Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alex Chalk and Shabana Mahmood(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
This Conservative Government promised 20,000 prison places by 2025, but so far they have only delivered under 6,000. The Justice Secretary is letting violent offenders out up to two months early because, as we found out from press briefings about dire warnings to No. 10, he has literally nowhere to put them. Instead of focusing on what happened 14 years ago under the last Labour Government, will he level with the public about the true scale of the prisons capacity crisis that is unfolding on his watch?
Alex Chalk
I have been very candid in saying that there are pressures in our prisons. But here is the thing: first, capacity in our jails is significantly higher than it was under Labour’s watch; and secondly, we have a record of delivery and there will be 10,000 places by next year. Here is the really important point. There are two questions that I posed in my statement. First, would Labour have let out up to 16,000 people during covid—yes or no? We said no. Secondly, would Labour have got rid of jury trials? We did not, but the Opposition would have. If they had made the same decisions that we did, they would have faced the same pressures. This is opportunism, it is silly, and Britain deserves better.
Shabana Mahmood
Bring on the general election and I will happily answer those questions. I am not surprised that the Secretary of State does not want to acknowledge the truth. Probation officers have told me that they genuinely fear not being able to keep the public safe, because they are being forced to rush through the early release of violent men in order to free up space. He will have heard the same concerns, so what is he going to do about it?
Alex Chalk
It is really important that the public are not inadvertently misled. Early release does not apply to those on life sentences, those on imprisonment for public protection sentences, those on extended determinate sentences, any sex offenders, any terrorism offenders and any serious violent offenders. The difference between our scheme and the Opposition’s is that, under their scheme, governors had no discretion to block the release of prisoners; under ours, they do. That is the difference: we prioritise public safety; the Opposition prioritise politics.
Prisons and Probation: Foreign National Offenders
Debate between Alex Chalk and Shabana Mahmood(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Late in the hours of yesterday evening, the Government tried to slip out quietly an announcement that they will be releasing prisoners up to two months early to deal with the lack of space in our prisons. Let us be in no doubt that this is the most drastic form of early release for prisoners that the country has ever seen, yet in the Secretary of State’s 11-page, 10-minute statement it merited just one paragraph. This measure will cause shockwaves and deep concern across our country and he seems to think that a quiet written ministerial statement published late last night and one paragraph today is good enough. It is not.
Prisoners will now be released not 18 days early but up to an unprecedented 60 days early. No other Government have ever found themselves having to do that on such a scale. It is nearly three times the number of days on licence seen under any previous scheme. Let me be clear that there are consequences. This scheme will seem wrong in principle to victims and the public—that people who have done wrong and have been sentenced under due process of law can be released as much as two months before a court intended. That means that people who have broken the law and, in many cases, pose an ongoing threat to the law-abiding public are directly benefiting from the Government’s complete incompetence.
It is small wonder that the Government have refused all requests to be transparent about the scale and the impact of the scheme. That is no way to run the criminal justice system—or, indeed, the country—not least because when the Secretary of State announced the scheme last October, he was explicit that the power would
“be used only for a limited period and only in targeted areas.”
He said that the scheme was to be
“a temporary operational measure to relieve immediate pressure.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 59-60.]
Last month we learned from a leak to the media that the scheme had been expanded to more prisons and, according to unpublished guidance to prison governors, activated for an “undefined period”. He will surely acknowledge that this will strike many people as a novel definition of “temporary”.
Now we learn that the scheme is due to be expanded very significantly—an unprecedented 60 days ahead of when a prisoner would ordinarily be released. I repeat the questions that I first raised all those months ago. How many prisoners have been released early under the scheme to date? Which prisons are using the early release scheme? Which types of offenders are being released early under the scheme? Are domestic abusers and stalkers eligible for release under the scheme? Why has it been expanded to early release of up to 60 days? Why has the scheme been activated indefinitely? Will the Secretary of State finally commit to publishing all the relevant statistics about the early releases scheme on the same basis that prison data is published—on a weekly basis, rather than the wholly inadequate commitment to publish on an annual basis, not least because there will have been a general election before then?
