(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 323 / Noes: 81 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
I beg to move,
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.
Following my announcement on Friday 12 July and an oral statement to the House last Thursday, Members will know that our prisons are in crisis. The male prison estate has been running at around 99% capacity for 18 months. We now know that my predecessor warned 10 Downing Street of the perils of inaction, but rather than addressing the crisis, the former Prime Minister called an election and left us a time bomb, ticking away.
If we do not act now, and that bomb goes off, our prisons will reach full capacity and the justice system will grind to a halt. The courts would have to stop holding trials and the police would be unable to make arrests. With criminals free to act without consequence, the public would be put at risk. If we do not act now, this nightmare will become reality by September.
We have explored all the options available to us. In the precious little time we have, we cannot build more prisons or add more prison blocks, and we cannot fit out an existing site to make it secure enough to hold offenders. Although we are deporting foreign national offenders as fast as legally possible, we cannot do so quickly enough to address the crisis. Although we must make progress on the remand population—those who are in prison while they await trial—such measures take time we do not have. That has left us with only one option to avert disaster.
The statutory instrument that we are considering today will change the law so that prisoners serving eligible standard determinate sentences will have their automatic release point adjusted to 40% rather than 50% of their sentence. That will mean that around 5,500 offenders will be released, in two tranches, in September and October. They will leave prison a few weeks or months early, to serve the rest of their sentence under strict licence conditions in the community. Thereafter, all qualifying sentences will continue to be subject to the new 40% release point.
Let me turn now to the detail of this legislation, the sentences that qualify for this measure, and those that do not. First, this change applies to both male and female offenders. This is a legal necessity and addresses the pressure in both the male and female prison estate. Although this measure does not apply to those serving in the youth estate, where capacity pressures are less acute, it does apply to a few individuals serving sentences under section 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Most of those serving these sentences are serving long terms that are excluded from the measure, as I will go on to explain. However, a few are in scope, and are included because they are likely to end their term in the adult estate.
The provision also includes those on a detention in a young offenders institution, and 18 to 20 year-olds who are held in adult prisons. As such, both contribute to the capacity crisis. As the measure must balance addressing the crisis in our prisons alongside the need to protect the public, certain sentences will be excluded. The worst violent and sexual crimes, which are subject to a 67% release, will not be eligible. Neither will violent offences subject to a sentence of four years or more under part 1 of schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Sexual offences will be excluded, including offences related to child sexual abuse and grooming. We will exclude a series of offences linked to domestic abuse, including stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour and non-fatal strangulation.
National security offences under the Official Secrets Acts and National Security Act 2023, and offences determined to have been carried out for a foreign power, will also be excluded, as will serious terrorism offences and terrorism-connected offences, which remain subject to a 67% release at the Parole Board’s discretion. So too will terrorism offences, which are currently subject to a 50% release.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I clearly understand the Government’s predicament and the reason for bringing forward these legislative changes, but one matter that I and other elected representatives in this House have had to deal with in recent years is the predicament that victims face of meeting the perpetrator of a crime out on the streets, which brings back enormous trauma. I welcome what the Minister says about some conditions taking precedence in relation to those being released, but can she reassure the victims who are worried about what is happening? We need to have that reassurance on the record in this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, those people are worried and they want to be reassured.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He raises an incredibly important matter. I have had the feelings of victims very much in my mind as I have been forced to make this decision. Nothing in relation to the victim notification scheme or the victim contact scheme will change as a result of these measures. All the usual arrangements will apply and I shall detail some of those a little later in my speech.
Returning to the offences that are excluded, in each case we have excluded specific offences, rather than cohorts of offenders. That is a legal necessity. It is only possible to make this change in law, with reference to qualifying sentences.
In addition to these exclusions, there will be stringent protections in place around any early release. This change to the law will not take effect until September, which gives our hard-working Probation Service a crucial six-week implementation period. Probation officers will therefore have the time they need to assess the risk of each offender and prepare a plan to manage them safely in the community. All offenders released under this policy will be subject to stringent licence conditions. Where necessary, multi-agency public protection arrangements will be put in place to protect the public, as will multi-agency risk assessment conferences, which ensure that victims can be protected.
Victims eligible for the victim contact scheme or the victim notification scheme will be notified about releases and developments in their cases. Offenders will be ordered to wear electronic tags where required. Exclusion zones and curfews will be imposed where appropriate. Crucially, if an offender breaks any of the conditions imposed on them, they can be returned to prison immediately.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole House will be pleased to hear of the safeguards that the Lord Chancellor is putting in place. Is she confident that, by the time the changes to the scheme come into effect, both victim notification and probation—and, indeed, police and accommodation services—will be in a position to pick up those being released?
Shabana Mahmood
That is precisely why we have ensured that we have an implementation period for this policy change. That work will continue at pace over the summer, so that the Probation Service has the time to prepare proper release plans for offenders who will be released as a result of the changes and to ensure that all our obligations to victims and the wider public are fulfilled.
Let me also be clear that this change is not permanent. We will review this measure within 18 months of implementation—at the very latest, in March 2026. At that point, we believe that the situation in our prisons will have stabilised and that we will be able to reverse the measure, returning the automatic point of release to 50% of a sentence.
I want to directly address a question raised during the oral statement in the House last week. We have not included a specific sunset clause within the legislation that would end it automatically. We have pledged to be honest about the challenges in our prisons and the changes that we put in place to rise to them; that is a marked difference from the previous Administration’s approach. Given the scale of the crisis that we have inherited, placing an artificial time limit on this measure would be nothing more than an irresponsible gimmick. We have taken the very deliberate decision not to reverse this measure until we are certain that prison capacity has stabilised. The last Government allowed our prisons to fall into crisis. We will not introduce legislation that could force us back there again.
Finally, we will introduce a new, higher standard of transparency. Every quarter, we will publish data on the number of offenders released, and we will make it a statutory requirement for a prison capacity statement to be published annually, introducing that legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. We are clear that this is the only safe way forward. The House does not have to take my word for it: we have heard senior figures in the police, prisons and probation all warning of what will happen if these measures are not taken. We have even heard my predecessor as Lord Chancellor come out in support of this measure.
