Hillsborough: Bishop James Jones Report

Debate between Alex Chalk and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to Bishop James Jones’s report, “‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’—A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated”, and on the steps we will take to respond to the points of learning contained therein.

Bishop James has done our nation a great service and his report is an exceptional piece of work. I salute the Hillsborough families for the assiduous care they have given to help to create the report and forge the response that flows from it. I had the privilege of meeting many of the families in Liverpool in June this year, alongside the former Home Secretary. I was deeply moved to hear of their experiences, and by the dignity with which they shared them, but perhaps even more affecting was their unflinching determination to make sense of the senseless and bring about change for others. That is the true mark of compassion: campaigning selflessly for change, knowing that nothing that any Government can do will bring back their own loved ones or temper their grief.

The Hillsborough families have, through their determined efforts over decades, created a lasting legacy—a national legacy—that is a tribute to their loved ones. At the start of his report, Bishop James expressed his hope that

“we might be a better nation for having listened to them.”

We are, and they deserve the thanks of our nation.

I also pay tribute to those in this House who continue to campaign on behalf of the Hillsborough families and for families bereaved by other tragedies, including the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and the hon. Members for Halton (Derek Twigg), for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne). I thank former members of the House who have given important support to the families, including Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham, and I of course thank the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I also thank Glenn Taylor for his vital work on the ongoing independent forensic pathology review.

Quite apart from its important recommendations, Bishop James’s report laid bare the truly devastating experiences of those bereaved by the Hillsborough disaster on 15 April 1989. An unimaginable tragedy unfolded: 97 innocent men, women and children ultimately lost their lives; hundreds more were injured and traumatised by what they saw. But for Hillsborough’s bereaved and survivors, that terrible day was only day one of an enduring ordeal, and in the days and decades thereafter, it became clear that they suffered a double injustice. First, there was the abject failure of the police and others at the ground to protect their loved ones—failures described in Lord Justice Taylor’s 1990 report as

“blunders of the first magnitude”.

Then, they faced years of unforgivable institutional defensiveness.

Secondly, the Hillsborough families and survivors suffered what can only be described as cruelty, as innocent fans were cynically blamed for their own deaths. But that, as was later to become clear, was a web of lies spun by those seeking to protect their own reputations. I emphasise that point because although the disaster may have been more than 34 years ago, such baseless narratives inexplicably persist in some quarters today, so let me take this important opportunity to restate what is not a matter of opinion, but unassailable fact: fans attending Hillsborough stadium on 15 April 1989 bear absolutely no responsibility for the deaths and injuries that occurred. In making that statement, I echo what was said seven years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead at this Dispatch Box when she read out the full findings of the second inquests—namely, that 96 men, women and children were unlawfully killed.

Since then, Andrew Devine, who suffered life-changing injuries at Hillsborough, passed away on 27 July 2021, becoming the 97th fatality of the disaster. I would like to place on record my deepest sympathies to Mr Devine’s family and friends, and indeed to all those who lost loved ones.

The Government’s response to Bishop James’s report has been a long time coming—too long. For some of that time, it was necessarily held back to avoid prejudicing the outcomes of criminal trials, but there has been delay since and I recognise that this has only compounded the pain of the Hillsborough families and survivors. The Government apologise for that.

As the House will be aware, the Government’s response follows that of the police, which was published in January this year. Today, the Chief Coroner is also publishing his response, which relates to his leadership role regarding the coronial service. Collectively, these responses address the points raised by Bishop James, but this does not stop here. We will, of course, continue to listen to the families of those involved in all major incidents and to their concerns.

Bishop James’s report contains 25 points of learning. While he said that he considered each to be “vitally important”, he was clear that three in particular were, to use his word, “crucial”, so let me turn to those. First, he proposed the creation of a charter for families bereaved through public tragedy. Bishop James made it clear that he wanted to

“help bring about cultural change”

through commitments to change

“related to transparency and acting in the public interest.”

It is worth reflecting that, in setting out point of learning 13 regarding the Hillsborough law, which I will come on to, Bishop James says that he has “drawn heavily” on that law’s principles in the drafting of the charter, so it is worth taking a moment to consider the language of that charter. It commits signatories—the leaders of public bodies—to strive to place the public interest above the reputation of their own organisations; to approach all forms of public scrutiny, including public inquiries and inquests, with candour in an open, honest and transparent way; and to avoid seeking to defend the indefensible.

