 aide revealed that the Director of Communications had been ‘satisfied’ with Mandelson’s responses about his contact with Epstein 

Initially Sir Keir tried to put the Cabinet Secretary in charge of deciding what could be released – but was made to hand that task to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. 

The documents confirm that Sir Keir was aware when he appointed Mandelson in December 2024 that his friendship with paedophile financier Epstein continued after he was convicted. 

In December 2024, a note from a senior aide to the premier stated that Sir Keir and chief of staff Morgan McSweeney had expressed a ‘preference for a political candidate’ to be Washington envoy and Mandelson was the ‘lead candidate’.

It said the Director of Communications – Matthew Doyle at the time – had been ‘satisfied’ with Mandelson’s responses about his relationship with Epstein.

A three-page ‘due diligence’ report supplied on December 11, 2024 to Sir Keir flagged the ties between Mandelson and Epstein.

It referred to reports of Epstein’s ‘particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson’ and said their contact continued through the 2000s.

The summary stated: ‘After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. 

‘Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s House while he was in jail in June 2009.’ 

It also mentioned that in 2014 Mandelson ‘agreed to be a ”founding citizen” of an ocean conservation group founded by Ghislaine Maxwell, and funded by Epstein.’ 

Downing Street insisted the ongoing police investigation into Mandelson means it is unable to release details about what questions the peer was asked.

The Government has agreed a framework with the Metropolitan Police on which documents can be released without prejudicing the ongoing police investigation into the peer. 

Mrs Badenoch claimed that ‘a lot of information is missing’ from the files, pointing to an empty box she said Sir Keir was required to fill beneath advice he received in 2024 about the appointment.

No 10 said no notes by Sir Keir were redacted.

His official spokesman told reporters: ‘I refute the suggestion of a cover up. The Government’s complied fully. I just don’t accept that it’s the case at all.

‘There are a range of different ways in which the Prime Minister’s senior team responds to advice.

He added: ‘The Prime Minister did read the advice, but clearly there are lessons to be learned on the wider appointment processes, and the processes that led up to them.’

Mandelson was handed a £75,000 payoff when he was removed as US ambassador in September last year, in the wake of a tranche of Epstein’s personal emails being leaked. 

The disgraced former Cabinet minister had apparently demanded £547,000 compensation for losing his £161,000 a year job and threatening legal action.

Despite the PM claiming in Parliament that Mandelson ‘lied’ during his vetting, the government privately assessed that there was no evidence of ‘misconduct in role that would give rise to normal disciplinary proceedings’. 

A three-page ‘due diligence’ report supplied to Sir Keir on December 11, 2024 flagged the ties between Mandelson and Epstein

Documents show the Labour grandee was handed a £75,000 payoff when he was sacked as US ambassador over his friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein

Mandelson appears to have wanted a £547,000 payout according to the papers 

The PM decided on September 11 that Mandelson had to leave his post as US ambassador

Foreign Office permanent secretary Olly Robbins wrote of the package: ‘This represents good value for money.’ Other officials congratulated each other on getting the sum – including £34,000 severance as well as cash in lieu of notice – ‘so low’. 

Extraordinarily, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, James Murray, responded that he was ‘happy’ to sign the payment off. 

Mr Thomas-Symonds told Sky News this morning: ‘I frankly share the moral outrage that Peter Mandelson is still in possession of that £75,000.

‘Now you can look at the documents, you can see on a value for money basis why that decision was made. There was an original request for £547,000 that was negotiated down to £75,000…

‘But from a moral point of view, it is incredibly difficult to even think that that money is still being retained.

‘So what I would say is, do the decent thing, do the honourable thing, donate that money to charity. And I would suggest perhaps a charity supporting victims might be appropriate.’

Lord Mandelson was arrested on February 23 on suspicion of misconduct in public office, having been accused of passing sensitive information to Epstein during his time as business secretary under Gordon Brown.

He was subsequently bailed, but later handed his passport back and freed under investigation. He has denied any criminal wrongdoing or acting for personal gain.

Labour MPs have been condemning Downing Street over the latest Mandelson chaos

Nadia Whittome said appointing Mandelson showed ‘terrible judgment’ by the PM

David Lammy’s ‘soft justice’ reforms of jury trials have been supported by MPs who voted by a majority of 101 to pass the bill at its first Commons hurdle. 

