Criminal Justice System: Capacity

Debate between Jim Shannon and Shabana Mahmood

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Cases are taking too long to reach conclusion in our courts. We are making some changes, and I am considering what further ones we will need to make. There is an important piece around efficiency and productivity in the court system, and there have also been reports by Lord Justice Auld, Lord Leveson and others on other ways to speed up trials being heard. All those options are on the table, and I will update the House in due course about this Government’s approach.

I simply reiterate my remarks on the data: when it is finally published, it is important that we can be certain that it is accurate and properly captures what is going on in our Crown courts and that we can all have confidence in it. In fairness, the last Government did pick up on this problem. I am determined that it will be resolved and that the data will ultimately be published.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her very welcome statement. There is a clear commitment to the change that is necessary. She will note that I nearly always focus on victims, so will she outline what weight is given to victim impact statements, and whether there is a need to determine in law how much weight is given to the impact on devastated families? I always think of the devastated families—they are the ones who are really important.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me reassure the hon. Member that we place great importance in the victim’s experience. This Government will strengthen that further and ensure that victims are not further traumatised by their experience of seeking justice. Victim impact statements have an important role to play. The victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), recently met Victim Support and other groups. This is a really important piece of work for the Government, and I know the hon. Member will hold us to account on our track record. I am very aware of the impact of delays in the system on victims, which is why we are making the changes today. We will make more progress to bring those delays down.

Criminal Law

Debate between Jim Shannon and Shabana Mahmood

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.

Following my announcement on Friday 12 July and an oral statement to the House last Thursday, Members will know that our prisons are in crisis. The male prison estate has been running at around 99% capacity for 18 months. We now know that my predecessor warned 10 Downing Street of the perils of inaction, but rather than addressing the crisis, the former Prime Minister called an election and left us a time bomb, ticking away.

If we do not act now, and that bomb goes off, our prisons will reach full capacity and the justice system will grind to a halt. The courts would have to stop holding trials and the police would be unable to make arrests. With criminals free to act without consequence, the public would be put at risk. If we do not act now, this nightmare will become reality by September.

We have explored all the options available to us. In the precious little time we have, we cannot build more prisons or add more prison blocks, and we cannot fit out an existing site to make it secure enough to hold offenders. Although we are deporting foreign national offenders as fast as legally possible, we cannot do so quickly enough to address the crisis. Although we must make progress on the remand population—those who are in prison while they await trial—such measures take time we do not have. That has left us with only one option to avert disaster.

The statutory instrument that we are considering today will change the law so that prisoners serving eligible standard determinate sentences will have their automatic release point adjusted to 40% rather than 50% of their sentence. That will mean that around 5,500 offenders will be released, in two tranches, in September and October. They will leave prison a few weeks or months early, to serve the rest of their sentence under strict licence conditions in the community. Thereafter, all qualifying sentences will continue to be subject to the new 40% release point.

Let me turn now to the detail of this legislation, the sentences that qualify for this measure, and those that do not. First, this change applies to both male and female offenders. This is a legal necessity and addresses the pressure in both the male and female prison estate. Although this measure does not apply to those serving in the youth estate, where capacity pressures are less acute, it does apply to a few individuals serving sentences under section 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Most of those serving these sentences are serving long terms that are excluded from the measure, as I will go on to explain. However, a few are in scope, and are included because they are likely to end their term in the adult estate.

The provision also includes those on a detention in a young offenders institution, and 18 to 20 year-olds who are held in adult prisons. As such, both contribute to the capacity crisis. As the measure must balance addressing the crisis in our prisons alongside the need to protect the public, certain sentences will be excluded. The worst violent and sexual crimes, which are subject to a 67% release, will not be eligible. Neither will violent offences subject to a sentence of four years or more under part 1 of schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Sexual offences will be excluded, including offences related to child sexual abuse and grooming. We will exclude a series of offences linked to domestic abuse, including stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour and non-fatal strangulation.