The Deputy Prime Minister has today signed what will be known as the Hillsborough charter on behalf of the Government. Other signatories to the charter include the National Police Chiefs’ Council on behalf of all 43 police forces, the College of Policing, the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Fire Chiefs Council and others. We want the charter to become part of the culture of what it means to be a public servant in Britain, so the Deputy Prime Minister will be writing to all Departments to ensure that everyone who works in Government is aware of the Hillsborough charter and what it means for the way they work. A reference to the charter will also be added to the central induction to the civil service for all new joiners. The Hillsborough charter and Bishop James’s report have also been added to the curriculum for every recruit who joins the police. This charter will now be embedded in our public life.

The second crucial point of learning from Bishop James’s report is what he described as the “pressing need” for the

“proper participation of bereaved families at inquests”.

Inquests are, first and foremost, about answering four questions: who, where, when and how an individual has died. However, as Bishop James highlighted, the Hillsborough families were let down by the very process that should have given them answers during the first inquests, and they then had to endure a second, which had been ordered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. At the first inquests, the families were forced to fund their own legal representation, with a single barrister between them.

We recognise that proper involvement in an inquest will, in appropriate cases, mean that bereaved families should get legal representation, especially when the state is represented. That is why changes have been made such that, had the Hillsborough tragedy happened today, the families would have been eligible for free legal aid through the exceptional case funding scheme. The Government are determined to make this process as straightforward as possible, which is why in January 2022 the Ministry of Justice removed the means test for representation in relation to ECF cases and in September 2023 the means test was removed for legal advice at inquests. We want to build on this progress, so I can announce today that we will consult on an expansion of legal aid for families bereaved through public disaster where an independent public advocate is engaged—I will come back to that—or in the aftermath of a terrorist incident.

I acknowledge that Bishop James talks broadly about the proper participation of bereaved families at inquests where the state is represented. We will seek to further understand the experiences of these individuals, and I would welcome a conversation with Bishop James on that early in the new year.

We support the principle raised in Bishop James’s report that public bodies should not be able to spend “limitless” public funds on legal representation. That is why we have, for the first time, set out a requirement on Government Departments to

“consider the number of lawyers instructed bearing in mind the commitment to support an inquisitorial approach.”

We will now go on to set out that central Government public bodies should publish their spend on legal representation at inquests and inquiries, reaffirming that this spend should be proportionate, and never excessive.

We have also published a set of principles to guide how public bodies should instruct lawyers at inquests. These include a requirement to approach the inquest with openness and honesty and to keep in mind that the bereaved should be at the heart of the inquest process. We will also publish guidance to set the clear expectation that central Government public bodies must instruct their lawyers in accordance with the principles of the Hillsborough charter, because how lawyers engage with the inquest process and with the bereaved families matters.

I shall turn to the third of Bishop James’s three crucial points of learning: a duty of candour for police officers. As he described it, there is

“a gap in police accountability arrangements”

for officers who

“fail to cooperate fully with investigations into alleged criminal offences or misconduct.”

That is why a new offence of police corruption, applicable to police and National Crime Agency officers was introduced in 2017, punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. In 2020, we updated the Police (Conduct) Regulations to introduce a new duty to co-operate for individual officers during investigations and inquiries. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal. Last month, we introduced legislation to place an organisational duty of candour on policing. Through the Criminal Justice Bill, we will place a duty on the College of Policing to issue a code of practice for ethical policing, and for that code to include a duty of candour. This duty is designed to promote a culture of openness, honesty and transparency, and chief constables will be held to account for their forces’ performance against the code. The new code of practice has been laid in Parliament today.

We want to go beyond the police to consider healthcare settings too. In response to recent concerns about openness in those settings, we will be conducting a review into the effectiveness of the existing duty of candour for health and social care providers—the terms of reference for that have been published today.

I am aware that the Hillsborough law calls for a duty of candour on all public authorities. Since the Hillsborough disaster, a comprehensive framework of duties and obligations has developed, which covers public officials and the different official proceedings, such as inquests and inquiries. First, in central Government, the civil service code requires civil servants to act with honesty and integrity. A breach of the code can result in a range of sanctions, including dismissal. This sits alongside the Nolan principles providing that:

“Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.”

Secondly, the legal framework surrounding criminal investigations, statutory inquiries, inquests and most other formal proceedings requires that all individuals, regardless of whether they are a public official, co-operate with them. For example, there is a duty of candour in judicial review, which amounts to a duty on public authorities to lay cards “face up on the table”. When it comes to inquiries, importantly, these carry the potential for custodial sanction—prison sentences in plain English.