Thanks to the action—or rather, inaction—of the last Prime Minister, our predecessors ran the prison estate to within days of disaster. As a result, they were forced to introduce a series of emergency measures, such as Operation Safeguard, which turned police cells into prison overflow, and Operation Early Dawn, a daily triage system that managed the flow of prisoners from police cells to the courts. They even came perilously close to triggering Operation Brinker, which is effectively a one-in, one-out measure in our prisons. It is the very last, desperate act available to forestall, by a matter of days, the total collapse of law and order in this country.
The last Government also introduced the flawed end of custody supervised licence scheme. When this new legislation takes effect, it will be my pleasure to end ECSL. With next to no implementation period, ECSL released offenders with only a few days of warning, and sometimes none at all. That gave the Probation Service no time to assess the risk of offenders, and next to no time to plan how they would be managed safely in the community. This new legislation, with its longer, eight-week implementation period, gives the Probation Service the time that it needs to prepare. The last Government’s early release scheme did not have the same exclusions that this new legislation has. Most notably, it provided no exclusions for offences linked to domestic abuse. That meant no exclusions for stalking, for strangulation, for controlling or coercive behaviour, or for breaches of restraining orders, non-molestation orders and domestic abuse orders, all of which are excluded in the legislation presented to the House today.
Perhaps worst of all, this quick fix was carried out under a veil of secrecy. A number of extensions were made to the scheme, which first released offenders up to 18 days early, then 35 to 60 days early, and finally up to 70 days early. That last extension was implemented without any announcement at all. Throughout, no data was ever published by the previous Government on the numbers released; it fell to this Administration to reveal the true scale of the ECSL scheme. Only now do we know that more than 10,000 offenders were rushed out under that veil of secrecy by the previous Administration.
Our approach will be different. Unlike under the previous Government, those sitting on the Opposition Benches will never have to chase me around this building to get hold of the numbers. The numbers will be put in the public domain for all to see and scrutinise, as they should have been all along. ECSL was one of a series of decisions that this Government believe must be examined more fully. That is why I have announced a review into how this capacity crisis was allowed to happen, which will look at why the necessary decisions were not taken at critical moments. We will shortly be appointing an independent chair for the review, which will conclude by the end of this year.
Let me be clear: the crisis in our prisons is not over. The prison population remains within a few hundred places of collapse. Last week, we temporarily closed HMP Dartmoor, taking around 200 places out of the prison estate. Although we were able to withstand that loss of capacity, any further changes—be they a further loss of supply or an unexpected increase in demand—could tip us into crisis. The measures that I have set out will take effect in September, giving probation officers the precious time they need to prepare. During that time, we will continue to monitor the prison population closely and we will be ready to introduce further emergency measures such as Operation Early Dawn or Operation Safeguard if required.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I have three prisons in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State explain how bad the situation will be if we do not act today?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. If we do not act today, we face a total collapse of law and order in this country. If we are forced to enact Operation Brinker, it will be a one-in, one-out system and we are then days away from the total collapse of the criminal justice system. It is a shocking state of affairs that the previous Government are entirely responsible for, and it has fallen to our Administration to start to put these matters right with the decisive action we are taking. This is the only option on the table. I remind the House again that we have no choice other than to pass this measure to deal with the crisis we have inherited.
Even once we have passed the measure, we will not yet be out of the woods. Our prisons are still in crisis. The last Government ran the prisons system on the basis of luck. They hung on by their fingernails until they could hang on no longer, and then they called an election. This Government will never run that risk. We will always take the necessary action.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her reassurance on the exclusion of sexual and domestic violence sentences. While prisons are about punishment and keeping our communities safe, one of the main ways we can keep our prison population down is through rehabilitation, rebuilding lives and reducing reoffending. Does she agree that education is central to that rehabilitation, and will she meet me and Milton Keynes college, the biggest provider of education in prisons, to discuss how we can take it further?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right that, ultimately, one of the long-term solutions to the capacity crisis must be to reduce reoffending; I am just coming on to that point in my speech. I will happily arrange for her to meet the Prisons Minister and I will take a close interest in what is happening in Milton Keynes.
Let us be under no illusion. The measure I have set out today is not a silver bullet. It does not end the prisons crisis. It is not the long-term solution. Instead, it buys us the time we need to take further measures that can address the prisons crisis not just now, but in the future. Later this year, we will publish a 10-year capacity strategy, which will outline the steps that the Government will take to acquire land for new prison sites and will ensure that building prisons—infrastructure that we deem to be of national importance—is a decision placed in a Minister’s hands.
We must also drive down reoffending. Currently, all too often our prisons create better criminals, not better citizens. Nearly 80% of offenders are reoffenders. A stronger Probation Service will be crucial to driving down reoffending, and we will start by recruiting at least 1,000 new trainee probation officers by the end of March 2025, bringing forward an existing commitment to address the immediate challenges we face today. We will also work with prisons to ensure that offenders can get the skills they need to contribute to society on release, as well as bringing together prison governors, local employers and the voluntary sector to help them into work, because we know that having a job makes offenders less likely to reoffend.
The last occupants of 10 Downing Street left our prisons in crisis.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will be aware that Cities of London and Westminster has some of the highest levels of rough sleeping in the country, with 2,050 rough sleepers every night in Westminster and 482 in the City of London. St Mungo’s has highlighted that 68% of people released from prison into rough sleeping will reoffend within the year. It is simply essential that a planning process and needs assessment take place before people are released. Local authorities with the responsibility of preventing homelessness simply do not have the resources or working processes to ensure that that planning takes place. Will those processes and resources be in place before the legislation is implemented in September?