Tonight’s decision to back the controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill comes despite a Labour MP condemning the curbs in an emotional speech about being raped.

Charlotte Nichols said that the attack, which occurred while she was an MP, had caused PTSD and led her to being sectioned for her own protection.

She accused the Justice Secretary of ‘weaponising’ the experiences of rape victims to justify changes ‘that aren’t directly relevant to them’.

A significant number of Labour MPs abstained from voting for the Bill on Tuesday night after many raised objections.

Around 90 Labour MPs had no vote recorded, suggesting a considerable amount of dissent and raising questions about whether it will become law.

Ten Labour MPs voted against, however 301 voted in favour, allowing it to pass its first Commons hurdle.

Seven Labour MPs, including former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, also voted in favour of a Conservative amendment to reject the Bill. The amendment was defeated.

Labour MP Charlotte Nichols talked about her experience during a debate on the jury trials legislation in the House of Commons

The Tories said: ‘Keir Starmer and David Lammy should hang their heads in shame. They have struck the first blow against our ancient legal right to trial by jury.

‘And it is clear that their party has serious misgivings about the Bill. Some MPs chose to vote against their Government, and some chose to abstain.’

The controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill will remove jury trials for cases with a likely sentence of under three years to tackle the court backlog.

Ahead of the Commons vote, Mr Lammy, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, faced a furious backlash to his plans.

Addressing MPs, he acknowledged that the changes had provoked ‘fierce’ debate but said it would reduce trial times and free up hearing days.

He said that if no action was taken, the backlog could reach 200,000 cases in a decade and pointed to research which said it would reduce trial times by at least 20 per cent.

‘The choice before the House is stark. We cannot continue with this rising backlog,’ he said.

‘Victims are currently worn down, people simply give up, cases collapse and offenders remain free. Free to roam the streets, free to commit more crimes, free to create more victims.’

But Ms Nichols accused the Government of not helping rape victims as she waived her right to anonymity to reveal that she was attacked.

She revealed she had waited 1,088 days for the trial as she criticised the court backlog for exacerbating her experience.

Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary David Lammy delivers a keynote speech on reforming the justice system last month 

She accused the Government of pitting survivors and defendants against each other in a ‘deeply damaging’ way.

‘Don’t say that this bill helps deliver justice for rape victims until it actually materially does,’ she told Mr Lammy.

Ms Nichols added: ‘There is so much that we can be doing for rape victims that isn’t the Lord Chancellor using them as a cudgel to drive through reforms that aren’t directly relevant to them.

‘In this debate, experiences like mine feel like they’ve been weaponised and are being used for rhetorical misdirection.’

Meanwhile, rebel ringleader Mr Turner said the Government’s proposed changes to juries were ‘unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary’.

However, the former barrister said he would abstain because he was confident these measures would not become law.

‘I am more confident now than ever I was that the worst parts of this Bill will be defeated at amendment stage,’ he said.

He added that under the proposed legislation, not one of those 900 sub-postmasters in the Horizon scandal who were convicted would have been entitled to a trial before their peers.

It came after former sub-postmaster Jo Hamilton who was wrongly convicted in the scandal wrote to Mr Lammy urging him not to ditch the ‘safety net of a jury’.

Labour MP Stella Creasy suggested she could not support the Bill as she did not believe magistrates’ courts have capacity for cases that will no longer be heard by crown courts.

Labour MP Jon Trickett also branded the plan to curtail access to jury trials ‘oppressive’ and ‘authoritarian’.

He said that jury trials are ‘a fundamental part of our constitutional system and the idea somehow that we should begin to abandon it is a mistaken one’.

He added: ‘I am not convinced. This is oppressive, it’s authoritarian and quite honestly, Deputy Prime Minister, as much I admire, it’s reactionary, too.’

Shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy said the Government was attacking ‘an ancient English right’ which made the UK legal system ‘the envy of the world’.

He said the Government was ‘rushing’ proposed changes to jury trial through Parliament ‘at breakneck speed’.

Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh said the court backlog was a ‘temporary administrative crisis’ which should not be used to justify the jury trials changes.

Meanwhile, victims’ minister Jess Phillips said she was a victim of the courts backlog with a man accused of breaching a restraining order against her not due in crown court until 2028.

Under the Courts and Tribunals Bill, cases with a likely sentence of three years or less will only be heard by a single crown court judge, without a jury, in the biggest shake-up of the criminal justice system for 800 years.