Thirdly, where a public official demonstrates a lack of candour, and where this forms part of their duty as a public office holder, they can potentially be guilty of misconduct in public office, which is a criminal offence. We will keep these changes under review to ensure that we achieve that culture of openness, honesty and candour, and we will not rule out taking further action if it is needed.

Today, the Government respond to all 25 points of learning, but I have focused this statement on those that Bishop James described as “crucial”. Very meaningful progress has been made, but we will not hesitate to go further if required. The discussions will continue, and the Government have committed to another debate in the new year to ensure that that dialogue progresses. I would also be happy to meet the Hillsborough families should they wish to discuss any aspect of the Government’s response.

Finally, I turn to improvements in the justice system. Bishop James made it searingly clear that the justice system, which should have supported victims and the bereaved after the tragedy, was not set up to do so. Our response sets out the steps this Government have taken to ensure that bereaved families and survivors in the immediate aftermath of a public tragedy are guided through what can be a difficult, complicated and forbidding process. Through the Victims and Prisoners Bill, we have introduced legislation to enable an independent public advocate. Once established, the IPA will be a strong voice for victims, the bereaved and whole communities affected by major incidents. The IPA, as promised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, will make sure that those affected by major incidents know their rights, can access support services, and have their voices heard at inquests and inquiries. Its design has been informed by the very difficulties that the Hillsborough families faced and our commitment to making sure that other families do not suffer the same injustices. That can include holding public bodies to account for their commitments to abide by the Hillsborough charter. I am also grateful for the contributions of some of the families of victims of the Grenfell Tower fire and of the Manchester Arena bombing, telling us what would have helped them most in the aftermath of those terrible events.

After listening to concerns of the Hillsborough families, set out so powerfully when I met them earlier this year, as well as contributions from colleagues across the House—I am looking at the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood here—I decided that we must go further by establishing a permanent IPA. It is vital that the IPA can be deployed as soon as possible after disaster strikes and that they have time in advance to be as prepared as possible. A permanent advocate will be able to advise the Government on their response to major incidents, such as any subsequent inquiries or reviews, and will ensure that the views of families are heard. Importantly, they will also report independently to government about the experiences of victims and bereaved families, as well as publishing an annual report. All such reports will be laid before Parliament.

The Hillsborough families have been unrelenting in their pursuit of justice, and Bishop James has done essential work to support the families and has faithfully discharged the commission put upon him by the then Home Secretary and former Prime Minister to capture their perspective, so that it was not lost following the second inquests. Today is therefore an important day. It does not provide closure for the families, of course. As Bishop James himself wrote,

“there can be no closure to love, nor should there be for someone you have loved and lost.”.

Grief is indeed a journey without a destination. But today is a milestone on that journey. It is a moment, I hope, when families will feel able to pause and take quiet pride in the enormity of what they have achieved, not for themselves, but for others—for the British people. But I hope they will serve to cement and strengthen the Hillsborough families’ legacy—the changes they have made to benefit an entire nation and to help ensure that never again can our people be so betrayed by the very organisations and institutions meant to protect them. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Prison Capacity

Debate between Alex Chalk and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

With permission, I shall make a statement on the criminal justice system in England and Wales.

The first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe, and that is why those who pose a danger to society must be locked up. The Government are categorical that the worst offenders should be locked away for as long as it takes to protect the public. We have increased the sentences for offences including knife crime, causing death by dangerous driving—now a maximum of life imprisonment—and causing or allowing the death of a child. We have ended automatic halfway release for serious sexual and violent offenders, so they will serve two thirds of their sentence behind bars, and, in the most dangerous cases, all of their sentence behind bars. We are changing the law to make whole life sentences the default for the most heinous type of murder, so that for society’s most depraved killers, life means life and murderers end their days in prison.

Today, I can announce that we will be going further. We will legislate so that rapists, as well as those convicted of equivalent sexual offences, will serve the entirety of the custodial term handed down to them by the courts. A 15-year custodial term will mean 15 years behind bars.

There have been inaccurate reports in the media, claiming that judges have been told not to send rapists to prison. Let me be categorical: this is untrue. Sentencing is a matter for the judiciary acting impartially and in accordance with the law. It is a fact that under this Government the most serious and dangerous offenders are being locked away for longer. In the case of rapists, average sentences are nearly a third longer than in 2010. That is the right thing to do to keep the public safe.