Shabana Mahmood
The point about homelessness, and what it means for recall into prison, is incredibly important. The implementation period allows probation time to prepare plans for every offender who will be released. That is different from the previous Government’s ECSL scheme, which gave no time at all. Some of these issues will be mitigated by that implementation period. Offenders leaving prison can access transitional accommodation for up to 84 nights if they are at risk of being homeless. Those provisions will continue as this scheme is rolled out.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I am sure that many of us will have been appalled by the comments of the former Lord Chancellor, who said that the measure that this Government are taking was not taken by the last Government because
“you have to win votes.”
How does the Secretary of State respond to that?
Shabana Mahmood
The public made the decision for the previous Administration by voting them out of office in such a stunning manner. We do have to win votes—it is a democracy, at the end of the day—but we must also govern the country in a way that does not risk the total collapse of the criminal justice system. It is a sign of the Tory party’s collective nervous breakdown in government that the risk of running the criminal justice system into the ground, with the total collapse of law and order in this country, was allowed to happen in the first place. This new Administration will never take such a risk, and we are taking these measures today to start putting things right and clean up the mess that we have inherited from the Tory party.
The last occupants of 10 Downing Street left our prisons in crisis. They left our criminal justice system at the point of collapse. They were the guilty men; I know the historical weight of those words, but they are apt. The last Government placed the country in unconscionable peril. This Government’s legacy will be different: a prison system brought under control, a Probation Service that keeps the public safe, enough prison places to meet our needs, and prisons, probation and other services working together to break the cycle of reoffending. Today’s measure is not the long-term solution—I am not pretending that it is; there is a hard road ahead of us—but it is the necessary first step.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your new role.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024, following the Lord Chancellor’s statement on prison capacity last week. This statutory instrument is significant, so it is right that we have the opportunity to scrutinise, challenge and call on the Government for clear answers to a number of vital questions. Although the SI is comprised of only five clauses and a schedule, its impact should not be underestimated. It reduces the automatic release point for criminals on standard determinate sentences from 50% of their sentence to 40%, subject to limited exclusions.
As the shadow Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), has set out, we recognise the challenges and significant pressure facing prisons and the criminal justice system, as well as the need to ensure that they continue to function effectively. Those pressures were well known to the then Opposition—they are not sudden news.
In government, in order to protect society, we took the decision to toughen sentences for those who commit the worst crimes. In parallel, we set in train the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era, with thousands of additional places delivered, and five of the six new prisons either built, in construction or with planning permission granted. However, what had a huge impact on the prison population was our taking the right decisions not to mass release prisoners in the pandemic, and not to scrap trial by jury during the pandemic, meaning that the number of remand prisoners awaiting trial or sentence increased from around 9,000 to around 16,500. Those decisions, which, if I recall correctly, were not opposed by the then Opposition, were the right decisions, and the now Government cannot credibly claim they did not know about them.
Public protection must always be central to what the Lord Chancellor does. We have grave public protection concerns about the Government bringing forward this statutory instrument to reduce capacity pressure in prisons. When the shadow Lord Chancellor pressed the Lord Chancellor on a number of our key concerns last week, the Lord Chancellor was unable to provide the reassurance and commitments that we sought. Today, as we debate the detail of the instrument, I must press her again, and I hope that she will respond in her wind-up.
By way of context, can the Lord Chancellor confirm the number of places available in the adult male estate as of this morning—I believe that the figure was around 700 when she made her statement—so that the House might understand the rate of attrition in prison places? She failed last week to set out her criteria for ending the effect of the statutory instrument after 18 months. More importantly, why does the statutory instrument not contain a sunset clause? I realise that she touched on that, but given the significance of the powers, surely it is reasonable to sunset such a measure. Rather than us giving her a blank cheque, she could always return to the House to seek its agreement to renewing the measure, if needed. The SI and supporting documents suggest that the Lord Chancellor has not put in place any exclusions to prevent the worst, persistent repeat offenders who receive shorter sentences from benefiting. Is that correct?
The SI sets out that prisoners may benefit from the changes if their sentence is under five years. Is she aware that under the sentencing guidelines, a section 20 grievous bodily harm wounding offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—a serious offence—would attract a sentence of up to five years? Would those who have committed that offence benefit from her prisoner sentence reduction scheme?
Several hon. Members rose—
Matt Vickers
There will be an opportunity to respond to me later.
As we know, many offences linked to dreadful domestic abuse and domestic violence do not appear to be among the Lord Chancellor’s exclusions, as the offence prosecuted would be, for example, a section 20 GBH or common assault. What does she say to victims of domestic abuse who are worried that the way in which the measure has been drafted risks allowing their attacker to benefit from her early release scheme? What percentage of those who are released when 40% of their sentence is served, rather than 50%, will be recalled back into prison for breaches? What steps is she taking to mandate the imposition of GPS tagging or other strict conditions on those who benefit from the measures? Again, there is no detail in the SI.
What additional resources are being made available to probation by September, when this early release scheme is due to start, over and above what was already put in place by the previous Government? The Lord Chancellor stated her plans for next March, but what about this September, when her scheme comes into play? How many additional staff will be in place in offender management units by September, to meet the demands of sentence and release-point recalculation? What additional funding is the Ministry of Justice making available to local authorities and other housing providers to meet the short to medium-term increase in demand for suitable accommodation in the coming months?
Last week, the Lord Chancellor confirmed her intention to temporarily fully close HMP Dartmoor. Where does she intend to find the places lost? More broadly, she asks the House to support the open-ended measures in the SI, but is yet to set out any detail of a long-term capacity plan—either how she will pay for and build more prison places over and above those we already committed to, or whether she will reverse the changes we made to toughen sentences for dangerous criminals. Which is it? What is the plan?
While we recognise the need to address immediate pressures in the prison system, we are deeply troubled by the lack of detail in this statutory instrument and its supporting documents, and by the huge gaps that appear to exist, which I have set out. A blank cheque is being asked for, and there is no sunsetting of this significant measure, and no ability to amend the instrument to include a sunset provision. I have highlighted examples of serious offences that appear not to be excluded, offences that can often be linked to domestic violence or wounding. The absence of such measures, and of clarity, mean that this instrument is drafted in a way that is deeply troubling. I look forward to the Lord Chancellor’s response and reassurances during her wind-up remarks.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your election and welcome you to your place as Deputy Speaker.