National security offences under the Official Secrets Acts and National Security Act 2023, and offences determined to have been carried out for a foreign power, will also be excluded, as will serious terrorism offences and terrorism-connected offences, which remain subject to a 67% release at the Parole Board’s discretion. So too will terrorism offences, which are currently subject to a 50% release.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. I clearly understand the Government’s predicament and the reason for bringing forward these legislative changes, but one matter that I and other elected representatives in this House have had to deal with in recent years is the predicament that victims face of meeting the perpetrator of a crime out on the streets, which brings back enormous trauma. I welcome what the Minister says about some conditions taking precedence in relation to those being released, but can she reassure the victims who are worried about what is happening? We need to have that reassurance on the record in this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, those people are worried and they want to be reassured.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He raises an incredibly important matter. I have had the feelings of victims very much in my mind as I have been forced to make this decision. Nothing in relation to the victim notification scheme or the victim contact scheme will change as a result of these measures. All the usual arrangements will apply and I shall detail some of those a little later in my speech.

Returning to the offences that are excluded, in each case we have excluded specific offences, rather than cohorts of offenders. That is a legal necessity. It is only possible to make this change in law, with reference to qualifying sentences.

In addition to these exclusions, there will be stringent protections in place around any early release. This change to the law will not take effect until September, which gives our hard-working Probation Service a crucial six-week implementation period. Probation officers will therefore have the time they need to assess the risk of each offender and prepare a plan to manage them safely in the community. All offenders released under this policy will be subject to stringent licence conditions. Where necessary, multi-agency public protection arrangements will be put in place to protect the public, as will multi-agency risk assessment conferences, which ensure that victims can be protected.

Victims eligible for the victim contact scheme or the victim notification scheme will be notified about releases and developments in their cases. Offenders will be ordered to wear electronic tags where required. Exclusion zones and curfews will be imposed where appropriate. Crucially, if an offender breaks any of the conditions imposed on them, they can be returned to prison immediately.

Prison Capacity

Debate between Jim Shannon and Shabana Mahmood

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right that we have broad failure across many of our public services, including within the health service. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said, we have inherited an NHS that is “broken”. I will have conversations with him on the matter that she raises, but it is important, as we try to return the prison system to health, that we do so in conjunction with the other public services that we know are crucial to the proper functioning of the criminal justice service.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Can I welcome the Lord Chancellor to her place and wish her well in the very important role she now has? It is imperative that, when a judge sentences a criminal, consideration of fulfilling justice prevails more than consideration of spaces in prison. How will the Lord Chancellor address the difficulties to ensure that justice and serving an appropriate sentence will remain the focus? The logistics of that can then be dealt with.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member is right. In the end, individual sentencing decisions are for judges. They have discretion to apply the law as they see fit in the circumstances of the cases in front of them, and nothing that we have decided changes that picture. More broadly, we will have a sentencing review—it is something we committed to in our manifesto, and I will say more about that later in the year—to make sure that all our sentencing is consistent and coherent, and that our sentences do actually work, which is what they are meant to do.

Football Clubs in England: Financial Sustainability

Debate between Jim Shannon and Shabana Mahmood

Monday 7th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on the governance and financial sustainability of English football clubs. I am very lucky that Birmingham, Ladywood is home to both Birmingham City football club and Aston Villa. It is a privilege to advocate for both sets of fans, although it occasionally calls on all my skills of diplomacy—local football rivalries are very passionate things, after all.

My interest in the regulation of English football, or more accurately the lack thereof, has been engaged primarily because of the position in which Birmingham City fans find themselves. Like many in this House, I take the view that the only way to deal with financial and governance issues like those that have plagued Birmingham City over the past decade or so is for the Government to bring forward legislation for a new independent regulator of English football. The Government, of course, commissioned the fan-led review of English football. That review was undertaken by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), and I pay tribute to her detailed work and advocacy on behalf of football fans all over the country. Many other Members across the House have also long campaigned for changes to be made to protect our national game. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has done important work, as have the Football Supporters’ Association, the all-party group for football supporters, and campaign groups such as Our Beautiful Game. All of that campaigning has provided the background to the breakthrough of the fan-led review’s findings.