The Secretary of State has acknowledged, at last, that all the changes put real and profoundly concerning additional pressure on our already overstretched and understaffed probation service. He tells us that there will be a reset for probation to ensure that it prioritises early engagement, but it is not clear what that means or what part of its vital work he is suggesting probation officers will not do as a result of today’s statement. What is glaringly absent is any additional resource to support the thousands of cases that will now have their release dates brought forward.
It is wholly inevitable that rushing out such measures will increase the risk to the public. I hope the Secretary of State will have the honesty to admit that in his response. Again, what measures have been put in place to ensure that probation has the time and the resources to assess risk adequately and protect the public? Has there been a risk assessment of the expansion? If so, will he publish it? How will the Government ensure that inexperienced probation staff are not left unsupported to supervise dangerous offenders?
The Government tell us that they will free up more spaces in our prisons by cracking down on the number of foreign national offenders who are taking up space that we can ill afford to spare when they have no right to be in this country. The Secretary of State has not pointed out that the numbers that the Government deported last year are significantly lower than those they inherited in 2010—5,383 foreign national offenders were deported in the last year of the Labour Government. Meanwhile, thousands of foreign national offenders are living in the community post release for several years without being removed. We welcome any improvement that the Government intend to make on this pretty poor record, but if the public are to believe that any of these measures will make the necessary difference, the Secretary of State needs a more credible plan, such as a new returns and enforcement unit with up to 1,000 new staff—more than double his 400 announced today.
Unprecedented is a term that is far too often bandied around in politics, but these changes are, by any measure, truly extraordinary. The Secretary of State has not been transparent with this House or with the public. They deserve answers, and it is about time that he started giving them.
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for her points. She addressed a number of issues, but not the fact that when Labour were in government, it ran a similar scheme for three years. Does she want to explain how many were released during that scheme? I am sure that she will welcome the opportunity to update the House. She talks about risk, and she is right to raise these important issues, but it is also important that we set them out clearly and calmly. First, unlike the Labour scheme in which those who had been sentenced to under 12 months were released with no licence conditions, everyone will have a licence condition. We need to be clear about what that means. Under Labour’s scheme, which ran for three years, there were no licence conditions at all. Under our scheme there will be licence conditions.
Secondly, Labour’s scheme operated in a blanket way across every prison. Ours is targeted and calibrated. Thirdly, and importantly, under this scheme there will be the opportunity for a gold command veto, where the governor has concerns about an individual—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady could just listen for a moment. Those concerns will be escalated to a panel of senior officials, who will make a decision based on the offender’s history, the proposed bail address and the conditions that could be imposed—not to contact, not to enter, to abide by a curfew or potentially to be tagged. If the governor has concerns about safety, that person will not be released. That safeguard was not available under the Labour scheme, which ran for three years. It is critical to prioritising public safety, which is our focus.
In the hon. Lady’s response there was the eloquent sound of silence in relation to the specific questions that this Government and every Government around the world face: should we have let out thousands of prisoners? She has given no answer to that question, but it is important, because if she aspires to stand here, she will have to say whether that should have taken place. Not doing so has contributed to the pressures that we face, but it would have been the wrong thing to do, because it would have prioritised prisoner safety over public safety. We did not do it, and we were right not to do it. Principle has a cost, and we have taken a sensible decision.
The second thing that the hon. Lady did not address is whether we should have listened to those who clamoured for the end of jury trials. I do not think she is suggesting that we should have, but there is an inevitable effect to that. When we came into office, the number of cases in the Crown court was around 48,000. Pre-covid, it was 39,000, but as it has gone up, inevitably as a result of keeping the jury trial system, a higher proportion of people have been in custody awaiting trial. That is a matter of remorseless, arithmetic logic. There are an additional 6,000 people now. We made the right decision, but we have to take a sensible step.