I welcome this motion from my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is taking the only realistic action open to her to deal with the critical issue of prison capacity, with our prisons projected to be overflowing by September. This is another failure by the former Conservative Government, the result of their continuously kicking the can down the road, rather than dealing with the issues at hand.
The current situation cannot come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the developments in criminal justice over the past 14 years. Prior to the election being called, I had the pleasure of serving for a second time on the Justice Committee, and on 22 May this year, in one of his last statements as Chair of the Committee, Sir Bob Neill KC said that
“Prisons are simply running out of space. My committee has long since warned of the dangers of successive Governments ignoring the rise in jail numbers, set against a workforce recruitment and retention crisis and a crumbling Victorian prison estate. Ministers and society must be prepared to invest in prison capacity and proper rehabilitation programmes as the current situation is unsustainable”.
That is the Conservative former Chair of the Justice Committee speaking. The warning signs were there a long time ago, but the failure to invest has meant that we are now reaping this bitter harvest. I welcome the prison building programme and the renewal programme mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, but in addition to the measures proposed in this motion, I would like to suggest some further measures that may reduce the prison population over a longer term.
The first measure is addressing court delays. In its report “Reducing the backlog in the Crown Court”, published in May this year, the National Audit Office found that at the end of December 2023, the outstanding Crown court caseload was 65,573, and 18,000 of those cases had been outstanding for a year or more. It also found that it took an average of 683 days from offence to completion of a case in the Crown court, and that a staggering 16,005 people were on remand as of the end of December 2023. One third were awaiting sentencing, and the remaining two thirds were awaiting trial. The remand population is the highest it has been in over 50 years. Those figures are truly shocking, and the issue of remand prisoners needs to be addressed urgently. The maxim that justice delayed is justice denied is certainly apt, and we should remember that delays in cases going to trial also have adverse impacts on the victims and witnesses.
One of the causes of the delay is a shortage of criminal barristers and duty solicitors, whose numbers have been in decline since 2018. In part, that has been due to a serious under-investment in our criminal justice system over the past two decades. I hope that we will soon see the investment we need in the criminal justice system from this Government. On court dates and the listing of trials, I very much hope that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service gets smarter in how it uses time and space for court hearings.
The second point I wish to make is about reoffending, an issue that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has touched on. According the Ministry of Justice’s own figures from the last quarter for which stats are available, 33.4% of adults released from custody will go on to reoffend. That figure is way too high. As reoffending is so high, it should come as no surprise that a large number of people are being remanded for non-violent offences due to their repeat offending. Many of those repeat offenders will have underlying vulnerabilities, such as drug abuse, homelessness and mental health issues, which will not have been properly addressed. Unless there is a co-ordinated approach to tackling the causes of reoffending, we will see this endless revolving-door cycle in our criminal justice system that gives courts no option but to remand repeat offenders into custody. I know that my right hon. Friend is serious about taking action to address those issues, and I ask her to co-ordinate work with other Departments to help stop reoffending.
The final point I wish to focus on is imprisonment for public protection prisoners, who account for approximately 3,000 of the prisoners in our prisons. In its report on IPP prisoners, the Justice Committee said that
“Our primary recommendation is that the Government brings forward legislation to enable a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals…This is the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence and its subsequent administration, and to restore proportionality to the original sentences that were given.”
On previous occasions, I have made the point that dealing with IPP prisoners who have spent more time in prison than they should have would not only help reduce the prison population, but would right a wrong.
In conclusion, I very much welcome this motion as a short-term measure to deal with the overcrowding in our prisons. I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to an annual prison capacity statement, which will allow us to see what effect this measure and other measures have on the prison population. In addition to building more prisons, we need an investment in our criminal justice system, and greater recruitment and retention of barristers, solicitors, prison officers and probation officers. I was delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend has committed to recruiting 1,000 more probation officers. That will certainly help to address issues that arise among people who are on licence after serving half of their sentence. We need to clear the backlog of cases in the Crown court to allow remand prisoners to be dealt with sooner, and we also need to address the root causes of both offending and reoffending. Finally, we need to deal with IPP prisoners, and see what can be done to release those who are over tariff.
I hope that the motion will pass today; it is a very good start to tackling the Gordian knot that we face. Still more work needs to be done, but I have every confidence that the Lord Chancellor and her team will deliver.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your election, as well as the other Deputy Speakers, and welcome you to your place.
I would not go so far as to say that I welcome the measures that have been outlined today and what is being proposed, but I and the Liberal Democrats recognise that this is probably the only step that the Government can take to deal with the situation. We are looking to relieve pressure on prisons against a backdrop of concern that the prison population is rising beyond the operational capacity of the prison estate. Indeed, as of July 2024, the prison population in England and Wales was measured as 87,453, whereas operational capacity is 88,864. As Members have highlighted, reoffending rates remain high, with 75% of ex-inmates reoffending within nine years of release, and 39.3% reoffending within the first 12 months. It is estimated that reoffending costs our society more than £18 billion a year.
We should also recognise that violence against prison staff has soared as they cope with these capacity issues; an average of 23 attacks were recorded every day last year across England and Wales. Issues with staff recruitment and retention have persisted, with English prisons running red regimes due to falling below minimum staffing levels at least 22 times in 2023. It is right to recognise that the problem is partly due to the backlog in our criminal courts, which skyrocketed under the previous Conservative Government. I found the official Opposition’s response today quite stunning. We want to work as a constructive Opposition, so that we can help deal with issues around prison overcrowding, so for them to press the Lord Chancellor for answers when they know the answers—they knew them before the last election—is quite something. As of March 2024, remand populations have risen by 84% to a record high of over 16,000 people, accounting for almost 20% of the total prison population. It is quite clear that we need to take action on that issue. Back in November 2023, the previous Administration recognised the issues around prison overcrowding and introduced their own emergency measures, so surely they should recognise today that further measures are necessary.