To continue to put the worst offenders away for longer, we must use prisons better, and always so that there are sufficient spaces to lock up the most dangerous criminals. We must reform the justice system so that it keeps the worst of society behind bars, rehabilitates offenders who will be let out and presents the least serious, lowest risk offenders with a path away from a life of crime. That matters, because intelligent reform means less crime.

I have been candid from the moment I took on this role that our custodial estate is under pressure. Today, the prison population in England and Wales is greater than it has ever been—nearly double the level it was three decades ago. That is not principally because of the growth in the sentenced population: instead, it is the remand population, principally made up of unconvicted prisoners awaiting trial, which has surged in recent years, from 9,000 in 2019 to more than 15,000 in 2023. That is more than 6,000 more people in our prisons out of a total of some 88,000. That is because in the white heat of the pandemic we took the right and principled decision not to jettison hundreds of years of British history and abandon the jury trial system. We did that because the jury trial system is the bedrock of our freedoms. But covid restrictions inevitably meant that the flow of trials slowed and, in turn, the remand population grew. That growth was exacerbated by industrial action last year. In addition, the recall population is also significantly higher than in 2018, partly because we are rightly ensuring that offenders who do not comply with their licence conditions are returned to prison.

The Government have taken unprecedented steps to meet demand. We are building 20,000 modern rehabilitative prison places—the largest prison-building programme since the Victorian era. By doubling up cells where it is safe to do so, speeding up the deportation of foreign national offenders and delaying non-essential maintenance projects to bring cells back into use, we have freed up an extra 2,600 places since September last year alone. On top of that, we have continued to roll out hundreds of rapid deployment cells at prison sites. Altogether, we have been bringing on capacity at a rate of more than 100 places a week—the fastest rate in living memory, and possibly in 100 years.

We are going further. Today I can announce up to £400 million for more prison places, enough for more than 800 new cells. When we legislate to keep rapists behind bars for the whole of their custodial term, I will ensure that commencement is dependent on there being sufficient prison capacity. There is already an obligation to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report as to how I have discharged my general duty in relation to the courts. To ensure public confidence, a new annual statement of prison capacity will be laid before both Houses. It will include a clear statement of current prison capacity, future demand, the range of system costs that will be incurred under different scenarios and our forward pipeline of prison build. That will bring greater transparency to the plans and will set out the progress that is being made. I have also already commissioned urgent work, to conclude before the end of the year, to identify new sites for us to purchase. That is backed by a down payment of up to £30 million in funding to acquire land in 2024 and launch the planning process.

We must do whatever it takes to ensure that there are always enough prison places to lock up the most dangerous offenders to keep the British people safe, to ensure that criminals can be brought to justice, and to maintain safety and decency in the prison estate. We have decided to use the power in section 248 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow the Prison Service to move some less serious offenders out of prison on to licence up to 18 days before their automatic release date.

Let me be clear: this will not apply to anyone serving a life sentence, anyone serving an extended determinate sentence, anyone serving a sentence for an offence of particular concern, anyone convicted of a serious violence offence, anyone convicted of terrorism or anyone convicted of a sex offence, and this power will be used only for a limited period and only in targeted areas. Every offender will be placed under strict licence conditions that provide a step down from custody to living in the community. They may include the following: first, being made to wear an electronic tag when that is needed for the offender to be managed safely; secondly, a condition not to contact a named individual, directly or indirectly; thirdly, having to live at an address approved by the offender’s probation officer; fourthly, attending appointments; and fifthly, a condition not to enter certain areas such as particular postcodes. I should also make it clear that breach of those conditions could lead to offenders’ being recalled to custody for the entire second half of their sentences.

This will be overseen by the probation service—a probation service into which we have injected £155 million a year to recruit staff to bring down case loads and deliver better supervision of offenders in the community. In addition, HM Prison & Probation Service leadership will retain discretion to decide on further exemptions from release on advice of governors when concerns remain. Let me make it clear that this is a temporary operational measure to relieve immediate pressure contributed to by remand.

However, if we are to protect the public and reduce crime, we need to go further to use our prisons better. At the heart of the long-term plan for prison reform that I am announcing today is a simple mission: cut crime. To deliver that, we need to do three things. First, we need to ensure that the most dangerous offenders are locked up for longer, away from the public and unable to commit crime. Secondly, we need to ensure that prisons are geared to help offenders turn away from crime, to change their ways and to become contributing members of society. Thirdly, we need to ensure that more lower-level offenders get the tough community sentences that are shown by the evidence to cut reoffending and hence to cut crime.

