Oral Answers to Questions
David Lammy Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Mr Speaker, it is nice to be back on my old beat.
This Government inherited a record courts backlog. We have taken immediate action by funding a record high allocation of 110,000 Crown court sitting days this year. Fundamental reform is of course necessary, which is why the previous Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to propose bold reforms, which we are now considering.
Josh Newbury
I recently had the chance to visit my local magistrates court in Cannock, and I was told that a major barrier to ramping up the number of sitting days in both magistrates and Crown courts is the lack of legal advisers. I am told that many are leaving the Crown Prosecution Service because the pay is often better elsewhere, but that means having to cut back on sitting times. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Ministry is taking to increase the number of legal advisers in our courts?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will be pleased that we are recruiting more legal advisers and we are increasing capacity in the system. He is right that magistrates courts particularly are the bedrock of the system, which is why I was so appalled that the previous Government cut back our magistrates courts so extensively. It is important that we support our magistrates to do their very important work.
Dr Savage
Crown courtrooms are sitting empty for up to 75% of the time. Judges used to be booking in trials three to six months into the future, but now they are booking well into 2027 or even into 2028, which is to save the cost of bringing in a recorder at £830 a day. However, these cases still need to be tried at some point, so that is not actually saving costs, just deferring them. In the meantime, there is a terrible impact on complainants, and in fact on justice itself. What will the Secretary of State do to clear this backlog and ensure that cases come to trial?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady is completely right. Victims must see justice being done in real time. That is why we asked Brian Leveson to do the second part of his review, on efficiencies, which goes to the heart of her question.
Liz Twist
Some cases are now being listed for 2029, which is completely unacceptable. How is the Secretary of State undoing the harm inflicted by the Conservative party not only on the justice system but to trust that justice will be found?
Mr Lammy
The inheritance from the previous Government was shocking, and at the heart of it were victims suffering. What we are doing is increasing the number of sitting days, which is hugely important, and I was very pleased to meet the Lady Chief Justice last week to discuss what more we can do. To ensure that we deal with that terrible inheritance, we will of course get on and implement the Leveson review.
John Glen
I wish the right hon. Gentleman the very best in his new appointment, but he is presiding over a complicated system, in which, today, 74 out of 516 Crown courtrooms are empty. Will he comment on that, and on when the second part of the Leveson report will come into effect so that we know when action will be taken on the greater complexity that is yet to be evaluated?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman is right that we have to build the system’s capacity to use courtrooms better. I can tell him that Sir Brian Leveson—I was very grateful to Sir Brian for coming to see me, as Foreign Secretary, while he was completing his review because of my experience in the criminal justice system—is completing his review by the end of the year.
Douglas McAllister
One of the most effective steps taken by this Government to help reduce the Crown court backlog is the record increases to criminal legal aid. Fewer criminal barristers and solicitors will not help to tackle case waiting times. Scotland is experiencing unacceptable delays in solemn cases coming to trial, made worse by the inadequate funding of Scottish legal aid by the Scottish Government. Does the Justice Secretary agree that unless we significantly increase legal aid fees across the UK, the current criminal defence model is unsustainable and we risk the collapse of our court system?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend highlights almost two decades of the SNP running Scotland into the ground. Here, we have had a record increase of £92 million. On the day we introduce the Hillsborough law, it is hugely important to record that that is the biggest extension of legal aid for people who have suffered at the hands of the state in over a decade.
Freddie van Mierlo
Rape is a heinous and despicable crime, with lifelong consequences for victims. Some do not survive. According to the House of Commons Library, the average number of days from charge to case completion is 363 days. What time do the Government think is acceptable for delivering justice for rape victims? Do they have a target? What is it and what steps are they taking to reach it?
Mr Lammy
We must have swifter justice for victims of rape. When I was shadow Justice Secretary, I was appalled that under the previous Government we got to a position where we had almost decriminalised the situation because there were so few prosecutions. There must be justice, and that means swifter justice.
Tristan Osborne
In west Kent, an initiative to share the resource of Maidstone Crown court with Woolwich Crown court is spreading cases into areas where there is not such a backlog. Can the Government indicate whether that is being openly considered in other parts of the country so that we can spread the backlog across different areas?
Mr Lammy
It is absolutely the case that where courts are coming together and being proactive, we are seeing progress. I look forward to looking more closely at the example of Maidstone and Woolwich. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is the way forward.
Richard Foord
Of 221 people arrested for supporting Palestine Action, 162 were arrested under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This prohibits people from carrying articles in public which
“arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.”
Even the protesters who displayed those sickening pictures of Hamas paragliders in the week after 7 October were each given a conditional discharge. Will the Government please look again at the Terrorism Act to avoid clogging up the criminal justice system with people whose real motive is to support action on Palestine?
Mr Lammy
I am always happy to do anything—I did it in my last role and I will do it in this role—to ensure that anyone terrorising is convicted. That is quite properly a matter for law enforcement and prosecutors, but I will examine the detail of what the hon. Gentleman says.
Peter Lamb
I have met constituents who have been victims of some of the most serious offences and were waiting for years before the general election to have access to justice. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how I can ensure that my constituents have timely access to justice?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. We have to ensure that the system works for victims. Under the previous Government, half of all magistrates courts closed, and in December 2023, the Crown court backlog had increased by 77%. We are dealing with that—we have to do so as swiftly as possible. I will of course ensure that he meets with the appropriate Minister.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I pay tribute to my predecessor, who is mentioned on the face of the Order Paper, who was killed in 1940.
The Justice Secretary keeps referring to the previous Government, and I sort of get that, but I remind him that the new Government have been in post for some 14 or 15 months—over a year—and at some point, that particular argument is going to wear very thin. Is he aware of the extraordinary length of time that victims of serious sexual assault and crimes must wait in the Shropshire courts, particularly Shrewsbury Crown court? It is double the 363 days that we have just heard from the Lib Dem Benches. What will the Justice Secretary do to help those victims, as well as the defendants who may, on occasion, be innocent?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman and I are friends across this House. However, I have to say to him—and he should say this to his constituents—that under the previous Government, we saw devastating cuts to the police, with a reduction of 20,000 officers; we saw no building of prisons at all, effectively—only 500 places; we saw the decimation of the Probation Service, which we are rebuilding; and we saw a reduction in sitting days. We have had to get on with all that. Yes, we have made some strides in 14 months, but the devastation was big, and it will take a bit longer.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
We are determined to back our hard-working probation staff by investing up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review, and an initial £8 million in technology to reduce administrative burdens. We will also recruit 1,300 trainee probation officers in the next year.
Ms Billington
The probation officers I have spoken to are supportive of the early release scheme inasmuch as it was necessary to deal with the chronic overcrowding in our prisons—a legacy of the previous Government’s dereliction of duty. Many offenders on the fixed recall scheme with a determinate sentence, however, are not being risk-assessed before rerelease, which concerns probation officers. In that context, can the Secretary of State indicate what measures he is putting in place to ensure that probation officers are able to do their job with offenders being released early?
Mr Lammy
I was with probation officers last week, in my first visit as Secretary of State—it was important that probation was the first place I went to because the work and dedication of those officers and the staff is immense. We are working with the Home Office to ensure that those risk assessments are done.
Marie Goldman
My constituency of Chelmsford is an important hub for the justice system in Essex; it is home to several courts, including a Crown court. The independent sentencing review led by David Gauke found that the reoffending rate for those who were homeless or rough sleeping was double that of those who had accommodation to go to upon release. Indeed, I have heard examples from charities of those on probation being recalled to prison simply because they have no fixed address. At a time when prison places are so limited, what steps is the Justice Secretary taking to ensure that such frustrating examples of recall stop, and how does he intend to work with the inter-ministerial group for homelessness and rough sleeping to ensure that the Probation Service’s work is not undermined by a lack of accommodation upon release from prison?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question—no doubt she will be contributing to the debate a little later on our Sentencing Bill. That issue was raised with me by probation workers last week. It remains a big issue in our system, made worse by the previous Government. I commit to working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that that housing is available.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend back to his rightful place. I remember being a junior shadow Minister under him—I will try to be less deferential in my current role.
My right hon. Friend rightly says that the Government are recruiting new probation officers to fulfil the new responsibilities under the Sentencing Bill and to deal with early release. The BBC recently reported, however, a shortage of 10,000 probation officers. How are we going to fill that gap? The Probation Service is absolutely essential to the strategy that he is rightly following now.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend and I did a lot of work together while the Probation Service was decimated by a badly botched privatisation that ruined such an incredible service. He is right that we will need to recruit more officers. The £700 million that we found is essential, and I will be looking closely at the allocations over the coming months.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to pay tribute to the probation officers in Northern Ireland, who do an excellent job. I have met them many times, and they are magnificent. On many occasions they have to deal with young people who, due to peer pressure, find themselves influenced to do things that they normally would not do. Restorative justice is one way to try to make things better. Is there a direct strategy within Government to ensure that restorative justice is used to rehabilitate young people and give them the chance of a better life?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman brings a lot of experience to these issues. What he reflects on is an issue faced in constituencies like mine. I hope he will contribute to the debate on the Sentencing Bill later today.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I welcome the new Justice Secretary and the Minister responsible for sentencing to their places. The Probation Service relies on an effective tagging system in order to keep our communities safe, but the £300 million contract that the last Government awarded to Serco has resulted in lots of failures. I saw some of them close up when I shadowed Serco over the summer, including, for example, wrong addresses being provided, which means multiple failed visits and a failure to tag the offenders who need to be tagged. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much Serco has been fined in its contract, and will he commit to strengthening penalties so that we ensure that private contractors are not rewarded for failure?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right that Serco’s record was poor and unacceptable. We stepped in, and have fined it. I cannot say by how much, because it is commercially sensitive, but I can tell him that I intend to hold Serco to account. The job that it does is immensely important for public confidence.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The safety of our prison staff is a No. 1 priority for me. That is why we are investing £40 million to stop the contraband that puts our hard-working staff particularly at risk. We are also rolling out protective body armour for use in the highest security units and trialling the use of Tasers for specialised staff.
Jack Rankin
Thousands of drones are being used to smuggle contraband such as weapons and drugs into prisons. Locally, I have met leading security company Preventive Concepts Security. The shadow Lord Chancellor was good enough to visit it in France to see its technology in action, detecting and disabling drones. What specific steps is the Department taking to roll out drone detection capabilities across the prison estate? Is it currently engaging directly with private stakeholders such as Preventive Concepts Security?