Magistrates’ powers will be increased so they can hand down sentences of up to 18 months’ imprisonment, up from 12 months currently, so they will be able to deal with more cases.

The proposed changes follow recommendations from a review by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson published last year.

The Commons vote came after thousands of lawyers signed a letter accusing Mr Lammy of seeking to erode a ‘deeply entrenched constitutional principle for negligible gain and with substantial risks’.

The letter was organised by the Bar Council and signed by top lawyers, including the former director of public prosecutions Sir David Calvert-Smith.

It said that ‘chronic underfunding’ was to blame for the backlog, adding: ‘Juries have not caused this crisis. Practically, the proposals are based on little evidence.’

The controversial court reforms passed their first Commons hurdle, with 304 MPs voting in favour to 203 voting against, giving a majority of 101.

Female Labour MPs are ‘incandescent’ over the government’s failure to include Grok in new measures cracking down on sexualised deepfakes shared online, the Daily Mail has learned.

The Prime Minster in January promised to take ‘necessary measures’ against X after social media trolls used its AI tool ‘Grok’ to create manipulated images of MPs in bikinis and sexually explicit images of children.

Addressing backbenchers in the Chamber Sir Keir branded Grok ‘disgusting’ and said the government would ‘strengthen existing laws’ and ‘prepare for legislation if it needs to go further’.

In response, Tech Secretary Liz Kendall said the government would ban nudification tools through amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, currently at report stage in the Lords.

But female Labour MPs are furious the government is now delivering a half-baked ban by only imposing the measures on British apps – not on those based abroad.

One Labour MP told the Daily Mail that backbenchers ‘remain concerned’ that government’s proposed nudification ban would only apply to products in the UK and wouldn’t therefore affect Grok – warning it ‘would fail to adequately protect women and children’.

This comes as analysis from CARE International UK and Equal Measures 2030 released today shows that less than four in ten adults in the UK believe that the Labour government cares about the rights of women and girls.

Ms Kendall previously warned that Grok may not be covered by the proposals – despite it generating around three million sexualised images in less than two weeks, including 23,000 appearing to depict children.

In January, Sir Keir (pictured on March 2) promised to take ‘necessary measures’ against X after social media trolls used its AI tool ‘Grok’ to create manipulated images of MPs in bikinis and sexually explicit images of children

Sir Keir branded Elon Musk’s (pictured in 2026) Grok ‘disgusting’ and said the government would ‘strengthen existing laws’ and ‘prepare for legislation if it needs to go further’

Tech Secretary Liz Kendall  (pictured) said the government would ban nudification tools through amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, currently at report stage in the Lords

In a letter to the Labour MP Chi Onwurah, the Tech Secretary wrote the government has ‘identified that not all chatbots are covered’ and she has ‘commissioned officials to look at how this gap can be addressed’.

But speaking on Monday in the Lords, Conservative peer Baroness Bertin warned the government’s legislation would ‘bring no change whatever’ as the changes would not capture software overseas.

‘I believe this legislation would also not have caught Grok. The regulation must go further. Many MPs have been in touch wanting us to get clarity on this point,’ she said.

‘It is wrong to announce that you have banned something when you potentially have not.

‘We have to be really clear on that, because otherwise we have the worst of all worlds.’

Claire Coutinho, shadow equalities minister said: ‘This is yet another example of Labour talking tough but failing to deliver.

‘By refusing to act on overseas platforms, they are leaving glaring loopholes that predators will exploit. Offering tools to create deepfake nudes must be banned in the UK regardless of where the company is based.’

Baroness Bertin later told the Daily Mail that Grok was ‘the tip of the iceberg’ as the majority of sexualised deepfake images come from Chinese apps.

Despite this, the government on Monday night imposed a three-line whip on peers in the Lords to vote against Conservative amendments aiming to further regulate the pornography industry.

The bill will return to the Commons just before the local elections, where Labour is expected to cede huge numbers of local council seats to Reform and the Green Party.

Looking ahead, Baroness Bertin said she would be ‘deeply uncomfortable’ if she were a Labour MP, who may be whipped ‘to vote against banning step incest porn and porn that depicts sex with children’.

The government appearing to weaken measures to protect women and girls online comes as Sir Keir has been blasted for running a ‘boy’s club’ in No 10.