The final point that the hon. Lady failed to address is what she would have done in these circumstances. She knows, as I know, that she would have taken exactly the same step. To seek to make political capital is beneath her.
Hillsborough: Bishop James Jones Report
Debate between Alex Chalk and Shabana Mahmood(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
It is customary to thank the Government for advance sight of the statement, but given the gravity of this matter, the fact that the report being responded to has been with the Government for many years and the length of the Secretary of State’s statement this morning, I am disappointed to have received the copy of his statement much later than is customary.
To describe the events of 15 April 1989 as “far-reaching” is wholly inadequate. To say that they were “tragic” misses the point. The name “Hillsborough” stands to this day as an indictment of institutions, individuals and an entire culture in which transparency, accountability and even simple human compassion were absent. I was a child in 1989, when 95 people died at Hillsborough stadium in the worst sporting disaster in this nation’s history. Ten years later, alongside thousands of other law students, I learnt about the shockwaves that the events of that day were still sending through our courts, to the continuing pain of the families. That included the death in 1993 of the 96th victim, 22-year-old Anthony Bland, who spent four years in a persistent vegetative state before a court made legal history by agreeing that it was in his best interests to withdraw his feeding tube. Let us not forget that it was just two years ago that the disaster claimed its 97th victim, 55-year-old Andrew Devine, who had lived with a serious brain injury for more than three decades. It has now been 34 years, and to say that justice delayed is justice denied would be a significant understatement in this context. It is simply unendurable for any family to be made to wait this long for justice.
I wish to echo the words of the Secretary of State by paying tribute to Bishop James Jones; to the many campaigners, both inside and outside this House, who have worked for so long to establish the truth; and, above all, to the bereaved families. They have gone beyond what anyone should have to endure to secure justice not only for their loved ones but for the victims of future disasters. They are an inspiration, and I speak for the whole House in saying that all of us here know the debt we owe to all of them.
I turn to the detail of the remarks by the Secretary of State. The purpose of the Government’s response must be centred on the experience of the families, just as Bishop James’s report was, to ensure that their suffering is remembered and, crucially, is never repeated. That is the commitment that the Opposition, too, make: we will work to ensure that the Government’s proposals deliver meaningful justice. We welcome the commitment to consult on expanding legal aid for families bereaved in a public disaster, but there is nothing in what we have seen from the Government to date that goes as far as we believe is necessary to require public authorities to act with candour and transparency.
To the public, a duty on all public bodies to be forthcoming with the truth is a basic requirement if justice is to be done in the wake of terrible events that scar communities and change lives forever. Many will be shocked to hear that this does not already exist as a matter of law. The Hillsborough Law Now campaign which, as the Government know, includes bereaved families who are still fighting for accountability 34 years later, has told us that without an effective duty of candour in place, the risk is that reform will simply add another layer of bureaucracy to what victims must already endure. It is for this reason that over a year ago, the Leader of the Opposition committed to a Hillsborough law that would first and foremost impose a legal duty on public institutions, public servants and officials to act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness when there has been a major incident.
The Secretary of State knows that we have sought to amend his recent Bill to introduce that more effective duty of candour during its passage through Parliament, but it is an approach that the Government have so far rejected. We will continue our efforts in that regard, because the Government’s requirement for a code of ethics is not enough.
We also welcome the commitment to a standing, independent public advocate, and have supported the change to the Victims and Prisoners Bill. However, as the Secretary of State knows, we also believe—and have said to him repeatedly—that the duty of candour is the missing piece, and it is vital to add it to make effective the changes that have been introduced in respect of the independent public advocate.
This issue is above party politics, but we have a duty to say to the Government that what they have announced does not yet go far enough. They must deliver on that vital promise that what happened in 1989, and has continued to happen to the families for 34 years, will never happen again.
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for her response, and I shall seek to address each point in turn.