Mr Lammy
I did see that the shadow Lord Chancellor had visited France. I looked seriously and closely at what he was proposing, and I propose to make some announcements in that area over the coming weeks.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Last week in Brighton, the TUC unanimously backed the “Safe Inside” campaign promoted by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance calling for urgent action against record-high levels of prison violence and second-hand exposure to psychoactive substances. Does the Secretary of State agree that current conditions are quite intolerable for prison staff and that the Prison Service needs to be held directly accountable for the health and safety of everyone who works in prisons, all of whom deserve to be safe inside?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We are talking to the unions. I hope that the £40 million we have put in will be able to alleviate some of the problems, but he is right that the assaults on our staff are entirely unacceptable. That is why I am committing from the Dispatch Box to making further announcements in the coming days.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the murdered prison officer Lenny Scott, whose killer was found guilty and sentenced over the recess. It is hard to overstate the seriousness of the case: this was a prison officer murdered simply for doing his job. Like police officers, we ask prison officers every day to stand up to some of the most violent people in our society. Does the new Lord Chancellor agree that prison officers deserve the same legal protections as police officers?
Mr Lammy
The work that our prison officers do is incredible. The work that our prison governors do is incredible. Over the course of both my career in law and my career in the House, I have visited very many prisons, and I pay tribute to their work. I will certainly be looking closely at this issue. I hope to come forward with more announcements in the coming days.
Dr Mullan
I am sure that prison officers will welcome any future announcements that the Lord Chancellor makes. We have talked this morning about preventive measures we can take to ensure prison officer safety, but police officers benefit from legal protections in terms of the consequences for murdering them, with mandatory whole-life orders imposed on people who do that. The Opposition will table an amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would give the same protection to prison officers. I think they deserve it, and I would welcome his support for that measure.
Mr Lammy
It is a serious issue and I will certainly consider it. I know that the Law Commission is looking at similar provisions.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
It is my honour to take my first oral questions as Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary.
Today, the Government will introduce the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—better known as the Hillsborough law. It will create a new professional and legal duty of candour, placing public servants under a duty to act with honesty and integrity at all times. It will be backed by a new offence for misleading the public, and two new offences for misconduct in public office.
This is an historic moment, but the credit belongs not to the Government but to the families of the 97, whose courage never faltered, and to all who fought for justice after Grenfell, after Windrush, after the infected blood and Horizon scandals. This law will be their legacy. We cannot rewrite history, but with the Hillsborough law, we can ensure that it never repeats itself again.
Becky Gittins
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s passionate remarks. Some 71% of people in the youth justice system have a speech and language need that may impact on their ability to access justice, but only a tiny fraction of those young people have received any speech and language support. How is he working across Government—particularly with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education—to prevent those vulnerable young people from being disproportionately drawn into the youth justice system?
Mr Lammy
I remain very concerned, particularly about neurodiversity in young people and how they fare in the criminal justice system. I will look closely at the youth justice system, working closely with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and of course the Department for Education.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place. The only one in, one out deal that is working in the Government is the one for Deputy Prime Ministers.
Just last month, the country was crying out that the Justice Secretary must face justice after his scandalous failure to register a licence for fish. Well, he thought he was off the hook, but finally it is justice for Lammy. I know that he has a previous and rather traumatic experience with one John Humphrys on “Mastermind”, so I hope that he is sitting comfortably. How many foreign nationals are clogging up our prisons, and does he stand by the letter he signed that opposed the removal of 50 foreign criminals, one of whom went on to murder?
Mr Lammy
I will look forward to this. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is so good that my predecessor was promoted, and that he is auditioning for another job. Let me be clear: returns under this Government have gone up 14%. I took a keen interest as Foreign Secretary. They will be going up further.
Robert Jenrick
I will give it to the Justice Secretary; that was a better reply than the one he gave when he was asked which monarch succeeded Henry VIII and he said Henry VII, but it was not the answer that I was asking for. In fact, there are 10,772 foreign nationals in our prisons, and that figure has gone up under Labour. The obstacle to so many of their removals is the European convention on human rights, which has morphed into a charter for criminals. The previous Justice Secretary pretended that we could reform the ECHR, but the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, has stated that that position is a “political trick”. Is it a trick that this Justice Secretary intends to play on the British public?
Mr Lammy
I know the right hon. Gentleman was a corporate lawyer, but he really needs to get into the detail. We are reforming through the Sentencing Bill so that we can get people out of the country by deporting them on sentencing. He needs to get into the weeds and look at the Bill—he can do better.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I would like to associate myself with the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on the bravery of the Hillsborough families and pay tribute to them for the success that has been landed today.
Many of us across the House are deeply concerned that domestic abusers are weaponising the family court to perpetrate their abuse. Efforts to reform it have not yet been forthcoming from this Government, and we need change. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to legislating in the next King’s Speech for reform of the family court, so that it supports survivors and does not sabotage them any longer?
Mr Lammy
We are determined to look at this lacuna for victims of domestic violence, and if necessary, we will come forward with further amendments or, indeed, legislation.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his announcement on the Hillsborough law. For decades, the families have carried the weight of injustice, and Governments have failed to act. Today, the Hillsborough law will be laid before this House, but it must not be another false start. Will the Deputy Prime Minister promise me that this Bill will be the Hillsborough law, and that it will emerge stronger and not weaker from Parliament and, finally, deliver justice for the 97?
Mr Lammy
I was pleased to sign the 2017 Bill and to put my name, along with that of the Prime Minister, to the 2019 amendment. I pay tribute to the families. I made a pledge to them yesterday: we will see no watering down of the Bill. I call to mind Khadija Saye, who died in Grenfell Tower, and that is why it is such a privilege to steer through the House this important law on behalf of not only the 97, but many, many others.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Mr Lammy
I know the hon. Lady’s constituency well, so I will take a close look at the issue.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Victims of sexual crimes are understandably often traumatised. What steps are the Government taking to ensure the long-term sustainability of specialist support for those victims—such as the Calderdale WomenCentre, which provides supports for victims in Calder Valley—in particular given the long waits for justice and the high demand for trauma-informed support?
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
In July this year, alongside a cross-party group of parliamentarians and others, I wrote to the then Lord Chancellor seeking a meeting regarding improving gatekeeping and alternative dispute resolution in family court matters. I have not received a response. Can the Lord Chancellor give me the reassurance that such a meeting will take place?
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Barlinnie prison is operating at 30% above capacity, and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons is strongly urging Scottish Government action before the £1 billion replacement is finally built in 2028. What steps are Ministers taking to avoid the costly mistakes of the SNP Scottish Government in tackling the prison capacity crisis?
Mr Lammy
The SNP is running down Scotland and wasting taxpayers’ money on the new Barlinnie prison—more than double the original estimated cost. We are doing much better on this side of the border, and we are working with colleagues to see what we can do about that situation.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the new Secretary of State for Justice recognise sharia law and sharia courts in the United Kingdom—yes or no?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to officers at Harlow police station? During recess, I went on a ride-along and saw their professionalism and dedication at first hand.
Mr Lammy
I agree with my hon. Friend 100%—and not just because a lot of those officers are Spurs supporters.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Prison officers at Whitemoor prison in my constituency have raised concerns that the recruitment process for staff is not working effectively and is unduly bureaucratic. Will the Secretary of State write to me with his assessment and look at what changes could be made?
Mr Lammy
Yes, of course, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
Sentencing Bill
David Lammy ExcerptsTuesday 16th September 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is my pleasure to open this debate—my first since being appointed Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. It is an honour to be back on this beat and to take up this brief. Justice has always been at the heart of my politics over the past 25 years. Far from being abstract, it runs through every aspect of our lives: our education, our health and the opportunities that people have to succeed. It has shaped my life, from studying and practising law to serving as a Minister in the old Department for Constitutional Affairs, and of course as shadow Justice Secretary.
During David Cameron’s period as Prime Minister, I was asked to conduct an independent review on racial disparity in the justice system. I grew up as a working-class kid in Tottenham and saw too many young black men end up on the wrong side of the law. I represented Tottenham during the 2011 London riots, addressing at first hand the destruction caused when peaceful protests were hijacked by violent criminals. During the Lammy review I also saw the state of our prisons, which are operating at close to maximum capacity, putting the public at risk of harm.
Public protection is exactly why we have introduced the Bill before us today. At the heart of it is the threat that the previous Conservative Government left us with: that our prisons could run of out places entirely, leaving us with nowhere to put dangerous offenders, police without the capacity to make arrests, courts unable to hold trials and a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times. As Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, I will never allow that to happen, because the first duty of Government is to keep the public safe.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I broadly welcome the Bill’s provisions, which will take on the mess that the Conservatives left behind. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is important to get the right balance between the purpose of prison, particularly for violent crime, which is to rehabilitate criminals, but also to provide a deterrent and punishment, and maintaining public safety and delivering restorative justice?
Mr Lammy
That is a very good summary. We must have punishment that works, and I will talk about that later in my speech.
When we look at the record of the previous Government, and I have looked at the figures very closely, we see that the recidivism rates were running at 60%, 65%, 68%. Something is not working when people go back to prison over and over again. I got the Department to give me the figures: over 5 million offences. All those offences have victims. We have to do something about it, and the Bill will begin to get us into the right place, because the first duty of government is to keep the public safe.
But the Bill is not only about preventing an emergency; it also takes us back to the purpose of sentencing, which must be, as has been said, punishment that works—punishment that works for victims, who deserve to see perpetrators face retribution; punishment that works for society, which wants criminals to return to society less dangerous, not more; and punishment that works to prevent crime.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
There is much to welcome in the Sentencing Bill, including the inclusion of restriction zone measures, which are testament to the tireless work of my constituent Rhianon Bragg and her fellow campaigners. Details need to be clarified, however. Which offenders will be automatically included? Will the measures be applied retrospectively and, if so, to which offenders? Where will the zones be in relation to victims, and how will they be used and monitored in ways that are different from the current exclusion zone arrangements?
Mr Lammy
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member’s constituents for fighting to ensure that we got the balance right. At the heart of this—again, I will come on to this, and I know it will be explored in depth in Committee—the system of exclusion zones we have effectively excludes people from areas, and a lot of women who face domestic violence, who have had stalkers or who have faced violent men have had the situation where someone has been excluded. What we are doing is turning that on its head and restricting the individual to a particular place, house or street, which will give those women much more safety than they have had previously. I hope that her constituents will welcome that, because I know it is something that domestic violence campaigners in particular were calling for.