It comes after a string of scandals within Downing Street that led Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy to complain of Labour briefings ‘dripping with misogyny’.

A government spokesperson said: ‘This government is taking robust action to protect women and girls from intimate image abuse, no matter where a platform is based. 

‘We are making the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, so services must proactively stop this content appearing.

‘We are also criminalising nudification apps, targeting those who profit from the distress of others. Social media and search services will be required to remove content promoting these tools.

‘Deepfakes are created through a wide range of AI tools, which is why we are closing loopholes so more chatbots have legal duties to protect users from illegal content. Our message is clear: Intimate image abuse will not be tolerated.’

This is how democracies unravel. 

Long after the Green Party’s victory in the Gorton and Denton by-election has been forgotten, the campaign and the precedent it set will continue to disfigure our politics.

We are Balkanising our country, moving beyond citizenship as our primary political identifier and instead relating to one another as members of antagonistic tribes whose territories happen to overlap.

The Green Party’s behaviour in the run-up to yesterday’s by-election should place that party beyond the parameters of democratic decency.

Divisive, sectarian and ready to stoke Muslim grievances against Israel and India, the former eco-activists have dropped any pretence of appealing to voters as British citizens.

At one point, their candidate, Hannah Spencer, told her Reform opponent, Matt Goodwin, that the Manchester Arena bomb had happened ‘because people like you are dividing people’.

Not that the Greens started it. Jeevun Sandher, a Labour MP of Sikh heritage, complained about the ‘dog-whistle’ of a Green by-election video in Urdu that featured a picture of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer shaking hands with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi, a deeply unpopular figure in Islamic communities.

It had evidently slipped Sandher’s mind that, five years earlier, at a by-election in Yorkshire, Labour did precisely the same thing, running a picture of Boris Johnson with Modi, next to the caption, ‘Don’t risk a Tory MP who is not on your side’.

Hannah Spencer celebrates her historic win with Green Party leader Zack Polanski this morning

Does this really need spelling out? No democracy can flourish if its people lack common identity and shared allegiance. 

There have been multi-national regimes down the years – the Habsburgs, the Ottomans, the Soviets – but they survived only for as long as they remained autocratic. 

The moment their peoples were given the right to choose, they fractured into their component ethnicities.

What is happening here is vastly more toxic. We have moved from being a cohesive nation, in which almost everyone accepted certain norms – equality before the courts, parliamentary democracy, religious pluralism, free speech – to one in which we ourselves are teaching groups of our own citizens to be separate and resentful.

We might have handled immigration differently, with more manageable numbers. But our real error was to turn our backs on British patriotism.

During the 20th century, most settlers arrived in Britain in positive spirits. People don’t abandon their family and language to go to places they despise.

But we taught their children that Britain was rapacious, reprehensible and racist. No wonder some of them turned against the country of their birth.

Labour has long encouraged such a narrative among ethnic minority communities for partisan gain, and can hardly complain when others, notably the Greens and the Gaza independents, take it further.

The Greens campaigned largely on two issues: lifting immigration controls and hostility to Israel. 

Why those issues? Because they unite what is left of the Greens’ previous base, who regard the whole notion of discriminating between citizens and non-citizens as somehow racist, with its new, Muslim voters. 

‘We’ve tried to appeal to people from all kinds of backgrounds,’ said the Greens’ deputy leader, Mothin Ali, when asked about the Urdu video. ‘That’s about inclusivity.’

An odd word to use for campaigning in a language 19 out of 20 British citizens don’t understand.

Not that the Greens started it. Jeevun Sandher, a Labour MP of Sikh heritage, complained about the ‘dog-whistle’ of a Green campaign video (pictured) in Urdu – but it evidently slipped his mind that, five years earlier, at another by-election, Labour did precisely the same thing

Ali came to national attention when he marked his victory in the 2024 local elections in Leeds by shouting, ‘We will raise the voice of Gaza! We will raise the voice of Palestine! Allahu Akbar!’

On the day of the October 7 abomination, he recorded a clip in which he argued ‘Palestinians have the right to resist occupying forces’ and that everyone should ‘support the right of indigenous people to fight back’.

Does he realise, as a second-generation Brit, how dangerous it is to encourage ‘indigenous people to fight back’?

The backlash risks not being a return to civic liberalism and a renewed emphasis on individual rights. 

It could also be collectivist and self-pitying, but directed the other way around.

