Why parliament matters here
Parliamentary debate is one of the few formal public spaces where issues of conviction safety can be raised and placed on the record before a CCRC review concludes. While neither chamber has any power to direct the CCRC or the courts, parliamentary engagement serves several functions: it creates a public record of concern; it can prompt government ministers to address resourcing and procedural questions; and it places pressure on regulatory bodies — including the CCRC itself — to provide public updates on case progress.
September 2024 — the trial-transparency point of order
On 12 September 2024, Sir David Davis MP raised a point of order in the House of Commons about access to the trial transcript, telling the Speaker that “transparency of justice is vital” and that Members of the House “should be freely able to see exactly what happens at any trial in this country” — describing the difficulty he had encountered in obtaining a transcript of the Letby trial. It was the first parliamentary intervention touching the case, and it framed the issue Davis would return to: that scrutiny of the safety of the convictions depends on access to the underlying record.
January 2025 — the adjournment debate: ‘Trial of Lucy Letby’
On 8 January 2025 the House of Commons held an adjournment debate titled “Trial of Lucy Letby”, led by Sir David Davis — the first Commons debate to challenge the safety of the convictions. The debate placed the expert-evidence concerns on the parliamentary record, including the framework governing the admissibility of expert witness evidence under the criminal procedure rules. It preceded, by weeks, the February 2025 Shoo Lee Panel report and the CCRC application.
March 2026 — the Cheshire Police conduct debate
On 26 March 2026 the Commons held a debate titled “Lucy Letby Case: Conduct of Cheshire Police”, in which MPs raised concerns about the conduct of Cheshire Constabulary’s investigation. Davis said the force had made “egregious” failures, including on the duty to follow all reasonable lines of inquiry. Cheshire Constabulary publicly rejected the criticism the following day. The Guardian covered the debate and the force’s response.
July 2026 — the terms-of-reference debate
On 16 July 2026 Davis secured an adjournment debate on the Thirlwall Inquiry’s terms of reference, arguing that the Inquiry is asking too narrow a set of questions. He told the House that the neonatal unit was operating “30% to 40% below the staffing levels recommended by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine” and that “at least 14 babies either had an infection or were suspected to have an infection”. Aphra Brandreth MP also spoke.
Replying for the Government, health minister Preet Kaur Gill declined to widen the terms of reference: “the point of the inquiry is not to rehearse Lucy Letby’s trial; it is to focus on how people within the trust responded.” She restated that it is not for the Government to comment on or intervene in individual CCRC applications.
This is the clearest statement to date of the division of labour the Government intends: the Inquiry examines the institutional response and the CCRC examines the convictions, with no mechanism connecting the two. It is also why the Inquiry’s final report, whenever it lands, will not address whether the convictions are safe. See what happens next for what each process can decide.
What the record does not contain
It is worth being precise about the limits of the parliamentary record. As of July 2026, Hansard records no House of Lords debate specifically on the Letby case, and the parliamentary Early Day Motion database records no EDM concerning it. Parliamentary engagement to date has run through the Commons, led principally by Sir David Davis. This page is corrected and maintained against the Hansard record itself.
What’s pending
The publication of the Thirlwall Inquiry final report — expected after Parliament’s summer recess — is likely to prompt a ministerial statement and renewed parliamentary attention. If the CCRC issues a further public update or reaches a referral decision, that too is expected to draw a statement request in the Commons. After the July 2026 exchange above, a widening of the Inquiry’s terms of reference is not in prospect.