I want to thank David Gauke and his panel of criminal justice experts for carrying out the independent sentencing review, which laid the groundwork for the Bill. It was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work. I went through it in detail, obviously, when I got into the job. I also thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), for her work in bringing the Bill to this point.
When it comes to prison places running out, the constituents of Members right across the House ask, “Why don’t we just build more prisons?” That is what they ask on the street. In their 14 years in office, how many prison cells did the Conservatives find? I have shadowed the Foreign Affairs brief or been in the Foreign Affairs job for about three and a half or four years, so I could not quite believe the figure when I arrived in the Department. I thought it was wrong. In 14 years in office, 500 cells were all they found—500!
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Earlier at Justice questions, the right hon. Gentleman’s Department attempted to take credit for HMP Millsike—and for its 1,468 places, which were confirmed to me in a written parliamentary answer—even though it was approved under the Conservative Government. Does he acknowledge that that prison was in fact started under the Conservative Government in 2021?
Mr Lammy
If the hon. Gentleman stops baying like a child and lets me come to the point, he asks me about the Conservatives’ record and their record was this: violence up in prisons, self-harm up in prisons, suicide skyrocketing in prisons, assaults rising by 113% and assaults on staff rising by 217%. That was their record. The hon. Gentleman can look at it in detail in the Ministry of Justice figures.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The right hon. Gentleman will not remember but I used to live adjacent to his constituency, and I remember what he was like as a local MP. He did not answer my question about the 1,468 places at HMP Millsike. He accuses me of “baying like a child”, and I appreciate that when he is on the back foot, he likes to give a little nervous chuckle to avoid answering the question, but instead of deflecting, will he address the point about the prison places that his Minister claimed this morning were built by his Government when they were in fact started four years ago by the last Conservative Government?
Mr Lammy
I have had fun with the hon. Gentleman, but I must make some progress.
The Government are funding the largest expansion since the Victorians. In our first year, we opened nearly 2,500 new places, and, as I said to the hon. Gentleman, we are on track to add 14,000 by 2031. In the next four years alone, we will spend £4.7 billion on prison building, answering the question that our constituents ask: “Where are the prisons?” However, unless we act on sentencing as well, we could still run out of places by early next year. Demand is projected to outstrip supply by many thousands in spring 2028. We cannot simply build our way out. We must reform sentencing and deliver punishment that works.
The Government’s starting point is clear: the public must be protected. More than 16,000 prisoners convicted of the most serious and heinous crimes are serving extended determinate or life sentences. Those serving the former can be released early only by the independent Parole Board, and those serving the latter can only ever be released at its discretion. Nothing in the Bill will change that, because it is punishment that works. Those who commit the gravest crimes will continue to face the toughest sentences.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Road accidents caused by negligence and people on drugs and alcohol cause havoc for those who lose members of their family. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in thanking those families and activist groups, including RoadPeace, Mat MacDonald, our local media in Birmingham and the journalist Jane Haynes, for their campaign to bring about life sentences for the worst driving?
Mr Lammy
Dangerous and reckless driving that takes innocent lives is a serious and painful issue that causes lots of anguish across our country, so I applaud the work of the hon. Member’s constituents and thank him for raising that issue; no doubt it can be explored further in Committee.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the new Justice Secretary will not want to be accused of misleading the House on such important matters. A moment ago, he referred to the measures before the House not affecting the sentences for people accused of “the gravest crimes”. The measures before the House will reduce sentences for rapists and child abusers. He either thinks that those are grave crimes and wants to correct the record, or he does not—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That is quite simply not a point of order but a point of debate, which the shadow Secretary of State could well come to in due course.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On that point, will the Justice Secretary give way?
Mr Lammy
I am going to make some progress.
The Bill introduces a new progression model for standard determinate sentences, incentivising offenders to behave in prison. It draws heavily on reforms that were pioneered in Texas, which ended their capacity crisis. I was very pleased last week to meet Derek Cohen, a leading Republican thinker.
I refer the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) to clauses 20 and 21, which amend the release point. For regular standard determinate sentences, a minimum of one third will be served in prison. For more serious crimes on a standard determinate sentence, at least half must be served inside. Bad behaviour—violence, possession of a mobile phone and so on—could add more time in custody.
To ensure that the worst behaved offenders stay inside longer, we will double the maximum additional days for a single incident from 42 to 84. This has got to be punishment that works, with sentences that are tougher when offenders show contempt for the rules of prison. What we want, and what I think the public want, are people coming out of prison reformed. That is what we are attempting to do.
Sir Edward Leigh
I have a lot of sympathy with the Bill and with the argument that there is no point calling for longer and longer sentences unless we build prisons. I accept that, but I am worried about the presumption that if someone is sentenced to fewer than 12 months, they should not receive a custodial sentence. As a former practising barrister, I understand the arguments for why short sentences often do not work, but people committing offences such as shoplifting are complete pests, and they are causing enormous damage to the economy. It may sound hard, but sometimes we have to issue short sentences for that sort of offence. We should trust the courts and not try as parliamentarians to impose our judgment on them.
Mr Lammy
I understand the seriousness of the point the Father of the House makes. Let me say this. First, we are not abolishing short sentences. The presumption to suspend short sentences does apply, but not where there is significant risk of harm to an individual.
In 2019, the last Government commissioned work on this, which David Gauke relied on in his review, and it was deep research. The problem was that the recidivism rate for those who were committing short offences was desperate. They are prolific precisely because prison does not work for that particular cohort. What is also in the Bill—I think this is good, catholic stuff—is the intensive supervision court, where the judge gets to grips with what is happening with the defendant. Is it drugs? Is it alcohol? Is it addiction? What is going on? The judge really grips what is going on to get underneath the prolific offending. I emphasise that we are not abolishing short sentences entirely. I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
Under the measures, released offenders will still be deprived of their liberty. Immediately after prison, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision by the Probation Service. Clauses 24 and 25 introduce a strengthened licence period with strict conditions tailored to risk and offence, and it will be possible to apply new restrictive licence conditions to stop offenders from going to the pub, attending football matches or driving cars—restricting their liberties and their life in order to prevent them from being prolific.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor describes a system that will rest heavily on the Probation Service and the reliability of tagging systems. Unfortunately, in my constituency surgeries I have recently heard from constituents who are living in fear as the victims of violent crime, because the perpetrators have not been efficiently tagged in time on release. Will the Lord Chancellor assure us that there will be adequate resources for the Probation Service, and that contracts given to tagging firms such as Serco will be supervised to ensure that the services are of a reliable standard?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which was why I ensured that my first visit in post was to a probation setting. I pay tribute to our probation workers. They deserve full credit for all that they do. It has been important for us to find the extra resources to put into probation, to grow the numbers and the support, and to ensure appropriate supervision of tagging—to fine Serco where necessary but to ensure that the system is robust and works. That is of course a priority for this Government, as the hon. Gentleman might expect. I am grateful to him for raising the importance of probation.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I saw a worrying statistic that one in 20 people in the UK will be victims of domestic violence, which is truly shocking. I am sure that communities such as mine in Harlow will be particularly concerned about that. What will the Bill do to tackle that scourge?
Mr Lammy
Domestic violence is a serious issue. That is why having a flag in the system is important to ensure appropriate provision for that particular cohort of offenders who might leave prison and continue to offend, so that they can be recalled. Such provision is particularly important to domestic violence campaigners.
It will be possible to apply new restrictive licence conditions and, as mentioned, tagging will be central to depriving offenders of their freedom while they are outside prison. That is why I am introducing a new presumption in our system, that every offender is tagged on leaving prison. Reoffending rates, as I have said, are 20% lower when curfew tagging is used in community sentences. Today, about 20,000 people in the justice system are tagged. The proposed expansion will see up to 22,000 more tagged each year, and many under curfews and exclusion zones as well. This is punishment that works —not just a spell inside, but strict conditions outside, enforced by technology that we know cuts crime.
For the final phase of a sentence, the independent review recommended an “at risk” period without supervision. I think that that provision would cause concern across the House, so I rejected it. Under this legislation, all offenders released into the community will remain on licence. The highest risk will receive intensive supervision. Others will remain liable for recall to prison, with any further offence potentially leading to recall, even if it would not normally attract a custodial sentence. The prospect of prison must continue to hang over offenders, both as a means of ensuring that they mend their ways and as a punishment should they fail to do so.
In June 2018, there were 6,300 recalled offenders in prison. Today there are more than 13,500 prisoners in that category. Clauses 26 to 30 therefore introduce a standard 56-day recall, which gives prison staff time to manage risk and prepare for release. Some offenders will be excluded from this change and will continue to receive standard-term recalls, including those serving extended sentences and sentences for offenders of particular concern; those referred to the Parole Board under the power to detain; those convicted of terrorism, terrorism-connected offences and national security offences; and those who pose a terrorist or national security risk.
Those under higher levels of multi-agency public protection arrangements—levels 2 and 3—will also be excluded. That includes many of the most dangerous domestic abusers and sex offenders. Finally, those recalled on account of being charged with any further offence will be excluded too. They will only be released before the end of their sentence under a risk-assessed review or if the Parole Board says they are safe. This is punishment that works: breaches met with swift consequences, so offenders know that recall is a real threat hanging over their lives.
For some offenders, sadly prison is the only option. For others, we must ask whether custody is the most effective approach. The evidence is damning. In the most recent cohort, over a third of all adult offenders released from custody or who started a court order reoffended. More than 60% of those on short sentences of less than 12 months reoffend within a year. This is the legacy of the last Government: a system that fails to turn offenders away from crime and a revolving door of repeat offending.
The scale is shocking. Of the July to September 2023 cohort, 21,936 adults went on to reoffend within a year, and for the first time since 2018, over 100,000 reoffences were committed. That is what happens when there is a failure to take the tough choices needed to reform the system, a failure to invest in probation, as has been discussed, and a failure to act on the evidence.
Clause 1 introduces a presumption to suspend short prison sentences, and is expected to prevent over 10,000 reoffences each year. Let me be clear: this change will not abolish short sentences, as I said to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Judges will retain the power to impose them in certain instances, such as where there is significant risk of harm to an individual, including victims at risk in domestic abuse cases; where a court order has been breached—for example, if a prolific offender fails to comply with the requirements of a community order or suspended sentence; and in any other exceptional circumstances.