Why are Leftists playing this game? Do Greens think that their new voters will buy into the rest of their policies? Do they imagine that Manchester Muslims are clamouring for puberty blockers, ‘gender-affirming care’ and the legalisation of all drugs?

Of course not. This is a simple numbers game. 

The reason the Greens have lost interest in the environment is not just that they would find it hard to outflank Ed Miliband; it is that it doesn’t pull in as many votes as campaigning for immigration and against Israel.

What the French call ‘Islamo-gauchisme’ – Islamo-leftism – is, by its nature, negative. 

All that unites the eco-loons with the Islamists is a dislike of the West in general and Israel in particular. 

Every such alliance has resulted in the first lot, the white Lefties, being swallowed up by the second.

Is there an alternative? Yes. Respectable parties should appeal to British Muslims as precisely that: British.

They should recognise that a lot of Green and Labour voters here support conservative parties in their countries of origin, where their sense of victimhood has not been encouraged. 

They should emphasise the values that encouraged millions of British Muslims to volunteer in the two wars.

The best way to defeat a bad idea is with a better idea. And if there is a better idea out there than an open society based on property rights and personal liberty, I have yet to hear it.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere is President of the Institute for Free Trade.

Labour has become embroiled in controversy over a Gorton and Denton by-election campaign leaflet by a fake company falsely asserting it is the ‘tactical choice’.

The flyer was put through voters’ doors in the Greater Manchester constituency on Wednesday evening, before they head to the polls on Thursday. 

The vote was triggered in February last year, when the sitting MP, Labour’s Andrew Gwynne, resigned on health grounds. 

This followed his suspension from the party and sacking as Health Minister over offensive WhatsApp messages, as revealed by The Mail on Sunday. 

Labour won the seat with a rock-solid majority of 13,413 and more than half the vote as part of its landslide election victory in July 2024. 

But its plummeting popularity since then means the constituency could now be vulnerable, with Reform UK and the Green Party their main rivals. 

The keenly contested by-election will prove a crucial test for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, whose premiership has been rocked by challenges from the start. 

And his party has now been accused of playing dirty ahead of the crunch vote, with the seemingly spurious leaflet backing its campaign, HuffPost reports. 

The flyer (pictured) was put through voters’ doors in the Greater Manchester constituency on Wednesday evening, before they head to the polls on Thursday

The leaflet (pictured) purports to be from a firm called ‘Tactical Choice’, encouraging tactical voting. Text on the flyer says this strategic choice would be Labour candidate Angeliki Stogia

The keenly contested by-election will prove a crucial test for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, whose premiership has been rocked by challenges from the start. Pictured: The PM on his visit to Gorton and Denton earlier this week, with Labour candidate, Ms Stogia, right 

Residents in Gorton and Denton have received a flyer purporting to be from a firm called ‘Tactical Choice’, encouraging tactical voting.  

This approach to elections sees voters back candidates they would not normally support, just to prevent others winning – in this case, Nigel Farage’s Reform. 

Text on the leaflet says this strategic choice would be Labour candidate Angeliki Stogia. It also claims the campaign literature is promoted on her behalf. 

The flyer reads: ‘The Tactical Choice says Vote Labour. Based on a new prediction made in the last 24 hours we are recommending voting Labour.’ 

But no such organisation called ‘Tactical Choice’ seems to exist, suggesting the campaign material may well be completely spurious.  

In fact, two real tactical voting organisations – Tactical.Vote and StopTheTories.Vote – have recommended the strategic choice to stop Reform is in fact the Greens.  

Labour is fighting a double electoral threat at the by-election from Reform and the Greens, with their respective candidates Matt Goodwin and Hannah Spencer. 

The most recent polling, published on Wednesday, has suggested the Greens could pull off a shock win. 

The Opinium research put the party on 30 per cent support among people who were very likely to vote – with Labour and Reform just behind on 28 per cent.

All the figures were within the margin of error, and constituency-level polling always comes with a health warning as it is very difficult to conduct accurately.

But Labour figures will be dismayed that efforts to unite Left-wing voters against Nigel Farage’s insurgents look to be stumbling.

A Green Party spokesperson said: ‘In a final throw of desperation, Labour have made up an entirely fictitious organisation called “Tactical Choice” referencing them on their final leaflet.