The Government were pushed into that review after the quickly aborted plan for a breakaway super league, which would have destroyed club football in our country. Those plans threw into sharp relief many of the issues in the game that, before then, were too easy to ignore and to leave to the clubs to sort out. We all know that things simply cannot carry on as they are. The current system incentivises teams in the premier league to spend unsustainably to remain in the premier league, and it incentivises teams in the championship to spend up to the hilt to get there because the financial rewards are so great. However, that is destabilising clubs and the whole football pyramid in our country. Too often, there are question marks over ownership and the potential motivations of those who buy English football clubs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, although clubs may feel that they are owned by us fans, who buy the gear, attend the matches and use pay-per-view, the fact is that these clubs are big businesses and like any big business, they must be appropriately regulated and managed? I therefore fully agree that the House must do more to protect clubs from bottom-line share price profit as the driving force, as opposed to the love of the game, which we all have, and the desire for a club to perform as best as it should and could.

Detention of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang

Debate between Jim Shannon and Shabana Mahmood

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The points that my hon. Friend highlights go to the fact that many of us now think that the tests for what constitutes genocide are being met by the Chinese Government. It is truly depressing that because of the growing dominance of the Chinese Government and the way in which the United Nations institutions work, so much of the international community is just completely unable to effectively stand up and say, “This is not going to happen.” Too often the world just says, “Never again.” We were supposed to have “Never again” on genocides decades ago, yet they have continued to take place and one is taking place even now. What will it take for the world to act? That is why I want to push the Minister very strongly on that point.

The Government can do more to consider more innovative legal approaches. I will refrain from making comments on the rule of law, which everybody has been discussing in the past 24 hours with regard to our treaty obligations, but the Minister will know, because he has to have the conversations with his Chinese counterparts and others, that Britain must be believed to be a country that stands by its international obligations and the rule of law. That is one of the great gifts that we have and it is one of our key strengths as a country when we play our role on the international stage. The Government should right what they have done wrong in the past 24 hours so that we can make representations with the full force of moral and legal authority that we have enjoyed for a long time.

One thing is indisputable: nothing will change unless co-ordinated, robust political force and pressure is applied while commercial, financial and legal routes to take action against the Chinese Government are navigated and explored. The UK now has a choice as to whether to lead the charge or turn our backs and allow these atrocities to continue once the outrage has inevitably subsided.

I support the actions that the Government have taken and intend to take in relation to Hong Kong citizens and I have supported the Government’s decision in relation to Huawei. In fact, I think it is high time that we as a country take a more realistic and clear-eyed approach towards our relationship with China. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), has said, we have frequently rolled out a red carpet for the Chinese Government but got nothing in return. Surely, the perpetration of a genocide necessitates a full review and reset of our relationship.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter forward. China stands condemned in the world courts for its persecution of the Uyghur Muslims, and also for murders, killings, injuries and human rights abuses. Does she therefore agree with me and many others in this House that the genocide against the Uyghurs is one of the worst crimes of the 21st century?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. The scale of what is happening in China defies belief. The videos that we have now seen and that are being pursued by commercial television news channels such as ITV lay out starkly the reality of what is happening, and we cannot turn away. As he says, one of the great crimes of the 21st century is being committed before our very eyes. Whatever happens next, we will not be able to say that we did not know. We did, we do, and we must act, because it is not too late for us to avert the worst of this developing atrocity. History will judge us for the unforgivable lack of action thus far, but it will also judge us for the choices we make in the coming days and weeks.

Tourism Industry and VAT

Debate between Jim Shannon and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend. I hate to get people’s constituency names wrong, so I am glad to have got it right on this occasion. He made the point that it is Welsh tourism week, and Welsh Members of Parliament from various parties have been well represented in this debate. I recognise his long history of campaigning on this issue, and particularly his focus on the number of jobs and the amount of economic growth that such a change could create in his constituency and the Welsh economy as a whole. I fully expect him to continue lobbying Labour colleagues and a future Labour Treasury on the issue, as he has done alongside others throughout this Parliament, but I am afraid that I will disappoint him and other hon. Members throughout the House once again by not making a commitment that the next Labour Government will reduce VAT for the tourism sector in the way that they envisage.