Similarly, clause 2 widens the scope for suspended sentences, increasing the limit from two years to three, but custody will remain available wherever necessary to protect the public. Clause 41 also updates the “no real prospect” test in the Bail Act 1976, clarifying that bail should be granted if custody is unlikely. But, again, the courts will continue to be able to remand offenders where there is a need to do so. This is punishment that works: short sentences and custody reserved for those who pose a real risk, while others are punished more effectively in the community, unlike the previous approach, which left reoffending out of control.
Punishment must apply whether sentences are served inside or outside prison. Just as offenders released from prison will face restrictions to their liberty, similar curtailments will be available for those serving sentences in the community. As I have discussed, that includes tagging, where appropriate, and clauses 13 to 15 will mean that it could also include banning people from a pub, from attending a football match or from driving a car.
Clause 3 will also make it possible to introduce income reduction orders, requiring certain offenders with a higher income who avoid prison through suspended sentences to pay a percentage of their income for the good of the victims, ensuring that crime does not pay. There is community payback, which we will also expand. Working with local authorities, offenders will restore neighbourhoods, remove fly-tipping, clear rubbish and clean the streets. Again, this is punishment that works, with liberty restricted, income reduced and hard work demanded to repair the harm done.
Some 80% of offenders are now reoffenders. Alongside punishment, we must address the causes of crime. Four intensive supervision courts already operate, targeting offenders driven by addiction or poor mental health, and they impose tough requirements to tackle those causes. Evidence from Texas shows that these courts cut crime, with a 33% fall in arrests compared with prison sentences. More than three quarters of offenders here meet the conditions set, and we will expand that work, opening new courts across the country to target prolific offenders, with expressions of interest now launched to identify future sites. Again, we are following the evidence here. Pilots show that intensive courts cut crime, and we will scale them up.
Victims must be at the heart of our system. Too often they have been an afterthought in the justice system, and this Bill changes that. Clause 4 amends the statutory purposes of sentencing to reference protecting victims as part of public protection, requiring courts to consider victims—and we are going to go further. Clauses 16 and 24 strengthen the restriction on the movement of offenders. Current exclusion zones protect victims at home, but leave them fearful when they step outside. For that reason, the Bill establishes a new power that restricts the movement of offenders more comprehensively than ever before.
These new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that the victims can move freely everywhere else. That was campaigned for by the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation, Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, who I understand are in the Public Gallery today; I pay tribute to them and to all who have campaigned for this crucial change.
It is vital that we ensure our monitoring is equal to the risk that offenders pose and the protections that victims need. Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which enables probation to identify abusers early, to track patterns of behaviour and to put safeguards in place.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Does the Lord Chancellor agree with my concerns that neither the Bill nor the excellent report that preceded it make any mention of restorative justice—a process that truly puts the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process? Will he pledge in future legislation to address that omission?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before the Lord Chancellor responds, let me say that a huge number of his own Back Benchers would like to get in this afternoon. He might therefore like to think about getting to the end of his contribution.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the steer. You know how it is, Madam Deputy Speaker; this is my first outing, and I was getting a little carried away with how good this Bill is. The intensive supervision courts will be able to look closely at restorative justice, which, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) rightly says, is a fundamental part of our criminal justice system.
There is a growing area of crime in relation to sexual offences. It is important that I mention the trial that has been running for three years in the south-west, piloting medication to manage problematic sexual arousal. These drugs restrain sexual urges in offenders who could pose a risk to the public, and are delivered alongside psychological interventions that target other drivers of offending, including asserting power and control. Although the evidence base is limited, it is positive. For that reason, we will roll out the approach nationwide, starting with two new regions—the north-west and the north-east—covering up to 20 prisons.
I have already discussed investing in probation, so mindful of your encouragement, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will end by saying that the Bill ensures that our prisons will never run out of space again. But it does more than that: it ensures that prison sentences rehabilitate, turning offenders away from crime; it ensures that victims are at the heart of justice, with safeguards in place; it expands effective sentencing outside of prison for those who can be managed in the community; it follows the evidence of what works; it is pragmatic and principled, protecting the public; and it draws a clear line under the Tory record of failure. After 14 years that left the average number of reoffences per offender at a record high, Labour is delivering punishment that works through a justice system that follows the evidence.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Before the Lord Chancellor finishes, I want to welcome and highlight the measures in the Bill that deal with offenders, particularly clauses 7 to 10, which respond directly to Russia’s increasing use of petty criminals instead of its own agents in its campaigns of sabotage. This is something that my constituents have already been directly affected by, after incidents of warehouse arson and Islamophobic vandalism earlier in the year. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that we need to clearly advertise that petty criminals who work with malign states will be investigated, tried and sentenced in line with the threat they pose?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend knows that in my previous role, I unfortunately saw the increased risk of state threats and the pedagogy through which states are committing those crimes. It is absolutely right that a cohort of young men—petty criminals—are being used, and not just by Russia; there are other states that we could mention as well. It is important that those crimes are dealt with.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Before the Lord Chancellor finishes his speech, can I direct him to part 4 of the Bill, which is one of the parts that applies to the whole United Kingdom? It provides for the deportation of criminal offenders. Has he considered the viability of that necessary clause, clause 42, in the light of the fact that in Northern Ireland—because of article 2 of the Windsor framework—those offenders sadly enjoy enhanced protections due to the importation of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights? Will the Lord Chancellor take steps to ensure that part 4 will apply to the whole United Kingdom by imposing a notwithstanding clause, stating that, notwithstanding article 2 of the Windsor framework, the same provisions will apply across the United Kingdom? It really would be preposterous if foreign criminals could be deported from one part of the United Kingdom but not from another.
Mr Lammy
Our intention is clear: foreign national offenders must be removed from our system. We will study this issue in detail in Committee. I am proud that on my watch as Foreign Secretary, we increased returns by 14%. It is hugely important that people do not feel able to come to our country and commit crime, unimpeded.
Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice
David Lammy Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The whole House will want to send their deepest condolences to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) after what we have just heard.
This has been a strong and powerful debate on the King’s Speech, and all hon. Members, despite the most challenging and difficult circumstances in the middle east, feel very grateful for the depth and quality of the contributions. We also heard the most outstanding maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks). It was thoughtful, humorous and full of lived experience and fantastic Scottish history. I am sure that his career in this House will be very successful.
We had a lot of contributions about crime of course, given the nature of the debate, and it was good to hear from the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). He was right to remind us about the cost of imprisonment and that every prisoner costs £47,000, and about the importance of the Government adopting a Labour position on shorter sentences. I was grateful to hear the Secretary of State moving in a Labour direction and disagreeing on this occasion with his colleague, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) who is not in his place at the moment —[Interruption.] Forgive me, he is.
We also heard from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who raised spiking as a growing issue in our country, along with sexual exploitation, as well as the need to move forward with a statutory description. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) about the long campaign for justice and a Hillsborough law, and about how painful it was, and will be for many people, that, despite the report of Bishop Jones, that measure did not find its way into the King’s Speech two and a half years later. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) raised policing in Wales, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) spoke about the horrible scourge of knife crime, and the failure to ban Rambo and zombie knives. We are still waiting.
Let me turn to the amendments and the horrors of war that I know every Member of this House and so many of our constituents are all focused on tonight. I will start with a meeting I held two weeks ago in Cairo with the Egyptian Foreign Minister. He reminded me that it has been almost exactly half a century since Egypt and Israel were at the height of the Yom Kippur war—a 25-year pattern of conflict that some feared would never end. There were devastating losses in the Sinai and whole armies facing encirclement by the Suez canal. Few expected the narrow diplomatic openings to lead to lasting peace, but diplomats seized those narrow openings.
Then, in 1977, Sadat came to Jerusalem, setting the two countries on a path to a peace that has held ever since. Minister Shoukry reminded me of that. Although it may seem impossible in the toxic fog of war, peace is always possible in the end, so 39 days since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas, I ask the House to remember that peace is never simple, and never won easily.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Much of the language is about a ceasefire. The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Save the Children, UNICEF, the World Health Organisation, the UN Secretary General and several EU Prime Ministers have all called for a proper ceasefire. Is it not time that Labour moved its position and actually used that word “ceasefire”—a proper one to let humanitarian aid in?
Mr Lammy
I will turn to those issues shortly. Everyone in this House wants the fighting to end. The central debate is about the steps to bring that about, and there is a discussion across this place among Members, all of whom want peace and all of whom want to see the loss of life come to an end. [Interruption.] I respect the hon. Member’s position, and I will come to that in a moment.
Peace is never won easily; peace is possible because of diplomacy, because of compromise and because of negotiation. It is our duty in this House to support all the necessary and practical steps to get us there.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I think we all understand that there have to be steps towards an eventual conclusion, and we all want to see the fighting stop. The Labour amendment calls for a “cessation of fighting”, which presumably means a cessation of firing. What is the difference between a cessation of firing and a ceasefire?
Mr Lammy
I have to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). I direct him to the statement from the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which clearly sets out five or six steps and five or six different types of occasion where arms are laid down. Some are purely for humanitarian reasons. Others are because some negotiation has begun or some political dialogue is possible. The debate is about how we get to the end, which is that arms are laid down for a lasting reason and the political process—in the end, this will surely end with a political process—can properly begin.
Florence Eshalomi
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that getting to peace is the ultimate goal for all of us. Like many hon. and right hon. Members, I have received so much communication from my constituents. There is a clear consensus from the general public that a ceasefire is one of the key ways we can get this peace. Does he not agree that we should be working towards that urgently?
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Lammy
I will just respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). She is of course right that all of us want to see a ceasefire and the laying down of arms. She will have seen also the statement from Hamas just a few days ago that they intend to continue and continue and continue. It is hard to see how a ceasefire can come about if Hamas are not prepared to stop the firing of rockets into Israel, and if they are not prepared to lay down their arms and set those hostages free. That, I think, is at the heart of the nature of the discussion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I would like to advise David Lammy that I will be calling Chris Philp at 6.51 pm.