On the issue of legal aid, we absolutely accept that in this particular case there was a manifest and completely unacceptable lack of equality of arms, because it was treated as an adversarial process, which was completely inimical to what the inquiry should have been designed to get to the bottom of. The culture was wrong, in terms of how the lawyers approached it, and the equality of arms was non-existent. We have sought to address that in two ways. First, in appropriate cases that become adversarial because people are defensive as they have probably got something wrong, it is necessary for the families to have the legal arms to take that on. That is why, if this happened today, that funding would be in place. This is not small amounts of funding; the total amount spent, quite properly—I have no complaints about this—in the second inquest was around £65 million. This is a very significant change that has already been made. As I say, we are consulting on whether we should go further still.
The critical issue is, of course, about candour. The importance of changing the culture runs through Bishop James Jones’ report like a message through a stick of rock. Across the House—as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, this is not a party political issue—we must do everything possible to change that culture. On the IPA, it is important to note that in point of learning 1, which was about the charter, Bishop James said:
“I welcome the government’s commitment…to create an independent public advocate to act for bereaved families after a public disaster. Once a public advocate has been appointed, I offer the charter to them as a benchmark against which they may assess the way in which public bodies treat those bereaved by public tragedy”,
before going on to talk about the text of the charter. We hope that it will play a very important part in embedding that culture and holding people to account, but this job is not over. We continue to have the discussion, and I look forward to engaging with the hon. Lady about it.
Prison Capacity
Debate between Alex Chalk and Shabana Mahmood(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
As the Secretary of State acknowledged, to govern is to choose. His Government have chosen to fail victims and to fail the public. and to offer too little, too late to turn our failing criminal justice system around.
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.]
HMPPS Update
Debate between Alex Chalk and Shabana Mahmood(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I reiterate our support for the police and all those who are involved in the search to recapture Daniel Khalife. I very much hope that that search will be brought to a swift and successful conclusion so that the rest of the legal process may take place.
This is an extremely serious matter, and it has highlighted catastrophic and multiple failures in respect of not just this case, but our wider criminal justice system. It simply beggars belief that a man being held on suspected terror charges was able to escape prison by clinging to the bottom of a food delivery van. The simplest question for the Justice Secretary today is: how on earth was that allowed to happen? How is such an escape even possible? Nothing that he has said to the House so far gets us remotely close to a full answer to that central question.
I know the Justice Secretary will say when he responds to me that it is early days, that he has ordered the relevant investigations and that they must have some time to conclude. But with respect, it gives me no confidence that the Justice Secretary has today arrived with a list of basic questions that, frankly, he should already know some of the answers to and be able to share with the House. I note with complete agreement both what he said and your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker, that nothing must be said either in the Chamber or anywhere else that may prejudice any future trial or indeed the live operation that is currently under way, but the circumstances and the facts of the escape itself are a separate matter that is of legitimate and urgent concern to this House and to the wider public. That is separate from the nature of any and all charges that will form the basis of future trials or other investigations. The Justice Secretary really does need to give much fuller answers to the House, rather than a list of his own questions.
On the circumstances of the escape itself, can the Justice Secretary at least tell the House when he responds how many staff were on duty at Wandsworth prison yesterday? Is he confident and can he tell us that all the relevant searches were done and, where there are failures, the number of protocols that he is concerned may have been breached? Will his investigations assess the quality of the training and the experience of prison staff at HMP Wandsworth, and will he be bringing in any additional expertise to assist with those matters while he is getting on top of the facts himself?
In respect of the categorisation of this particular prisoner, why was a suspected terror offender held at a category B jail while on remand, despite many other suspected and indeed convicted terrorists being held in the high security estate? Why was Daniel Khalife moved from Belmarsh to Wandsworth? Can the Justice Secretary at least tell us whether a risk assessment was undertaken before any such move took place? That is at least a yes or a no answer. Can he tell us how many similar suspects are in category B or indeed in HMP Wandsworth, and what is the timescale for such an assessment?