This is about our criminal justice system as a whole, and trust in our criminal justice system as a whole is at an all-time low. The new Government talk about being a Government of service. I was a police officer for 12 years, and I consider that to be part of the public service I have given. I want to mention the shocking footage from Manchester airport yesterday. As a former police officer, I was deeply disturbed by what I saw. I also want to share my concern and thoughts for the families of the two police officers and the members of the public who were seriously injured in a car accident on the M8 outside Glasgow yesterday.
The issues facing the Lord Chancellor are not limited to England and Wales. Indeed, the Scottish Human Rights Commission has today published a report criticising the Scottish Government’s “glacial pace of change” in tackling overcrowding, suicides and mental health provision in our prisons. Only last month, the Scottish Government were making decisions similar to those being made by this Government in relation to releasing prisoners earlier. Although, as with this Government, there are exceptions to that overall approach, I absolutely understand the concerns of victims in seeing the early release of those who have offended against them, and that is something we must continue to recognise.
Although the Government have outlined that there will not be a sunset clause in the SI, and that they are looking to bring this to an end in 18 months’ time, I would appreciate some clarity from the Lord Chancellor on reporting to this place on the progress being made. This House can estimate whether the situation continues to be an emergency only if we have the data and are aware of the effect of what is being proposed today.
We need to ensure that what the Government are doing is the right thing, but we also need to know what further steps they are taking. We must address the systemic issues in the criminal courts, because these failures are failing victims on convictions in the first place. The Probation Service is also a critical part of this. I want to add that I watched the maiden speech in the other place of the new Minister for Prisons, Parole and Probation, and I was encouraged by what I heard. The Liberal Democrats are clear that cutting reoffending must be at the heart of the Government’s plans to end the prison crisis.
We know that prisons are in crisis—they are overcrowded and understaffed, and they are failing to rehabilitate offenders—but in order to prevent and reduce reoffending we need to ensure that we are improving the provision of training, education and work opportunities in prisons. We should be considering a through-the-gate mentorship programme and introducing a plan to improve the rehabilitation of people leaving prison. The Liberal Democrats want to implement a presumption against short sentences of 12 months or less to facilitate that rehabilitation in the community.
As the Minister in the other place recognised yesterday, if we do not have the right conditions in our prisons, we are only making our prisons a place where people learn how to reoffend, rather than preventing it. We need the Probation Service to have the resources it needs. We need to improve and properly fund the supervision of offenders in the community, with far greater co-ordination between the Prison Service, Probation Service providers, the voluntary and private sectors, and local authorities, and that will achieve savings in the high costs of reoffending.
The Liberal Democrats recognise that this is the only option the new Government can take. As I say, I would not go as far as to say that I support what is being proposed, but I recognise on behalf of my party that it is the only option left to the Government at this time.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to see you in your new and much-deserved place.
I rise to support this difficult proposal from my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. I made a speech in the King’s Speech debate two days ago on the subject of prison conditions, including overcrowding. I do not intend to repeat the whole of that speech, although it is tempting to do so, especially for the bits I had to leave out, but even by the standards of this place that would probably be pushing it. However, I would say that my right hon. Friend and her team—including the new Prisons Minister in the other place, Lord Timpson—have set out with a clear and serious intent to solve the problems left by the previous Government.
I am afraid we saw from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), exactly why the Conservatives got us into this mess. There was no attempt to be accountable—he did not allow one intervention during that speech, which I think is almost unknown—and we can understand why. It is because there are no answers to the questions that can be put to the Opposition. They have left our prisons in an absolutely disastrous state: at 99% capacity for the past 18 months. It is a complete dereliction of duty. There are acute capacity pressures, and the impact assessment says that if we continued without taking this action,
“prisons would shortly run out of places and the justice system would no longer be able to function as intended, e.g. the police would be unable to make arrests and the judiciary may not be able to impose immediate custodial sentences.”
What an indictment of any Government.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
If the hon. Member thinks that the Labour Government are now going to have to release 5,000 prisoners they would not want to release, how would he describe the fact that the previous Labour Government had to release 80,000 prisoners they did not want to release?
Andy Slaughter
If that is really the best the Opposition have got, I understand why the shadow Minister did not take any interventions. The Conservatives had plenty of money for the Rwanda scheme and other gimmicks over the past 18 months, but they had no money, no resources and no intent to deal with this, and we have heard the reason for that: they thought they would win votes by leaving prisons in a crisis situation. I am afraid that was another miscalculation.
It is true that this is not an easy decision. I was reassured by what my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary said and by the SI’s supporting documents, in that recall will continue as before, the length of sentences will not change, sexual and serious violent offences are excluded, and the intention, contrary to what the Opposition allege, is that this will run for no more than 18 months. Those are all important safeguards.
It is also true that, although there will of course be cost savings, this will put pressures on the Probation Service. The explanatory memorandum states:
“There is a package of measures to alleviate Probation pressures including limiting Post-Sentence Supervision to non-Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements…eligible offenders.”
So there are consequences here. There are consequences for post-custody accommodation services, as we have heard, which are not working terribly well at the moment. There are also consequences for the police if there are situations of reoffending or recall that need to be dealt with.
This will mean a reduction, from September onwards, of a minimum of 5,000 prison places for a period of time, and that is simply necessary. That is not really debatable, and I think that is probably why the Opposition have not debated it today. It is not possible for this to continue. I hope this short-term measure will be successful, and I think it will be. I hope the safeguards will be in place and will be secure. I am also encouraged by what my right hon. Friend said about the longer-term prospects. We have to address the prisons crisis over the longer term in this country. We have to reduce the number of people in custody by reducing reoffending.