Margaret Beckett
With apologies, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who raised the question of what the difference is between use of the word “ceasefire” and an end to violence, that I fear there is a most unfortunate difference, and that is why I never use the word “ceasefire” and will not be voting for a motion that includes it? That is because, tragically, to some people, calling for a ceasefire means that Israel should stop fighting but not that anybody else should—and that is not a point of view that I could support. I wholeheartedly support the excellent amendment (r) tabled by Labour Front Benchers.
Mr Lammy
Few of us in this House have the experience of my right hon. Friend. She knows that it is quiet, hard diplomacy that will bring about an end to the loss of life. She knows that we need to rapidly get to a longer pause, and she knows that there is a legitimate debate in this House but that the Labour motion deals with the issues at hand today, not next week or the week afterwards. Let us see where we get to.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Lammy Excerpts(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Buckland
Let me deal with the specific issue of judges and other lawyers in Afghanistan, because that is what I am directly involved with. Yesterday, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme was announced. That provides a clear route to safety for judges, who are one of the groups to be prioritised under the scheme. Some judges have already been resettled here in the UK, and I will not rest until everyone who fits those important criteria and needs the support and safety of the rule of law is accommodated.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Last month, soon after the Foreign Secretary was found topping up his suntan instead of doing his job, Labour worked with the Bar Council to send to the Foreign Office a list of 126 Afghan judges who were at risk. We received no response, and our only update was seeing the Justice Secretary publicly celebrating the fact that just nine of them have been relocated to the UK. Can he confirm whether the number of Afghan judges relocated to the UK remains in single digits, what the number currently is, and how much higher he expects it could have been if the Foreign Secretary had not been missing in action?
Robert Buckland
I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has not been in touch with me once about these matters directly. I have been working directly with the legal sector, the Bar Council and individual leading members of the profession, virtually daily to try to identify particular schemes and approaches we can take to assist judges, prosecutors and other lawyers in Afghanistan. I would love to see the list he talks about, because I can assure him that I will not rest until we do everything we can to help these dedicated professionals. I will, of course, keep the House updated on numbers as and when they are made available to me.
Mr Speaker
Chris Stephens is not here, so I call the shadow Justice Secretary, David Lammy.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
In the middle of a pandemic, the Secretary of State’s Government are prioritising attacking the Human Rights Act and judicial review, disenfranchising millions of voters with the Elections Bill on voter ID, and, now, threatening to break international law to make it harder for asylum seekers, including those from Afghanistan, to find sanctuary in Britain. The new president of the Law Society recently warned that those measures put respect for the rule of law in jeopardy in the UK. What does the Secretary of State say to the president of the Law Society?
Robert Buckland
I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that, across the piece, the commentary that has followed my speech and the introduction of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill has reflected the fact that this is a measured and incremental approach to constitutional reform, as, I am sure, will be the work on the independent review of the Human Rights Act. The idea that somehow I am the most dangerous Lord Chancellor in history is risible. [Laughter.]
Robert Buckland
I will of course make sure that my diary is adjusted so that I can do that. The hon. and learned Lady can rest assured that I am getting emails from her colleagues directly to my parliamentary account. These are harrowing tales of harrowing experiences, which is why I meant what I said in my answers earlier. I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Lady.
Mr Speaker
Is it a point of order relating to the questions we have just had?
Mr Lammy
Yes, Mr Speaker.
In oral questions, the whole House expressed tremendous concern about the situation that faces Afghan judges. In response to my question earlier, the Secretary of State for Justice said that he has not been written to by me once about judges in Afghanistan, in reference to my role as shadow Secretary of State for Justice. With all graciousness, I ask the Secretary of State to correct the record: I wrote to him on 16 August—I have the letter in front of me and it is available online—and he replied to me on 25 August.
Robert Buckland
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to correct the record and, of course, to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I remind him that I am more than happy to speak directly to him. He will know that the urgency of this situation means that phone calls and texts are absolutely acceptable, and I would be more than happy to discuss the matter with him in that way. As you know, Mr Speaker, this has been a very busy time, and I hope the House will forgive me if on this occasion I got it wrong. I do apologise to the right hon. Gentleman.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Lammy Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady will be glad to know that a wholly independent review reflecting opinion from right across the United Kingdom and beyond was set up and will report in due course. Then, no doubt, there will be a consultation on those issues ahead of any legislative change that the Government might introduce to this place.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
This week, the UN’s special rapporteur for human rights said that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 and the judicial review Bill will all make human rights violations more likely to occur. The Lord Chancellor will be aware of his special responsibilities to defend human rights both in his Department and across Government. As his two-year anniversary as Lord Chancellor arrives next month—I congratulate him on that—will he consider starting to do that part of his job? How will he respond to the UN special rapporteur’s assessment?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. With respect to the special rapporteur, I would strongly argue that in everything we do and say in this place and in Government, the necessary checks and balances are carried out to ensure that the human rights that he and I believe in are preserved. I can think of no better example than the Bill currently before the House with regard to the duties that the police will have on the need to balance freedom of expression and the rights of other people. That is a balancing exercise at all times, and I will discharge my duties in the way that I believe I have for the past two years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The Government’s response to the economic crime threat is set out in our economic crime plan, which lists seven strategic priorities for combating crime through a specially convened public-private partnership. That includes a number of specific actions, including focusing on high-harm fraud types through online activity such as courier fraud, romance fraud and investment fraud. We are considering whether further legislative changes need to be brought in to provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to combat these emerging threats.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have apologised for the Government’s failure of rape victims resulting in record low prosecution and conviction rates. In attempting to atone for these mistakes it is vital that the Government are honest with victims. Last week, in Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister claimed he was investing another £1 billion in clearing the court backlogs, but in the spending review the figure announced to address the backlogs is £275 million. I am sure that the Prime Minister was not deliberately misleading the House. Will the Secretary of State correct the record?
Robert Buckland
The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I think I can help to clarify for him. With regard to the specific figure, that of course relates to spending during this coming year. We spent another equivalent sum in the previous year on court recovery. Indeed, when you look at the figures that we were spending anyway on new technology in our courts, and indeed the Crown Prosecution Service expenditure as well, then the figure actually is the correct one. He should realise that it is not just the Ministry of Justice that is funding court recovery and the effects of covid; the Attorney General’s Office and indeed the Home Office as well have a responsibility with regard to victims. So I am afraid that fox is well and truly shot.
Mr Lammy
I have to say that the Secretary of State’s verbosity serves him well.
In March, the Lord Chancellor told the Justice Committee that he had been “played for a fool” in relation to improvements at Rainsbrook secure training centre. He was clear that
“this will not happen again. Otherwise, the consequences will be extremely serious for those responsible.”
Yet this did happen again, and only a year and a half later have children been moved out of harm’s way. As the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Does the Lord Chancellor feel like a fool, and what “extremely serious” consequences will he deliver to ensure that this does not happen again?
Robert Buckland
I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman asks me that question because I can reassure him that as soon as the particular reports were received from the independent monitors I took swift action to make sure that the safety and wellbeing of children at Rainsbrook was preserved. That is why we ordered that children in the unit were moved. Indeed, work is carrying on with regard to the overall future of Rainsbrook. It would be wrong of me to speculate while discussions with the provider remain ongoing, but I can tell him this: I will do whatever it takes to make sure that the children in our care are protected and that all our institutions, including Rainsbrook, are run properly. I can assure him that the providers have had the message loud and clear from me and that there will be no second chances.
End-to-end Rape Review
David Lammy Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Last week, the Secretary of State took the bold step of saying that he was “sorry” and “deeply ashamed” for how he and his Government had failed rape victims. “Sorry” is a word that we do not hear often in this House, and we certainly do not hear it enough. It is, frankly, a difficult word for politicians to say, but when a politician says sorry, it means they are taking responsibility and expressing regret for mistakes that have caused large swathes of the public to suffer.
The Secretary of State was right to apologise, but his apology has been made meaningless by his attempt to avoid taking responsibility over the weekend. Under his watch, the conviction and prosecution rates for rapists have fallen to a record low. In the year 2016-17, there were 41,616 rapes recorded in England and Wales—a third less than currently—and there were 5,090 prosecutions and 2,991 convictions. In 2019-20, the most recent year for which we have available data, the police recorded 55,130 rapes but there were only 2,102 prosecutions and 1,439 convictions. Rape convictions and prosecutions more than halved in just a few years, even despite the number of recorded rapes having rocketed upwards.
It is impossible to separate those appalling statistics from the decade of Conservative cuts that have accompanied them. Funding for the Ministry of Justice has fallen by 25% since 2010. When asked by the BBC whether the removal of funding for legal services was linked to the downward trends, the Secretary of State admitted that that is “self-evidently the case.” Ten years of cuts to the courts, legal aid, police and the Crown Prosecution Service have created an environment in which victims are denied justice and criminals are let off the hook. The Lord Chancellor swore an oath
“to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”;
clearly, he has failed.
After we have waited two years for the review to be published, its recommendations do not go far enough. Despite the Secretary of State’s having admitted that his funding cuts helped to cause the crisis, almost no new funding at all is announced in the review. The review lumps in spending on domestic violence and rape as a headline to misrepresent the truth; the reality is that the vast majority of the funding for refuge accommodation—which is of course vital—has nothing to do with increasing rape prosecutions or convictions. The only mention of new funding is the £4 million over two years for independent sexual violence advisers. That equates to £15 per rape victim for a year. Does the Secretary of State really think that is enough funding to address the failings that the report sets out?
The review mentions the pre-recording of evidence for intimidated victims, which is a vital reform, but why are the Government re-piloting the scheme for a further two years when they have piloted it twice already? Does the Secretary of State doubt that the current two-to-three-year waiting list to get a rape case to court is leading to many dropping out? Why are the Government not funding specialist units for rape cases throughout the country? The pilot in Avon and Somerset has been successful, but the Government are going to roll it out for only one year, among just four more police forces—more piecemeal pilots and nowhere near enough funding and long-term commitment to make any real impact. We know the problems, we have the answers and the technology is in place—what is the hold-up?
As the Opposition spokesman, it is my job to hold the Secretary of State to account. For his apology to have meaning, it needs accountability alongside it. In their rape review, the Government outline their commitment to return the volume of cases being referred by the police and charged by the Crown Prosecution Service and then going to court to at least
“2016 levels by the end of this Parliament.”