‘They’ve had to make this up because every actual tactical voting organisation has endorsed the Green Party as the best hope to keep Reform out in this election.

‘We have great faith in the electorate seeing through these desperate Labour lies and uniting behind the Greens in the by-election tomorrow to beat Reform.’

A Labour campaign spokesperson said: ‘The Greens have been pumping out fake news and deploying dirty tactics for weeks. We’ll take no lectures from them. 

The most recent polling, published on Wednesday, has suggested the Greens could pull off a shock win. Pictured: Green candidate Hannah Spencer, with party leader Zack Polanski, at a campaign event in Manchester last week 

Labour figures will be dismayed that efforts to unite Left-wing voters against Nigel Farage’s insurgents look to be stumbling. Pictured: Reform candidate Matt Goodwin, left, with party leader Farage, right, at a campaign event in Manchester earlier this month 

‘The only way to defeat Reform in this by-election is by backing Labour.’

Sir Keir’s fate could hang on the outcome of Thursday’s by-election, after he barely survived a coup a fortnight ago. 

He blocked Manchester mayor Andy Burnham from being Labour’s candidate, amid concerns he could be a leadership challenger in the House of Commons. 

Labour MPs and ministers are expected to flood the Manchester seat over the next 48 hours, in a bid to salvage the campaign.

The PM himself visited on Monday – but was tellingly kept well away from ordinary voters amid alarm at his dire personal ratings.

Green leader Zack Polanski is confident about his party’s prospects, despite concerns in some quarters over its policies. 

The Greens want to legalise hard drugs, decriminalise prostitution and operate an effective open-door immigration policy.

They have also backed Britain paying huge reparations for the slave trade.

By-election literature has targeted the significant Muslim vote in the constituency, including focusing on Gaza.

Other polls have also pointed to an incredibly tight three-way race in Gorton and Denton, although some have questioned their methodology.

Sir Keir only carried out a token campaign stop on Monday, carefully surrounded by Labour activists, candidate Ms Stogia and his deputy Lucy Powell inside a sports centre.

Despite aides insisting he would be meeting voters, there is no evidence that happened.

He did speak to Mr Burnham but there were no images of the encounter.

Reform candidate Matt Goodwin has branded the by-election a referendum on Sir Keir’s leadership, which has weathered numerous storms in recent times.

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar called for him to resign earlier this month, over the fallout from Peter Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein.

And the mere 20 months since Labour’s election victory have been marked by a series of major policy U-turns – most recently on the postponement of local elections, digital ID cards, and pub business rates. 

Illegal migrants would be given a free house and paid a wage with no requirement to work under the Green Party’s immigration policy.

Zack Polanski plans to let arrivals use the NHS for free the moment they enter Britain.

And they will be allowed to work ‘with no restrictions’ under plans for ‘a world without borders’.

It comes as a bombshell poll put the Greens in second place nationally ahead of an increasingly fraught Gorton and Denton by-election tomorrow. 

Unearthed policy proposals seen by the Daily Mail show the Greens plan to ‘abolish’ immigration detention and grant a full amnesty to illegal migrants to stay in Britain, even if their asylum claims are rejected.

The internal documents state that ‘migration is not a criminal offence under any circumstances’.

Last week, the party’s plans to legalise drugs including crack cocaine and heroin for recreational use were exposed.

According to the immigration proposals, the Greens seek ‘to establish a system that recognises that all migrants are treated as citizens in waiting and therefore supports and encourages them to put down roots in their new home’. 

Green leader Zack Polanski’s party would give illegal migrants a free house, access to NHS care and pay them a wage with no work requirements from the day they entered Britain

Gorton and Denton Green Party candidate Hannah Spencer has accused her Labour counterpart of ‘racist dogwhistles’ and urged her to ‘condemn her party’s racist campaign tactics’ in a significant escalation of tensions

Polanski and Spencer pose for a picture on January 30

Last night the Conservatives, Reform UK and Labour derided the ‘open border plans’, branding them ‘financially reckless but also dangerous’.

But Mr Polanski’s party said it was ‘proud’ of the policies, which it claimed have proved ‘popular’ on the doorstep during the Gorton and Denton campaign. Under the Green leader’s premiership all illegal migrants would be handed a wage ‘at the level of Universal Basic Income’ with ‘no requirement to be either working or actively seeking work’.