Let me put that last point in another way: prisons should not ruin the redeemable. It is clear that all too often the circumstances that lead to an initial offence are exacerbated by a short stint in prison, with offenders losing their homes, breaking contact with key support networks and, crucially, meeting others inside prison who steer them in the wrong direction. When they are released just a short time later, they all too often reoffend, fuelled by addiction or mental health issues that cannot possibly be addressed effectively in such a short space of time. The fact is that more than 50% of people who leave prison after serving less than 12 months go on to commit further crimes. The figure is 58% for those who serve sentences of six months or less. However, the figure for those who are on suspended sentence orders with conditions is 22%.

Meanwhile, the cost of this is £47,000 per year per prisoner. The taxpayer should not be forking out for a system that risks further criminalising offenders and trapping them in a merry-go-round of short sentences, so the Government are determined to grasp the nettle and deliver a better approach. We will legislate for a presumption that custodial sentences of less than 12 months in prison will be suspended and offenders will be punished in the community instead, repaying their debt within communities, cleaning up our neighbourhoods and scrubbing graffiti off walls. We can do this more intelligently with modern solutions for a digital age.

I can announce today that we are doubling the number of GPS tags available to the courts, to ensure that offenders can be monitored, to track them to ensure that they are going to work, and also to ensure that their freedom is curtailed in the evenings and weekends, with robust curfews of up to 20 hours a day. We will make further use of new technologies such as alcohol monitoring tags. This will enable us to strengthen and expand successful step-down programmes such as home detention curfew, which we will keep under active review. If offenders breach the terms of their curfew or other requirement of their suspended custodial sentence, or commit another offence, they can be hauled back before the court and forced to serve that sentence in custody.

What we are not doing is getting rid of short sentences altogether. I know from my time as a prosecutor that that is sometimes the right and just option. Prolific offenders who are unable or unwilling to comply with community orders or other orders of the court must know that their actions have consequences, and they will continue to feel the full force of the justice system. Building on our antisocial behaviour action plan, the Home Secretary and I are looking at what more we can do to punish those so-called lower-level offenders who are a blight on our communities. For some offenders, the proper sanction is, I am afraid, the clang of the prison gate.



We will also remove foreign offenders who should not be in the United Kingdom taking up space in our prisons at vast expense to the taxpayer. There are over 10,000 foreign nationals in our prisons. It cannot be right that some of them are sat in prison when they could otherwise be removed from our country. That is why we will extend the early removal scheme so that we have the power to remove foreign criminals up to 18 months before they are due to be released—up from 12 months now—getting them out of the country early and no longer costing taxpayers a fortune.

To support that, more caseworkers will be deployed to speed up removals, and the Home Office will also look at measures to do more to remove foreign nationals accused of less serious crimes more quickly. We will continue to strike new prisoner transfer deals like the one agreed with Albania, ensuring that criminals from overseas serve their time at home rather than in Britain. We will bring forward legislation to enable prisoners to be held in prisons overseas—an approach taken by Belgium, Norway and Denmark in recent years.

More must be done to stop people spending long periods of time waiting in prison for their trial. As I have set out, there are now more than 15,000 defendants on remand in our prisons. Remand decisions are properly for independent judges, but we will consider whether to extend the discount to encourage people to plead guilty at the first opportunity, because when more offenders plead guilty, that saves time in the court and cuts the number of people in our prisons on remand, but most importantly it saves victims the ordeal of giving evidence in court. We will also be reviewing the use of recall for offenders on release who infringe the terms of their licence. It is right that ex-prisoners who commit new crimes or serious breaches while on licence should be returned to prison. We want to ensure that the system is working effectively to mitigate any risk posed by offenders while not having people in prison on recall longer than necessary.

We will take decisive action to address sentences of imprisonment for public protection. We put a stop to these discredited sentences a decade ago, but it is true that there remain about 3,000 IPP prisoners in custody despite their original tariff expiring years ago. IPPs are a stain on our justice system, so I am looking at options to curtail the licence period to restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences in line with recommendation 8 of the Justice Committee’s report, and I will come back to the House on that in due course. This will not compromise public safety. Those found by the Parole Board to pose a risk to the public will not be released.

As I have set out, we are taking decisive action to make our prisons work better in the long term. We are building more prison places than at any time since Disraeli was speaking from this Dispatch Box. We are rolling out hundreds of rapid deployment cells across the country to increase immediate capacity. We are going further and faster than ever before to remove foreign criminals from our prisons.