We in the Opposition said that by the end of this Parliament is not good enough. Rape victims cannot be forced to wait another three years for conviction and prosecution levels to return to 2016 levels. We demanded that the Secretary of State met the target within a year, but, bafflingly, his response was to describe such a target as “constitutionally illiterate”. We know that this failure affects several Departments. We know that the Crown Prosecution Service is independent, with oversight by the Attorney General’s office. We know that the police are overseen by the Home Office. But we also know that the health of the justice system as a whole has a huge impact on the likelihood of a victim pressing charges, the police charging a suspect and a conviction being secured. Victims are facing delays because of the Justice Department’s cuts to the courts and legal aid, and it is because of those delays that 44% of rape victims are pulling out of the justice system altogether.
In describing such a target as constitutionally illiterate, the Secretary of State suggested that the record low prosecution and conviction rates for rapes were out of his hands. That runs counter to his previous apology in which he took responsibility for them. Does he, or does he not, take responsibility for this Government’s hollowing out of the justice system? If not, does he intend to take his apology back? Do the Government intend to meet their target of returning the number of rapists who face justice to 2016 levels, or have they done a U-turn and scrapped that target?
The Secretary of State cannot show disdain for the constitution whenever it suits him and then blame the constitution when he is trying to defend his own failings. Enough is enough. Will he reverse these failures within a year, or will he resign?
Mr Speaker
This is a very, very important subject and it is quite right that we are having this statement, but there are other Members besides those on the Front Benches whom I need to hear from. It is important to all colleagues to get on the record, so please, whether we are talking about the Minister or the shadow Minister, we must stick to the time that the House has agreed to. It is not what I have agreed to, but what the House and Members have signed up to. Please, let us ensure that everybody gets a fair chance.
Hillsborough: Collapse of Trials
David Lammy Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who has been at these issues in this House for 24 years on behalf of her constituents and others.
The Secretary of State will know that inquests have since found that 96 victims were unlawfully killed by the negligence of others. The authorities who were supposed to protect the 96 that day instead failed them. More than five years ago, the South Yorkshire police commander in charge on the day of the Hillsborough disaster admitted not only that he had inadequate experience to oversee the safety of the 54,000 people, not only that he accepted responsibility for the deaths, but that he lied, telling the then secretary of the Football Association that Liverpool fans should be blamed for getting entry through a large exit gate when, in fact, he ordered the gate to be opened himself. These lies—these pernicious, ugly mistruths—have caused incredible pain to the families of the 96, who were already in despair and obviously experiencing grief.
The collapse of the most recent case at the end of last month is yet another kick in the gut for the families of all those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough. It is nothing less than a national scandal that not one person responsible has been punished or held to account in the criminal justice system for these deadly failures. The lack of justice in this case is undermining the very concept of a public inquiry. After a tragedy like this, the system only works where there is good faith. There is clearly bad faith in respect of the Hillsborough tragedy, and we must legislate so that this can never happen again.
The travesty of Hillsborough is not a one-off. We can see parallels in the experience that the Grenfell families are going through at this time. Do the Government now accept that they need to change the law? Another tragedy, another 32 years of injustice—we clearly need to do something. This does not have to be a partisan issue. The former Prime Minister, as we have heard, yesterday expressed the need for legislative change after the most recent trial collapsed because, although it was accepted that police evidence had been altered, it did not constitute perversion of the course of justice as it was evidenced to a public inquiry. Authorities must be held to account and victims must be given the support that they need. The proposals to ensure that this takes place—the Public Advocate Bill and the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill—are ready to go. We cannot have more cover-ups, more lies and more pain for bereaved families. Truth and justice matter. Will the Secretary of State today commit to working cross-party to change the law not only to secure justice for the families of the 96, but to ensure that this does not and cannot ever happen again?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and, of course, I reiterate the commitment that I made to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) to work across the House. Those are not just words; that is backed up by the consistent work that this Government have done both in the incarnation of the previous Prime Minister and, indeed, when David Cameron was in office.
The right hon. Gentleman refers to changes in the law. I have already alluded to my intention with regard to the additional work to be done on how an independent public advocate service might work. I am also mindful of work that the Law Commission has done on potential changes to the offences of misconduct in public office, which are clearly tied in with these matters. On the matter of perverting the course of justice, I have made it clear that inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 could indeed be covered by that common law offence, which is a significant difference from the Taylor inquiry, which was, if you like, an administrative inquiry ordered by the Home Office, which formed the basis of learned trial judges’ decisions. I am confident that the current inquiries under the 2005 Act—indeed the future covid inquiry—would be covered, subject to the evidential tests being met by the common law offence of perverting the course of justice as well as the section 35 offences that I referred to in my initial statement.
Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims
David Lammy Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets the unprecedented backlog of more than 57,000 Crown Court cases, as well as record low convictions for rape and a collapse in convictions for all serious crime; calls on the Government to set up more Nightingale Courts, to enshrine victims’ rights in law and to introduce the proposals set out in Labour’s ‘Ending Violence Against Women and Girls’ Green Paper; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Justice to update the House in person on progress made in reducing the court backlog by 22 July.
As always, it is good to see the Secretary of State for Justice in his rightful place.
In 1915, Franz Kafka wrote “The Trial”, which was about a young bank official, Josef K, who was arrested and prosecuted by a distant bureaucratic state, despite having done nothing wrong. The novel chronicles his lifelong struggle and frustrations with the invisible law and untouchable court. Readers of Kafka are shocked by the grindingly mundane frustrations of Josef K’s trial, which goes on for an entire year.
As has been repeated so many times, reality is often stranger than fiction. Today, in modern Britain, it can take multiple years before victims of crime and the accused finally get their day in court. Simon Foster, the new West Midlands police and crime commissioner, recently explained that he had seen court trial dates set for as late as 2024. He was right to pin the blame on the mismanagement and reckless neglect of the justice system over the past decade. Disturbingly, he warned that the delays would put domestic abuse, violence against women and rape cases at particular risk of collapse, due, of course, to the vulnerability of the witnesses.
I do not enjoy having to repeat the damning statistics that show that the Government are failing the survivors of violence against women and girls—frankly, they break my heart, and they should break all our hearts—but it is necessary for the House to recognise the scale of the problem that the Government have created if we are to have any chance of fixing it. In 2019-2020, the number of rape convictions in England and Wales fell to a record low: just 1,439 suspects in cases where a rape had been alleged were convicted of rape or another crime—half the number three years before. I am sorry to detain the Secretary of State, but I repeat that, because it is worth listening to: just 1,439 suspects in cases where a rape had been alleged were convicted of rape or another crime —half the number just three years before. Fewer than one in 60 rape cases recorded by the police last year resulted in a suspect being charged. The public have lost faith in those who are supposed to keep them safe: seven in 10 women say that the Government’s efforts to make the UK safer for women are not working.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Would he agree with me that behind all of these statistics is often a desperate young woman not knowing what her rights are, waiting months for an independent violence and sexual assault advocate, and just in desperate straits, and that the House has to push harder on this Government to get it right? It is completely unacceptable.
Mr Lammy
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for conveying the seriousness of this. A young woman who has been subject to a rape is frightened, lonely, and confused, and feels all sorts of things, and we have to look into our hearts and really ask: have we arrived at that place where that young woman is supported? This debate, in part, is to say that there is more to do. That ought not to be a terribly partisan statement. It is a statement that we have to do better as a nation by those young women.
Some 89% of women and 76% of men say that tougher sentencing for sexual harassment, sexual assault and domestic violence would also make women feel safer. Frankly, while the Government dither—and we have been surprised on the Labour Benches by the dither—Labour has had to step in. Today, we ask Members of Parliament from all parties to back our plans to do a few things: to make misogyny a hate crime; to increase sentences for rapists and stalkers; to create new specific offences for street sexual harassment and sex for rent; to reverse this Government’s record low conviction rates for rape, with a package of policies to improve victims’ experiences in the courts, including by fast-tracking rape and sexual violence cases, offering legal help for victims and better training for professionals; to remove legal barriers that prevent victims of domestic abuse getting the help they need through legal aid; to bring in new custodial sentences for those who name victims of rape and sexual assault; to train teachers to help identify and respond to the support child victims of domestic abuse need; to repeal the rape clause for social security claims; and to introduce binding national indicators to hold the Government to account.
The Opposition’s plea to the Government is to work cross-party on this initiative. I say to the Secretary of State again, and I have said it across the Floor of the House, that although the Secretary of State and I have a good relationship, I am worried that he sees this more as partisan in nature rather than us being able to work in a bipartisan way on an issue of such importance. His whole posture this afternoon—hands across his chest, looking away—does not convey what we typically understand of the status of his office.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misinterpret any of my body language, but the reason for it is that he and his party had a chance to work cross-party by voting for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and he did not do that. All I see from him, with the greatest of respect, is dither and irresolution.
Robert Buckland
I am happy to explain again why the Bill makes it absolutely clear that those sentenced for serious offences including rape will serve longer in custody. For those serving sentences of four years or more the automatic release date will now be two thirds—it will no longer be half, which was of course the policy of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government—and that builds on the change we made last year to make sure that sentences of seven years or more for serious crimes including rape also met with the same term of imprisonment, namely automatic release after two thirds as opposed to half. That is a longer term of imprisonment.
Mr Lammy
I said in terms, in Hansard, that nothing in the Bill increases the sentences for rape, and the Secretary of State gets to his feet and talks about time served, not what my party is proposing, which is increasing sentences for rape. My suggestion is that nothing in his Bill increases the sentence length for rape, for sexual assault, for harassment or for stalking; just as the Secretary of State is legally qualified, so am I, and he has confirmed in terms that while his Bill deals with time served, it does not increase the sentences for rape.
Robert Buckland
I am absolutely delighted to come to the Dispatch Box at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. Let me remind him that in the past 10 years the average sentence for rape has increased dramatically, up to about 10 years, and the maximum is life in prison. I thought that he and I were interested in making sure that more and more perpetrators—[Interruption.] I can do without a running commentary from the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). The way in which we encourage people to come forward and make sure that their cases are heard is to encourage more and more people to plead guilty. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me how any of these back-of-a-cigarette-packet measures that he proposes actually amount to anything when it comes to the effective prosecution and detection of people who commit rape.