It is good that we are building modern prisons to modern standards, but I would like to see those modern prisons not supplementing but replacing some of the disgusting and disgraceful Victorian prisons, such as Wormwood Scrubs, which until a few weeks ago was in my constituency. I advise all Members who do not have a prison in their constituency or who do not regularly visit prisons, irrespective of their interest—if they are attending this debate, they must have some interest—to go and look at the conditions that persist, because they are inhumane and intolerable. That is not just a matter for staff, inmates and others who work in prisons; it is a matter for all of us as citizens, because we are not rehabilitating prisoners, but letting them out on to the streets to reoffend without any support.
The need for today’s SI is an indication of just how low the previous Government have brought the system. This is a national crisis. I have no doubt that it was one of the reasons for the previous Prime Minister calling an early election, because they simply could not face the consequences of their own actions. Thank goodness we now have a Government who will grasp these nettles firmly and resolve the issues.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, who I know is passionate about this, that this is not about just a short-term fix; this is about a long-term change in how we use the criminal justice system in this country, all parts of which are in crisis at the moment. If we can get into a virtuous spiral, rather than the downward spiral we have been in for the last 14 years, there is hope to improve the courts system, access to justice, and the service provided, including for victims, and to deal with the crisis in our prisons.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—congratulations on your new role. I welcome the new Front Benchers to their positions, including the Lord Chancellor, whom I have known for a number of years. I congratulate her on taking up the post, as well as the Opposition Front-Bench team.
It is right—this has marginally been touched on—that the first duty of any Government is the protection, safety and security of the public. The state has to manage many measures, sentences and crimes, and collectively we have a duty to ensure that the British public are protected. Alongside robust measures on counter-terrorism and backing our armed forces, we also have amazing intelligence services that form part of the matrix that the Lord Chancellor will now become familiar with, as well as keeping our streets safe by investing in the police and the criminal justice system. Part of that means that the most dangerous, harmful, serious, persistent offenders should be in prison and kept off the streets in order to keep the public safe, and it is important that we have the right deterrent.
Those on the Government Front Bench are clearly making a great deal of play about the role of the previous Government and the decisions made in the last Parliament, but it is telling that one of the first pieces of legislation that this Government are seeking to pass is one that basically considers the early release of 5,500 prisoners in a matter of weeks. I have looked at the impact assessment—the Lord Chancellor will be familiar with it—and I note that it gives option 0 and option 1. I understand the situation that she has been asked to look at, but in her closing remarks I would like to hear what alternatives were considered, other than the blanket scheme.
The Lord Chancellor touched on the previous Parliament, and for the record, in the previous Parliament we saw Labour MPs campaigning to block the removal of foreign national offenders from being deported from our prisons. We saw them oppose the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the tougher sentences that were introduced for sexual and violent offenders— I will come on to the release of some of those offenders shortly. Labour Members opposed life sentences for people smugglers in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which we know is making a difference. The release of 5,500 prisoners, and reducing the time that most offenders stay in custody from 50% of their sentence to 40%, will cause concern for the public, particularly victims of crime.
I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor about some specific areas. She has touched on them, but I would like her to expand on them. In the early release provisions, clear offences such as sexual or domestic abuse offences have been listed in the schedule. She has outlined community orders and tagging, but it is important, particularly for women who have been victims, to know and understand what provisions will be put in place for them. There are also offenders responsible for racially aggravated assaults, and the real harm that comes with offenders with past convictions for sexual offences or perpetrators of domestic abuse, who might be serving time in custody for other offences and who could be freed early.
What we know—the Lord Chancellor will know this—is that those types of perpetrators do not just offend once; they have a whole litany of historical aggravated offences. We cannot simply release those people out into the community, because those blanket offences do cause problems. She is well aware of the cross-party nature of the debate on support for victims over the past decade. I have spoken about a victims Bill, as has she, and it is about how we can work to achieve that.
There will of course be impacts on wider services—this has already been raised, in particular by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain)—and I would like to ask about the impact on our police, probation and housing services. There is no clear plan in the impact assessment. The Lord Chancellor said in her statement that that will come and that officials are working “at pace”—I have no doubt that Opposition Members will hear a lot of that term from those on the Government Benches. The papers published with this order give no indication of how local authorities, and which local authorities, will be particularly affected by the early release scheme. It is important for local authorities, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in particular, to publish that information with the Ministry of Justice.
The Lord Chancellor has spoken passionately about the transparency she will bring on data releases and numbers, and I urge that we should have that information sooner rather than later. A Labour Member also mentioned homelessness that results from this measure, particularly in the City of London, and we see that already. That is a local authority duty, and statutory duties are in place where we know such things need to be managed. There will be, and already are, pressures on housing stock, and asking the Government to publish a list of local authorities that will be affected is vital. There are also implications for families and individuals on housing registers who will now be worried about the implications for them while they have been waiting patiently on housing lists.
There will be pressures on other parts of the criminal justice system. What resources will we put into the criminal justice system? Will resources be redirected? What about police officers who will now be tied up monitoring offenders on early release, and dealing with those who reoffend? The right hon. Lady has already spoken about reoffending and breaches of conditions that will mean someone going back to prison, but how will that be managed when police officers will be taken away from policing activities? Perhaps I may politely say that clarity is required on such specificity for local authorities and police forces, and our police and crime commissioners will also want to know more about this.
I would like to press the Lord Chancellor on the timings around this decision. It has been touched on already, and the impact assessment states:
“The Lord Chancellor announced her intention for this change to be temporary. This change will be reviewed after 18 months to ensure it is still necessary.”
It would be helpful to be indicative about the concept of the sunset clause—she is familiar with sunset clauses; we have all debated such legislation—and to be clear that this measure will not be permanent. The public, as well as Members of this House, need to be assured on that. Indeed, all Members who are voting today need assurance on that important point.
I wish to ask about the reduction in the prison population by 5,500. The impact assessment considers a period over 10 years, and states:
“The Central scenario assumes there will be 5,500 fewer prison places required than would otherwise be needed in steady state… Over a 10-year period, the average annual savings for HMPPS due to reduced prison running costs are estimated to be £219.5m per annum (2024/25 prices)… Over the ten-year period, there would be a transitional benefit of reducing the additional number of prison places that need to be constructed, with an estimated benefit of”
over £2.2 billion. That is significant money, and will clearly have an impact on the prison building programme.