In relation to the two urgent reviews, may I say to the Justice Secretary that, with respect, it should be a relatively short exercise to get across the detail of the total number of the current prison population at Wandsworth? The fact that he has not come to the House with even that small amount of detail is unacceptable.
On the location of all those charged with terror offences, will the Secretary of State tell us the total number of individuals who are considered to be in that category as of today, across the whole prison estate? When will that urgent review of those numbers—I hope he can share the total number—take place? I accept that he cannot share any details, but does he know the number of individuals who might be of concern and may need to be moved to a different location, given yesterday’s events?
I note that the Secretary of State has ordered a fuller investigation, but can he say anything about the terms of reference for such an investigation? What timescale does he envisage for that longer, fuller investigation? On the matter of independence, can he provide some reassurance that he will ensure that it will not be a case of him, and others who are ultimately responsible for this failure, marking their own homework? What consideration has he given to the independence and identity of who might be carrying out that investigation for him?
The developments of the past 24 hours have shown us yet another example of the Conservative mismanagement that has meant they are unable to run vast swathes of the public realm, whether that is schools, threatening our children’s education and learning, or now with a terror suspect on the loose. Ultimately, one of the main functions of a Government is to keep their citizens safe, and on the Secretary of State’s watch, courts are in crisis, probation is in crisis, the Crown Prosecution Service is in crisis, and prisons are in crisis. When will he get a grip?
Alex Chalk
I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her place, and I will try to address the points she raises. I was pleased to hear her remarks about not wanting to prejudice a future trial, because we must keep in mind that escape is a criminal offence. She asks whether there will be inquiries into the staff on duty and the quality of training. Absolutely; that is precisely what I have asked to take place. She asks whether additional expertise is in place. Yes, that is already in place in Wandsworth at the moment, assisting with the investigation. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I want to know who was on duty in the kitchens and at the gate, what protocol was in place, and whether it was applied. If it was not applied, why not? Those are all questions I have asked, and she can be assured that they will be answered.
On timing, I have already indicated that I want to have the preliminary answers on my desk by the end of this week. I will then be able to make a decision, considering all relevant information, about what can be put into the public domain. However, we have to proceed carefully and on the basis of evidence. I say that because the hon. Lady raised a question that was factually incorrect. She asked why Daniel Khalife was “moved from Belmarsh”, but he was never in Belmarsh. With respect, it is important that we do not proceed on the basis of misinformation, and I hope I make that point clear. I absolutely understand the proper public interest and points that are being raised. That is fine, but if the hon. Lady needs to ask me any questions about matters of detail, she has my number and she can call.
On who is held on the category B estate, that is exactly what I have asked of the inquiry that has been set up. I mean no discourtesy, but I think the hon. Lady may have misunderstood what I was suggesting by means of an inquiry. This is not an inquiry into the number of prisoners in Wandsworth, which is a matter of public record; this is about whether the right people are in Wandsworth, and whether those Wandsworth prisoners should be there or elsewhere. That is what needs to be answered.
On the independence of the investigation, of course that is right, and that is precisely why I have ordered it. In summary, this is a grave incident—the hon. Lady is right about that, and plenty of the points she raises are perfectly legitimate and we will get answers as quickly as possible. But we need to proceed on the basis of evidence, coolly and calmly, so that when Daniel Khalife is caught, as he will be, he will be brought to justice and justice will be done.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alex Chalk and Shabana Mahmood(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Chalk
It is important to note that six out of the seven recommendations were accepted in full. The freeze will not apply to those people earning under £24,000. When it comes to safety, which was the central premise of the hon. Lady’s question, we have to consider the conditions that make a difference to those valuable and professional officers on the landings. Do they feel safe? Do they have a body-worn camera? Do they have SPEAR—spontaneous protection enabling accelerated response—personal safety training? That is what we want to focus on, so they can get the protection they deserve.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)