Mr Lammy
Nothing in the Bill is specific on crimes that disproportionately affect women; in 296 pages the Bill does not even mention women once. We need an increase in the minimum tariff for those who commit rape and stalking. The Labour party is clear on that. I wish the Secretary of State would get beyond the hot wind—stop talking about time served and talk about minimum sentences. He has been a barrister for long enough; he must know the difference between time served and a minimum sentence. It is surprising, frankly, that I have to re-educate him on what a minimum sentence served is.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman and respect him as a lawyer, as I respect the Secretary of State, but he will know that if we are going to have a discussion about specific nomenclature the truth is that, whether we talk about time served or minimum sentences, to say that we should increase the sentence for rape is not something that can realistically be done because the maximum sentence for rape is, as a matter of common law, life imprisonment. I accept that there is a legitimate debate to be had about how long that should translate to in practice through guidance and other matters, but it is not fair, I respectfully suggest, to talk about failing to increase what is already a life sentence; that is just a matter of law.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to assist his good friend the Secretary of State, but let me just say to him that all around the common law world—in Australia, in New Zealand, in the United States of America—there is a movement to increase the minimum sentences for rape. We in this party have looked closely at what has been done in those jurisdictions. I think in India the term has just increased to nine years because of the controversies around some rape cases there in the past few years, and in Australia it has increased to, I think, seven years. For that reason, it is our position that we should increase the minimum tariff.
I recognise that there is a legitimate debate around time served, and the Secretary of State has put his position in the Bill. I recognise also that, for heinous crimes, a whole life-sentence is appropriate. Indeed, we propose that in the Bill—someone who abducts, rapes and kidnaps a woman should serve a whole-life sentence. That is not currently in the Bill—we are proposing that. I will not refer to the controversial case before the courts at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman knows why we are proposing that. I say to him gently that this debate boils down to the value of a woman’s body and how seriously our party is taking it. That is why there is a serious legal disagreement between myself and the Secretary of State.
If we do not work cross-party on this, the Government will, in our view and in my view, be letting down victims of rape, domestic abuse, assault and violence once again. It is impossible to separate that failure of victims of violence against women and girls from the Government’s failures across the justice system as a whole. The backlog in the Crown courts is at an unprecedented level of more than 57,000 cases. It sat at 39,000 cases even before the pandemic began.
The backlog has been exacerbated by the pandemic, but it was created by the decision of this Conservative Government to close half of all courts in England and Wales between 2010 and 2019, allowing 27,000 fewer sitting days than in 2016. As the Secretary of State stares at the backlog figures, which worsen every month, does he now regret his Government closing the courts and telling those that stayed open to have so many days off?
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. There is no way that a party that has presided over the court backlog that we have—which has a huge impact on victims, who are sat nervously waiting to see perpetrators in court and then hopefully in prison—can say that it is in any way serious about being tough on crime, is there?
Mr Lammy
It absolutely cannot say that it is tough on crime when victims of crime face watching their cases collapse. I recognise that this has been a very pressured time—it is a pandemic—and the Secretary of State has had to deal with a range of issues in our prisons, in our probation, in our police and in relation to our judiciary. I recognise that, but in the end, the justice system has to serve victims of crime, and palpably and honestly, on any objective measure, things have got worse for victims of crime in our courts, and we need to do something about it.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
First, the right hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that I spoke to our Crown court judge in Gloucester earlier this afternoon, who confirmed that the backlog has been lower month by month over the last six months, and it is lower than it was before the pandemic. One key reason for that is that it uses the court resolution process very effectively.
Secondly, although the right hon. Gentleman is making a strong pitch for why he wants to look after the victims of justice, where were he and his colleagues when policemen were getting injured in Bristol and police vans were being set on fire? Where was he when the windows of retail shops and banks were being smashed and people were clambering over the tops of railway trains, endangering life?
Mr Lammy
In 2010, 152,791 Crown court cases took, on average, 391 days to complete. In 2019, 107,913 cases took an average of 511 days, meaning that 30% fewer cases took over 75% longer to complete. The hon. Gentleman can add up—that is a poor record, on any analysis. He asks where I was. All I can say is that I am the shadow Secretary of State for Justice; I condemn the violence, but I do not think anybody expected me to be part of the policing.
Under the Conservatives, rapists, thieves, arsonists and those who commit fraud have never had it so good. Convictions for rape, robbery, theft, criminal damage, arson, drug offences and fraud have fallen to a 10-year low. The total number of convictions has collapsed from 570,000 in 2010 when Labour left office to 338,000 in 2020 after a decade of Conservative rule.
It is important that we look back to learn the lessons of this Government’s mistakes, but we must also look forward if we are going to fix this, and the solutions are pretty straightforward. We need more sitting days and more court space. Labour has called for a guarantee of at least 33,000 more sitting days. We are glad that the Government seem to have listened to our campaigning on this, but we also need to see the creation of more Nightingale courts if we are to end the delays. Will the Secretary of State promise, when he gets to his feet, to keep Nightingale courts open for longer, as well as to open more of them, to reverse the delays?
To address the crisis that victims are facing, the Government’s priority must be to introduce measures to reverse the backlog and to tackle violence against women and girls, but we must do more than that to protect the public and keep victims of crime safe. More than a quarter of all crimes are not being prosecuted because victims are dropping out of the process entirely. One million victims every year are being failed by the very system that is supposed to protect them. On top of denying justice through delays, this Government have so far failed in the simple task of enshrining victims’ legally enforceable rights. The Conservatives have promised a victims Bill in almost every Queen’s Speech since 2016 and in their past three manifestos, but five years on, their Bill has still not appeared in Parliament. The latest farce is that the Government are promising to publish a draft. It is getting draughty here with all the hot wind!
Labour has its full victims Bill published, brought to Parliament and ready to go. This would put key victims’ rights on a statutory footing, including the right for victims to read their rights at the point of reporting; the right to regular information; the right for victims to make a personal statement to be read out at court; and the right of access to special measures, including video links at court. Similarly, Labour’s Bill would include a number of new protections for victims. Victims of persistent unresolved antisocial behaviour would be given support for the first time. We would introduce new sanctions for non-compliance with victims’ rights. We would introduce victim strategies with mandatory equality impact assessments. We would enhance the role of the Victims’ Commissioner. We would guarantee the equal treatment of victims with insecure immigration status. We would put a statutory protection on agencies to report concerns on child sexual and criminal exploitation.
These are not partisan issues, and any Member of Parliament who recognises that this is the right way forward should vote with us tonight. No more hot wind. No more getting up and talking about time served or defending a record. We know it has been tough—we are in a pandemic—but victims cannot wait, and we cannot have a situation in which the Justice Department in the Government is letting down that important relationship with the Home Office. I think that might be what is happening at the moment.
The mistakes of this Justice Secretary and his Conservative predecessors were closing courts, cutting police, cutting the prosecution service and the de-prioritisation of crime. This has led to a backlog that is unprecedented, delays that are forcing victims of crime to drop out, and inefficiencies that are letting dangerous criminals get away with murder. But the present Justice Secretary’s failures are more of inaction than of the wrong actions: a failure to address violence against women and girls even when we offer him the measures to help him to tackle it, a failure to protect victims’ rights even when we offer him a Bill that is published and ready to go, a failure to reverse the backlog in the Crown courts even when it is obvious that he just needs to encourage and create sufficient space.
Inaction can be just as costly as the wrong actions. Inaction is standing by whistling to yourself while the world around you burns. Inaction is ignoring the desperate pleas of victims denied justice. Inaction is complicity. The result is a justice system that has become Kafkaesque for victims, as well as for the wrongly accused. Arrests are slow, if they happen at all. If they are lucky, victims are given court dates that are many months or even years later. Trials are then delayed. New court dates are rescheduled, then delayed, then rescheduled, then delayed, then rescheduled, then delayed.
I ask the Justice Secretary and Members of Parliament from all parties across the House to end the inaction and vote with the Opposition today. Now is the time when we all need to step up, put aside any partisan differences and act.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will be obvious to the Chamber that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon. Just for a change, we will not have a three-minute limit; we will start with a six-minute limit, which will reduce later depending on how long Members take to speak.
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important issue. Clearly, the abduction and theft of much-loved pets has caused real distress to too many people. During the lockdown, we have seen the rise in pet ownership, because of the comfort and company that much-loved pets bring, yet there is no doubt that there is an insidious market in the underhand sale of animals. Clearly, there is a wider issue here that needs to be looked at, which is why I was delighted to help bring together my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Environment Secretary to form the taskforce. We are looking at legislative measures, whether they relate to enhancing cruelty laws, on which we have already taken important action, increasing the maximum to five years, or to looking at stamping out the trade itself, in a way that we did several years ago with regard to scrap metal, where there were a spate of thefts and real misery for many people. We are looking at this in great depth and we aim to come back in a short while with a report. If that means we need to legislate, of course we will do so.
I wanted to talk about victims. The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) is not in his place, but I wanted to pay a bit of a tribute to him for the work he did when he was in the shadow team with the right hon. Member for Tottenham. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent on these issues and I respect that, and I listened carefully to what he said. My proposed way forward of having, first, a proper and full consultation to make sure that this legislation is future-proofed and fit for purpose, together with the draft Bill approach, will give everybody the chance to really bring a cross-party flavour to what our deliberations should be, to make sure that any product is going to be the result of mature and careful deliberation, so that we are not just paying lip service to these issues and not just enshrining the victims’ code into law, important though that is, but we are looking carefully at how people, organisations and agencies are held accountable. That is the big question we all need to ask ourselves. Here is the challenge for the right hon. Gentleman and others in this House: we have to balance the important principles of independence of prosecutorial authorities and other agencies within the criminal justice system, with the clear and present need for victims of crime to feel that if something has gone wrong, not only can they go and complain to somebody, but there is an outcome they can be satisfied with—there is accountability for any failure or dislocation in the system. That is what we all need to put our shoulders to the wheel on. I am sure that, in the spirit of the exhortation from the right hon. Gentleman, he will take that away and consider the offer that I make for how we can create a truly transformative victims law.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that undertaking, and of course I will work with him on that. I am grateful that he paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). I just remind him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) gave us the first victims Bill and also takes this very seriously, so—how can I put this?—if my boss takes it seriously, I take it seriously, and I am happy to work with the Secretary of State to deliver that victims Bill. We all know that we can do more for victims.