Migrant families would be ‘accommodated in a house or flat with exclusive use’ and lone men would ‘each have their own room’ in shared accommodation – but would be given their own property if they claimed to be LGBTQIA+ for ‘safeguarding purposes’.

The proposals add that illegal migrants ‘will be allowed to take up employment, with no restriction’ and will be ‘provided with free access to all NHS facilities’ the second they cross the Channel – with these rights remaining ‘even if their [asylum] case is rejected’.

Meanwhile immigration detention ‘will be abolished’ and even illegal migrants who have ‘exhausted all [asylum] appeal rights’ would not be deported. 

The policy says: ‘There will be no requirement for any applicant, or any person whose case has been refused, to report regularly to the Department of Migration.’

Reform UK’s home office spokesman Zia Yusuf last night branded the plans ‘dangerous’. 

He told the Daily Mail: ‘Under the Greens’ open-borders plans, not only is every hoodlum and criminal welcome to our shores but entitled to free housing, healthcare and anything else they might fancy.

The internal Green policy documents, seen by the Daily Mail, state that ‘migration is not a criminal offence under any circumstances’ and ‘the Green Party wants to see a world without borders’

The policy adds: ‘The Green Party seeks to establish a system that recognises that all migrants are treated as citizens in waiting and therefore supports and encourages them to put down roots in their new home’

‘My only surprise is Zack Polanski isn’t promising to furnish them all with free heroin and crack cocaine, which he wants to legalise. The Greens’ policies are not only financially reckless but also dangerous.’ 

The Greens plan to legalise these drugs because they ‘enhance human relationships and human creativity’.

Mr Polanski’s party plans to create a ‘direct partnership’ between the Government and South American drug cartels to introduce a ‘sustainable supply’ of cocaine to Britain and teach primary school children how to take drugs safely.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail revealed yesterday that Green policy states sex work ‘should be decriminalised’ and restrictions placed on sexually explicit material ‘ended’, except for those aimed at protecting children.

The party’s official immigration policy suggests that migrants would be free to travel to Britain using fake documents as ‘penalties imposed on commercial carriers for transporting undocumented migrants will be abolished’ and asylum claims would be admissible ‘regardless of route’.

Border force officers will be made to take a ‘neutral approach’ to interviewing asylum seekers and ‘what the applicant says will be believed in the absence of contrary evidence’.

The policy also says that illegal migrants who have been in the UK for at least five years would be ‘invited’ to stay permanently.

Mr Polanski’s plans for Britain also state that foreign students and anybody with a visa – apart from a visitors’ visa – would be given ‘the right to vote in elections and referendums’.

Last night the Tories accused the Greens of planning to ‘hand out a welcome pack to every illegal arrival’ and said the party had been captured ‘by hard-Left activists’. A Labour source said: ‘The public expect immigration controls that are properly enforced – not the open-borders plan the Greens are proposing.’

The revelations come as voters prepare to head to the polls in Gorton and Denton tomorrow, with the Greens attempting to position themselves as the main opposition to Reform after Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, was blocked from standing.

Polls suggest the outcome will be tight. Last night Green candidate Hannah Spencer accused her Labour counterpart of ‘racist dogwhistles’ and urged Angeliki Stogia to ‘condemn her party’s racist campaign tactics’ in an escalation of tensions.

It came as a poll of 3,029 voters from Find Out Now put the Green Party in second place nationally, with 18 per cent of the vote. This was behind Reform, on 25 per cent, and ahead of Labour, on 16 per cent.

A Green source said the policy proposals are different from the party’s 2024 manifesto, which is costed, but conceded that it is a ‘long-standing policy and aim’ of the party.

A spokesman said: ‘We’re proud of this policy, voted on and decided by our members… We know it’s popular as well – Green policy regularly comes out as the most popular in polls.’

The Crown court backlog will take the ‘best part of a decade’ to improve under plans published today, ministers have admitted.

Justice minister Sarah Sackman said things would ‘get worse before they get better’, with the backlog rising from its current record level of 80,000 to hit 100,000 in a year’s time.

Crown courts in England and Wales are ‘on the brink of collapse’, she said, insisting that ministers will press ahead with plans to introduce judge-only trials for offences likely to attract less than three years’ imprisonment.

The measures, first outlined at the end of last year, will see thousands of defendants a year lose the right to trial by jury.

The proposals have faced grave opposition from some Labour backbenchers and the legal profession.