To govern is to choose. We choose to lock up the most dangerous criminals for longer to protect victims and their families. We choose to reform the justice system so that criminals who can otherwise be forced into taking the right path are not trapped in a cycle of criminality. That is the right long-term plan for our justice system, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

What a very disappointing response. I was surprised to hear that newfound interest in locking up rapists. Lest we forget, this Government are prosecuting more alleged rapists, convicting a higher proportion and imposing longer sentences than Labour, and ensuring that a higher proportion of those sentences is being spent behind bars.

It is important to aim off a little bit when looking at what is said in the Chamber by Labour Members. The hon. Lady refers to foreign national offenders, but I remember very well that back in 2020 we wanted to ensure that a plane full of rapists and murderers could leave the country, yet a letter came to the Prime Minister, saying:

“Dear Prime Minister, We, the undersigned,”—

have—

“grave concern over Home Office plans to deport 50 people”.

It went on to say:

“The flight and all future charter flights must be suspended”.

Shall we see who was on that flight, Madam Deputy Speaker? There was a man who had thrust a bottle into his victim’s face, leaving him scarred for life, in what was described as a “horrifying attack”—that is grievous bodily harm. Another person, who had been imprisoned for attacking a 17-year-old girl twice and abducting her, and who had sex with a 15-year-old, then lied about it and “vandalised” her life, according to her mother, was called “devious, callous and manipulative” by the judge. The hon. Lady signed a letter asking that he should not be deported. We will take no lessons from the Labour party in being tough on criminals. [Interruption.] She seems still to justify signing that letter. Does she not regret that decision? I think she might want to think about it again.

The Conservative party will get foreign national offenders out of this country. We have brought on the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era: 100 cells per week. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) was being interrupted, I stopped the interruption. I hope she will have the courtesy not to speak now from the Front Bench.

[Alex Chalk]

We will always take the steps that need to be taken to keep the British people safe.

In respect of community orders, the hon. Lady is right that it is important that they are robust and enforceable. That is why I was at pains to point out that we are doubling the number of tags—I suspect we will go much further and triple the number of tags. By the way, they are not the old radio frequency tags that were used when I was prosecuting. They are GPS tags that mean that judges and those appointed to the bench can ensure the monitoring of where that individual has gone, to make sure that they go to work and that their liberty is deprived at the weekend. That is the kind of robust penalty we support.

Our ability to ensure that people are under curfew for over 100 hours a week was in our legislation, which was opposed by—guess who?—the Labour party.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I commend the Lord Chancellor on his thoughtful, considered and serious statement that deserves a thoughtful and considered response, which it has not entirely had. Does he agree that it is right and proper that we are frank with the British public that prison is an extremely expensive way of dealing with people, and that it should be reserved for those who are a threat to us, not simply those with whom we are perhaps justifiably angry or irritated?

Does the Lord Chancellor agree that it is right to take on board some of the recommendations of the Justice Committee’s report in relation to IPP prisoners—those sentenced to imprisonment for public protection? I welcome what has been said about remand, which we know is also important. As well as reducing the qualifying licence period, can he help us a little more on what else he will do to take on board the recommendations about IPP prisoners in the report? What is the timeframe for moving swiftly towards reducing the remand population?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Chalk and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Lady is right that it is always important to be vigilant about the point she raises, but I would make two points. First, in looking at the deferred prosecution agreements, we should just consider what has been achieved over the past five years: £1.3 billion has been taken off companies that have acted in a fraudulent way, in agreements sanctioned by the courts. As I have indicated, this year there will be seven trials in respect of 20 defendants on 80 counts, in respect of fraud worth more than £500 million. It is good news that just this week, Glencore has indicated that it will plead guilty to serious fraud, and it will be sentenced accordingly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chairman of the Select Committee, Sir Robert Neill.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

May I, on behalf of my fellow members of the Justice Committee, echo the welcome that has been given to the Prosecutor General for Ukraine?

The prosecution of serious fraud has had significant success and I am glad that the Solicitor General recognises that. I have written to him in relation to the Calvert-Smith report, as many of us believe that confidence in the system demands full publication. Will he commit to looking earnestly and carefully at the concerns about gaps in substantive criminal law which sometimes create greater challenges for prosecutors in corporate fraud cases, for example the test in relation to corporate liability in criminal cases and whether there is a case for a duty to prevent, as is the case in other common law jurisdictions?