Robert Buckland
To add to the number, the Prime Minister, too, takes this very seriously. It is his absolute wish to see the quality of support given to victims to be the best in the world, and that is my ambition. I know that it is the ambition shared by Labour too, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
On the need for changes, I am absolutely focused not just on legislation but on culture. The way in which we approach violence against women and girls has to improve. I have mentioned the important action we have already taken. The new strategies to be published this year on violence against women and girls and domestic abuse will help all agencies to drive the step change that we need. The independent review that I will undertake with regard to the sentencing of domestic homicide cases is a vital part of that, so that we can better understand sentencing practice and consider the need for change. In the context of some of the proposals from the right hon. Gentleman, that review will be very important when it comes to the overall impact of any changes, however well intentioned they might be. I talked in some of my interventions about the important changes that I would commend to the House with regard to the Bill that is currently in Committee. I have also mentioned the end- to-end rape review.
As the new super-courtrooms are brought into service, one at Manchester and one at Loughborough, that will further enhance the ability of the system to deal with some of the larger, gang-related offences and multi-handed defendant cases that have been a real concern to all of us who want to see justice being done. As we future-proof legislation to allow more easy use of virtual hearings throughout the process, this is an example, again, of the Government putting those who use the service first—the victims and the witnesses of criminal offences. Remember that a system is worth nothing if it does not genuinely serve the British public and create a sense of confidence that when people come forward with serious complaints, they will be dealt with properly, professionally and expeditiously. Those are the aims that I have. It is all about recovery, rebuilding and restoring our justice system.
While I absolutely take on board the proper observations made by Labour Members, I say this to them: everything I seek to do is in the spirit of genuine collaboration and co-operation. Justice is too important for us to just leave it to mere party politics. I hope that as the weeks and months go forward, we can move away from a spirit of confrontation and remember that the work that continues to be done by this Government in order to combat crime and to deal with an effective criminal justice system is never finished. I can assure this House that, with regard to my commitment, and the commitment of my ministerial team and everybody at the Ministry of Justice, we are working daily and tirelessly to achieve the goals that all of us would wish to see. Justice is beyond measure. It has been part of my entire adult life. I am privileged to be able, in my term of office, to work to achieve the goals that I think all of us would want to see reached.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Lammy Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Buckland
I understand, Mr Speaker, but my hon. Friend had to cover a lot there because the question of offending by young people and children raises complex issues. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the way in which we describe this behaviour, and indeed I made that very point in my maiden speech to the House. We should label that criminality as “criminality”, and it will sometimes be in the public interest to prosecute, because we have flexible community orders for children to address their offending behaviour, involving parents and carers in that process, too. But there are alternatives, and it is important to commend restorative action and early interventions to prevent children from getting into the criminal justice process in the first place.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The Government’s 2019 manifesto promised to do “right by victims” and
“to fight crime against women and girls”,
but I have to say to the Secretary of State that nothing seems further from the truth. Women do not need rhetoric; they need legislation, but he appears more interested in silencing protests than giving a voice to victims of sexual crimes—more interested in defending statues than women and girls. Will the Secretary of State show that he cares by working cross-party to implement Labour’s Bill on ending violence against women and girls?
Robert Buckland
That was not a question; it was a soundbite, which bears no reality to what this Government have been doing. We have passed landmark domestic abuse legislation, we work tirelessly in the fight against violence against women and girls, and we continue to do that in our new Bill, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which presents a golden opportunity for Labour to work together with us. But what did they do? They voted against it on Second Reading; they voted the whole thing down. I will not believe Labour until they truly match their rhetoric with their deeds; so far their record has been dismal and weak.
Mr Lammy
In 2019 Philip Leece viciously raped a woman on her way home from a night out; she was 26 and soon to be married. Adding insult to injury, he published the name of his victim online and ridiculed her as being too fat and disgusting to rape. For that, he received a pathetic fine of £120. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not commit to implementing Labour’s whole Bill on ending violence against women, will he at least agree to implement Labour’s proposals for tougher sentences for those who name and shame victims of sexual offences?
Robert Buckland
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that distressing case, and he can rest assured that over the years in which I have dealt with the unlawful and criminal naming of victims in that way I have not hesitated to take action as a Law Officer. Indeed we are already making preparations to see what can be done to improve and strengthen the law in this area, because, make no mistake, the naming of victims of sexual abuse—and other types of offending as well where anonymity is an essential part of the process—is not just wrong, it is criminal and we will do whatever it takes to help stamp it out.
Independent Review of Administrative Law
David Lammy Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
May I begin by thanking the panel for their work? We will study the proposals carefully and note the announcement of further consultation. We would like to see all submissions to the consultations published; can the Secretary of State confirm whether he will do that? I also note that, as feared, the Government are considering making certain decisions of Parliament beyond the reach of judicial review. I note that the independent review of administrative law considered that it would be a serious disadvantage to enable Parliament to oust JR by altering the statutory code. Can he confirm whether that is in fact his intention, and if so, why he has taken the step of ignoring the concerns of his own review?
The Government should exercise extreme caution in expanding the use of ouster clauses to prevent the Executive from being challenged in the courts. That is a fundamental right, and this is particularly worrying, given the Government’s disdain for parliamentary scrutiny and No. 10’s history of hoarding powers.
In my 20 years in this House I have never encountered a Government more disdainful of our rights, freedoms and rule of law than this one. One of the Prime Minister’s first actions was to unlawfully prorogue the House; after he was re-elected, he sent his Secretary of State for Northern Ireland out to boast about how the Government would break international law in a specific and limited way; and on Tuesday we saw the Government launch an unprecedented attack on the British public’s freedom to protest. At each of these moments the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has chosen to stay silent, ignoring his special duty to uphold the rule of law.
Judicial review is the only mechanism by which members of the public can challenge the Government and public bodies when they break the law. In recent months, we have seen how important that is. It was a judicial review that uncovered the truth about the Health Secretary’s unlawful failure to publish multimillion-pound covid contracts within the 30-day period required by the law. In a Government who have been turned rotten by cronyism—we are having the Health Secretary on WhatsApp pouring a pint to land a deal—accountability matters a lot, and it is not only crony contracts that the Government may be trying to hide.
The Government have made countless mistakes, which may or may not have been unlawful during the coronavirus pandemic. These may help explain why the UK has one of the highest death tolls in the world. Mistakes include failing to provide health and care workers with adequate personal protective equipment, as well as sending hospital patients back to care homes without testing them. Members of the public are rightly using judicial review to challenge the Government on mistakes like that. If the Government weaken judicial review, they may avoid responsibility for other potentially unlawful acts during the pandemic. Will the Lord Chancellor guarantee to me that no judicial review focused on the Government’s mistakes during the pandemic will be affected by the changes that he now proposes?
On the surface, the review has looked at technical aspects of judicial review. The formal scope focuses on potential codification of grounds, the parameters of judicial authority and the procedural changes, but its political purpose is sweeping and dangerous. The person appointed to lead it was highly vocal in his criticism of the judiciary in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment on Prorogation. There has been briefing from Johnson’s Downing Street of the intention
“to get the judges sorted”,
and there can be little doubt that the review is part of an attempt to hoard more power in No. 10.
Can the Secretary of State tell the House where the idea to attack judicial review came from—was it him, the Prime Minister or Dominic Cummings? If the Lord Chancellor still refuses to publish all the submissions to the review—it is extraordinary that he will not publish those submissions—will he at least commit to publishing the submission that came from the Home Office?
A responsible Government would seek to consolidate and protect the democratic legal right of judicial review, not constrain and undermine it. Just as we condemn foreign Governments for attacking the rule of law, as in Poland and Hungary, Members must also condemn our own Government for doing the same. Members from all political traditions should be just as outraged that the Government decided in the middle of a pandemic to use their precious time to launch an attack on judicial review. Madam Deputy Speaker, be in no doubt: this cynical, misguided and politically motivated move is from the same authoritarian playbook. Judicial review is the only way the public can challenge the Government when they act unlawfully. Labour will defend it, so that we can hold this incompetent and untrustworthy Government to account.
Robert Buckland
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I think I can deal very shortly with the rather hyperbolic diatribe about the position of this Government and the rule of law. There is absolutely no doubt about our adherence to rule of law principles, as with all Governments who have preceded us and indeed Governments to come. I take issue with his suggestion that somehow I am staying silent on these matters. I certainly have not hesitated at important moments, for example, during the Prorogation issue, to defend the judiciary robustly in public, as is consistent with my oath.
Let me answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, particularly those on publication. First, those contributions to the review call for evidence that are quoted in the report have been published today. The other public responses to the consultation will be published next week. We are making sure that they are all consistent with our general data protection regulation obligations, but I give him that undertaking that they will all be published. The Government submissions to the consultation will be summarised and published within the next 10 days or so, which will give everybody a clear view of submissions to the call for evidence, but in a way that is consistent with collective Cabinet responsibility. I give him absolutely that undertaking that the next stage—the consultation process—will follow the same course as other public consultation processes. I encourage him and all interested parties to take a full role in this.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point about ouster clauses, which deserves some scrutiny. Such clauses are not completely unknown to this House. Indeed, when one looks at the Parliament Act and the particular function that the Speaker has with regard to processes between this House and the other place, one sees that it contains ouster clauses. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had an ouster clause. The question is about the particular purpose and the way in which such clauses are used. There have been times when broad ouster clauses have been introduced, which have naturally caused great concern. The right hon. Gentleman might well remember one such example, because the asylum Bill that he shepherded through this House back in 2003 contained an ouster clause that was described as “without precedent” in its extent. I sympathise with the position he is in, because Governments will often want to create a high degree of legal certainty, to make sure that the processes are clear and that the parties involved and everybody else knows with certainty what is to happen; I can understand why he wanted to pursue that course then. So it is wise of everybody concerned with this issue to take a long view, consider the matter carefully and come up with considered submissions and suggestions, rather than, I am afraid, descending to rhetoric that does not meet the reality of the situation we are dealing with.
These proposals are sensible, incremental reforms that are very much within the tradition of the development of our law. They are the result of much consideration, not just by Lord Faulks, but by a very diverse panel of different opinions and different perspectives, which can hardly be described as a sort of panel that was designed to reach a conclusion before the document had been written. It was genuinely independent and I value it very highly for that.
In summary, these proposals, together with what we want to consult upon, are a mature, reflective look at a process that plays an important part in our society and our constitution, but which, like all other parts of our democracy—this place, local government and all the agencies of accountability—merits careful and close scrutiny. Frankly, it is our duty, as a Government and as a Parliament, from time to time to make sure that that delicate constitutional balance is being maintained. That is what we seek to do, and I make no apology for the initiative that we have taken.