When the Lord Chancellor made her first speech on prison capacity and the strains, she spoke from the new Five Wells prison in Wellingborough, which was built and delivered under the last Government. It would be useful to hear more about the implications of that £2.2 billion. We heard during the general election that the Government were to continue with the prison building plans and programmes put in place, and change the planning laws, but the impact assessment assumes that there will be a permanent reduction in the prison population of 5,500. I would like to hear more about the modelling of future prison places and numbers. Will there be an expansion of existing prison sites? There were plans for a super prison in Lancashire. Will that be expanded?
Alongside that, we need to understand more about the financial impact of this policy and how the Ministry of Justice, the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility will be scoring this measure in the accounting. The impact assessment suggests a saving of more than £2 billion by reducing the number of prison places to be constructed, as well as more than £200 million a year of savings by reducing the number of offenders in prisons. It is a balancing act, but for clarity, when it comes to law and order, the Government’s direction of travel on keeping our streets safe and the points I have made, we need to know from the Lord Chancellor whether these savings will be banked for the forthcoming fiscal forecast from the Ministry of Justice, the Treasury and the OBR, especially with the Budget and the comprehensive spending review coming in the autumn.
The Government have afforded the House 90 precious minutes to debate the early release of 5,500 prisoners. From where I stand, the prison building programme, just by this impact assessment, looks as if it is being reduced and cut. I am worried that will put the public in grave danger, and it is right that we continue throughout debates—probably post recess, now—to discuss this matter. This is one of the first legislative acts of this Government. It will have implications for public confidence in law and order. I do not need to expand on that; the Lord Chancellor is well-versed in all this. We have to be cognisant of the impact and what this measure means for victims. We should focus on that and the wider functioning of the criminal justice system.
The Lord Chancellor will know that in the previous Parliament, Operation Soteria in particular looked at the integration of policing, the criminal justice system, the court system and the prison system to give confidence to victims of the most abhorrent sexual abuses. Will this proposal have a knock-on impact on some of those key programmes? I would like to have some answers from the Lord Chancellor. Transparency is important, and she has spoken about it in this debate. I have grave concerns, as I know do others on the Opposition Benches, about public safety and security, as well as the wider implications for housing, prisons, probation, the police, law and order, and public safety.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
May I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on taking your space, even more so as a female Muslim in this House of Kashmiri heritage? It gives me great pleasure and pride to see not only a female Muslim Deputy Speaker of Kashmiri heritage, but also a Lord Chancellor who is the first female Muslim of Kashmiri heritage in that role. I am sure the whole House and the whole country shares our pride in celebrating Britain, the House and democracy at their best.
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for all her work to address this issue, picking up the mess left by the previous Government. I would welcome a bit of humility from the shadow Minister. The reason we did not vote with his Government’s policies was precisely because they did not have a plan and they did not know what they were doing—otherwise, we would not have to clear this mess up on their behalf. The people recognised that, and that is why we are having to deal with it.
I make a request to the Lord Chancellor that, during her review, she accepts an invitation to visit Bradford West, and the Muslim women in prison project, which supports Muslim women in prison and their return out into the community. We all recognise the disparity of services and rehabilitation when it comes to people of ethnic minority heritage. That is an open invitation.
Once again, I thank the Lord Chancellor for giving huge consideration to the sentences she is proposing to reduce and making sure that we are still protecting the public, which the previous Government failed to do, by ensuring that we keep serious offenders out of that category and are doing the best we can do for our country.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have only three brief points to make.
First, we need an honest debate in this place about the purpose of prison. It is true that prison exists to protect those who otherwise might suffer harm—we incarcerate people because they are dangerous—but prison also matters for the reason of punishment. To incarcerate somebody who has done something wrong is to deprive them of their liberty to punish them. We should be straightforward that most of our constituents believe in just retribution. They do not spend their time, like so much of the liberal establishment does, agonising about the circumstances of criminals; they are more concerned about the circumstances of victims. Prison works for that reason above all else. It is a deprivation of liberty, endured by those who deserve to endure it. My constituents, and I suspect those of Members from all parts of the House, will be outraged by the idea that some of those people will now be let loose on our streets.
I accept that there are exceptions set out in the proposals before the House, but I have to say that had the previous Government introduced this measure, I would have voted against it, and I will vote against it today. I tabled amendments along with the former Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), and many other colleagues that would have further altered these provisions. I will not go into those in detail, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I suspect you would not allow me to do so, but I advise the new Lord Chancellor to take a look at them to see what further steps can be taken to mitigate this unfortunate circumstance, for that is the least we can do.
My second point is about the specifics of this proposal. It has already been said that the way of dealing with the prison population is twofold in essence. One is to reduce the number of people on remand by improving the throughput of people from arrest to trial. The second is to reduce the population by dealing with foreign national offenders. Remand prisoners represent about 20% of the population. Foreign national offenders now number, as the Lord Chancellor will know, in the many thousands. We can take people out of the system by doing those two things, and we can also build more prisons. I accept that the previous Government should have done more, but this Government should look at urgent prison building. We were able to build Nightingale hospitals at a stroke, so why can we not have Fry prisons built as at least a temporary measure to accommodate people who would otherwise commit further crimes?
My final point, which has been made repeatedly— I am being brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know you will want me to be so, and I want to support you as much as I can in your new role—is simply this: if this is a temporary provision, as the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) just said, why is there no sunset clause? It is all very well saying there will be a review in 18 months, but a sunset clause would mean that the measure had to come back to this House for further consideration. That is the difference between something written in the legislation and something promised in the form of a review.
I have no reason not to believe the promises of the Lord Chancellor—I take them at face value—but let us have some substance around those promises by building a sunset clause into the legislation. That would, at the very least, show the good faith that is a necessary component of good governance. Prison works. Let us build more prisons and say to our constituents that we will no longer pander to the predilections, preoccupations and prejudices of the liberal establishment, but will instead speak for them, for what they believe is what I believe: many more wicked people should be incarcerated for much longer. That is what they would say on the doorstep in any constituency; it is about time that it was said here, and I am delighted that it now has been—by me.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)
I call the Lord Chancellor to make her closing remarks.