Ms Sackman said: ‘I have got to level with victims that the scale of the crisis that we have inherited, and which is growing, is not going to change overnight.

‘By the end of this Parliament we’ll start to see it heading in the right direction, so they can have confidence the government is doing everything it can, but it will take the best part of a decade for the timeliness of their trials to improve.

‘Things will get worse before they get better – but they do begin to get better by the end of this parliament under this plan.

‘By my reckoning it will hit 100,000 cases before we begin to see a reduction in the backlog.’

Justice minister Sarah Sackman (pictured) said things would ‘get worse before they get better’, with the backlog rising from its current record level of 80,000 to hit 100,000 in a year’s time.

She added: ‘I fully appreciate that is not good enough for victims who are in the system in the here and now, but at least what they can see is leadership from a government that is prepared to tackle the problems, rather than sit idly by watch it run out of control.’

Some trials already being listed for 2030.

But asked how long victims would have to wait for justice when the system reaches its peak backlog, the minister said: ‘I’m not going to put a figure on it.’

Despite potential rebellions by Labour backbenchers and expected opposition in the House of Lords, Ms Sackman said the reforms – including judge-only trials – are expected to be in place by 2028.

‘We have an ambition for Royal Assent by the end of the year so we can start implementing by 2028,’ she said.

Asked if the government would make any changes to the proposals for judge-only trials, the minister said: ‘We are sticking to the plan. What we put forward in the Courts Bill will be very much in line with what we’ve set out in previous months.’

The chief critic on Labour’s backbenches – Karl Turner MP – vowed to continue to fight the plans, which he said were ‘not acceptable’.

‘There is deep and growing concern across Parliament that the plan to do away with jury trials is unnecessary and there is no evidential link between the juries and the cause of the backlog,’ Mr Turner said.

‘How much time would actually be saved through the reduction of a right to trial by jury?

‘What are the unintended consequences of such a move for trust in the justice system? Would other measures be more effective?

‘I remain firmly committed to voting against any changes that weaken the right to trial by jury, and I know many colleagues stand ready to do the same in defence of this fundamental right.’

The reforms will apply retrospectively to cases already in the system, meaning defendants who have already opted for jury trial could find their cases being heard by a judge only.

Ms Sackman said barristers’ professional bodies who argue the backlog can be tackled quickly enough just by increasing court sitting days and improving court efficiency were being ‘unrealistic’.

Justice Secretary David Lammy criticised barristers and MPs who have opposed the reforms.

He said the Bar ‘can sometimes be a conservative profession’ and it had previously ‘opposed changes to the double jeopardy rule’.

Those reforms – introduced in 2005 to allow a previously-acquitted defendant to face a second trial for the same offence – were ‘what delivered partial justice to the Lawrence family’, he added, referring to the racist murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993.

He added that parliamentary opposition to his plans tended to ‘sound quite patrician, quite old fashioned, quite male’ and did not place enough emphasis on how victims of crime were ‘often vulnerable, often minorities, sadly children and very often women’.

Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy said: ‘There is no hiding the fact that Lammy is rushing ahead with his plans to abolish jury trials.

‘Labour have no mandate to do this and there is no need for it either.

‘Lammy still has not explained how he will improve court efficiency around issues like recruitment and retention, courtroom productivity, and case management.

‘At a time when confidence in the criminal justice system is fragile, what we need is a practical plan to tackle the backlog, not Lammy’s ideological drive to scrap juries.’

A new Courts Bill setting out the reforms is due to be published tomorrow.

The Ministry of Justice issued what it described as a ‘doom graph’ – based on new statistical modelling – which predicted the backlog will soar to 200,000 by 2035 if ministers fail to act.

Ministers insisted changes to court processes are necessary to bring the backlog down to manageable levels, in conjunction with efficiency measures and investment in the number of days courts can hold trials.

The new modelling data – to be published in full tomorrow – is designed to convince critics that changes to jury trial are necessary.

But lawyers immediately attacked the Government’s plans. 

Past president of the Law Society, Richard Atkinson, said: ‘The Government’s proposals go too far in eroding the longstanding right to be judged by a jury of our own peers.

‘They allow a single judge to determine guilt in serious, lifechanging cases which could significantly affect people’s liberty and reputations.

‘Lasting reform requires sustained funding for court capacity and the legal profession, not rushed legislation that risks weakening confidence in the justice system.’