Shabana Mahmood
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate, but let me begin by saying what a pleasure it has been to do my first piece of legislation in this House under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are a fellow Small Heathan Brummie, and it is no doubt a great first for the community from which we both come.
I was astonished by the shadow Minister’s remarks. He said that he was deeply troubled by the measure, but he and his party, who formed the previous Government, were not troubled enough to prevent the crisis from occurring in the first place. He knows full well that they have left no other option on the table but that which we are taking, and anyone with access to a newspaper can tell that, until about three weeks ago, this was their own plan. I am afraid to say that that is the modern-day Tory party: opportunistic, cynical and unfit to govern.
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions, most of which I had addressed in my opening remarks. Let me remind him—he should know—that our prisons are at over 99% capacity. The exact number will fluctuate on a daily basis, but everyone who works in criminal justice knows that our prisons will overflow by September unless we pass this measure.
On the sunset clause and exclusions for domestic violence-linked offences, I will take no lessons from the Tory party. It brought forward the end-of-custody supervised licence scheme, and that had no exclusions for domestic abuse. I raised that issue many times when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches, and the then Tory Government simply stonewalled and did not give any answers whatsoever. I am pleased to see that Opposition Members have finally discovered that we should treat victims of domestic abuse differently from how we have previously, but they should have applied that to the measure that was their Government’s policy until just three weeks ago.
I will also take no lessons from the Tory party on the sunset clause. I remind them that the end-of-custody supervised licence scheme not only did not have a sunset clause but was in fact extended by the previous Tory Government from 18 days to 35 days and then to 60 days. We then had the ignominy of the increase to 70 days that came without any announcement whatsoever. So when I say that the Government will be different from the last one, I mean it. We have already been far more transparent than the previous Government ever were or could have dreamed of being, and that is the vein in which we will continue.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) raised reoffending, which was also brought up by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), as well. It is critical that we get the rates of reoffending down.
Let me turn to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I am slightly perturbed that I found myself in agreement with his first point—I agree that prisons are about punishment—but when 80% of offenders are reoffenders, something is going horribly wrong within our prisons. Every time we have somebody coming out of our prison estate who is a better criminal than they were when they went in, that creates more victims, and we are letting our public down if we do not get the rates of reoffending down. Cutting reoffending is a strategy for putting victims first and cutting crime as much as it is about helping those prisoners become better citizens. I hope that he will take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is a good-faith response to his remarks, and reflect on the necessity of the country finally getting its shocking rates of reoffending down and putting the public first.
I return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green. IPP prisoners are not included within this measure. I know that he and others in the House have supported the possibility of a resentencing exercise, which we did not support in opposition. That is not the Government’s policy, because while I do want to make progress on IPP prisoners, we cannot take any steps that would put public protection at risk. It is a delicate balancing act, but we will start with the measures passed by the previous Government in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 on the changes to the licence period and the action plan, which we will publish as soon as possible. Where possible, I want to make progress where IPP prisoners are concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) made a really important point on the costs. There is a cost to the action that we are taking today, but there would be a much bigger cost to inaction. If we fail to take this measure today, we will face the total collapse of the criminal justice system. That catastrophic disaster has to be averted at all costs.
Let me turn to the comments of the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I am pleased about how she has approached the debate. Let me assure her, particularly on matters of national security such as they touch on my responsibilities as Lord Chancellor, that we will always take a cross-party approach and look to work together in the national interest.
The right hon. Lady raised important points about the join-up between different service providers, whether that is police, local authorities or others. I have already chaired a criminal justice board and we already have an implementation taskforce that will work over the summer to ensure that all the different agencies are working together so that the roll-out in September is successful. My Ministers will be working with Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that join-up occurs. That is an important point, and I will be taking a close personal interest in the implementation.
Priti Patel
Could the Lord Chancellor expand—probably not in this debate but over the summer or even in September —on the local authorities? The point about prison building will not go away. I believe that we need more prisons, we should be building more prisons, and that should come forward from the previous prison programme. There is the issue about finances—the £2.2 billion that I referred to—but will she commit to publishing a list of the local authorities she is proactively working with, which may be those from the previous prison building programme, where we will see more prisons?
Shabana Mahmood
I will happily return or write to the right hon. Lady in respect of specific local authorities. The impact of prison capacity is uneven, but it is also in flux on a daily basis. On money and the long-term supply of prison places, we will be publishing a 10-year prison capacity strategy, which will deal with the long-term plans that our Government have to increase supply of prison places.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
We do indeed need to build more prisons, because, as was said, the present stock is not fit for purpose, but if we build more prisons to increase capacity, we will just end up with more prisoners. All the evidence suggests that prison population is a supply-led industry, and more prisons means more prisoners. I remind the Lord Chancellor that her colleague in the other place has made it clear that a third of prisoners should not be there. What will she do to look at alternatives to prison for the sad and wretched, not the cruel and dangerous?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me be clear to the hon. Gentleman and the House. The Government will ensure that we have the prison places that we need so that we can protect the public and deal with the supply-side issues we have inherited from the previous Tory Government, who did not build the 20,000 places that they said would be ready by next year; they delivered only 6,000. In addition to providing the prison places that the country needs, we will deal with the problem of reoffending, because we are determined to ensure that we do not keep creating more and more victims. That is a strategy for cutting crime and for putting victims first.
The Government have taken action where before us came inaction. Once this action takes effect from September, we will be able to end the immediate crisis in our prisons, giving us time to introduce desperately needed long-term measures. This has been welcomed by voices from across the criminal justice system, from senior police officers to my predecessor in this role. It is the only safe option available to us, and to choose to act otherwise would leave our country in a state of unconscionable risk; one that I am not willing to take. For that reason, I commend the draft instrument to the House.
Question put.