[Jim Shannon]

If the shadow Minister is giving us a blanket no, can she give us an assurance that whatever happens after 7 May, if Labour is in power, it will consider it? If the Government applied to Europe, they could get a reduction. At least if we knew that it would happen, a move would be made. Let us see what happens.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was just about to develop a point about the evidence presented by hon. Members in this debate, and how we will react to it if we form the next Labour Government and Treasury.

I start by recognising that cutting VAT is a significant monetary challenge. The Opposition are clear that we will put no unfunded promises in our manifesto, the basis on which we will seek election from the public in the coming weeks, and we will not borrow any more money for day-to-day spending. We note the evidence presented by hon. Members in this debate from notable academics who have considered the issue in detail. It has been cited in support of the argument by the Cut Tourism VAT campaign. From opposition, I am not in a position to assess that evidence in the same way that the Treasury can, as it has access to data sets that we do not, but I note the Minister’s answers to hon. Members in written parliamentary answers and oral answers during departmental question time in the House. He has said, on the basis of analysis undertaken by the Treasury, that a VAT cut for the sector would not produce sufficient economic growth to outweigh the consequent revenue shortfall. It would be helpful if in summing up, the Minister put more of that evidence on the record, if the position is the same as before.

Garment Industry (Working Conditions)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Shabana Mahmood

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Shabana Mahmood]

That is an important point. When we visited that factory in Dhaka, I had the benefit of having my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow with me. She was able to engage with the workers in Bengali and Sylheti. She had a conversation with them that probed whether what we were seeing was for the benefit of visitors, rather than what happens on a day-to-day basis. I left confident that what we had seen was a true picture. DFID put in place arrangements to work with grass-roots organisations to ensure that those standards are not just what someone sees when they visit on any given day, but what happens every day for those workers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am afraid that I will not, because I have so little time left.

Post-Rana Plaza, there has been a lot of action to try to get better safety standards in Bangladesh. A number of companies have signed up to the accord on fire and building safety there. It covers just less than 2,000 factories, which still leaves many thousands of factories not within the scope of the accord. That is a concern, although the fact that some 1,800 or so factories are covered by the accord is a good thing.

When we were in the country with the all-party group, we had a number of conversations with Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha, the Bangladesh university of engineering and technology and other stakeholders in Bangladesh on regulations and building codes and their enforcement. Their point was not that the building regulations do not exist, because there is a strong and relatively robust system of regulations and codes; their point was more on the level of enforcement and capacity—having enough trained surveyors, architects and engineers to implement the regulations.

I am the daughter of a civil engineer. My dad is an expert in water and waste management systems, so I have grown up looking at maps, regulations and things like that. I was struck that the experiences of those experts was not that different from those of my dad as a civil engineer in Britain. They had similar relationships with colleagues and brought similar professionalism to bear. The problem is that there are not enough of them in Bangladesh and they are not organised into professional bodies, such as those we are privileged to have in this country with—for example, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. That is the missing link, almost, in getting Bangladesh to a place where the regulations are properly implemented and enforced when buildings are being put up.

I am pleased that DFID has decided to focus its energies on fire and safety regulations, capacity and so on. That is an important step. I am a big believer that our activities through DFID in other parts of the world should not be seen as just giving money. We should help countries to build up the infrastructure and systems that they need to deal with these issues themselves.

One thing that remains a concern is that, although many organisations are carrying out inspections and reports into building safety in Bangladesh are being prepared, I am not clear or confident that the information captured will go quickly to a place where it can be implemented. For example, Tesco wrote to me in advance of this debate to say that it had ceased to work with one of its suppliers in Bangladesh because it does not believe that the building that the supplier works out of is safe enough. It is worried about that, but once it has ceased to work with that factory I am not clear what will happen to ensure that the factory ceases to operate or that it takes remedial action to ensure that it is a safe working environment.

There are so many assessments of building safety covering such a wide geographic area; I remain worried that the Bangladeshi Government will not end up with the data they need to take remedial action in situations where remedial action has not been enforced because the big clothing companies have ceased their relationship and walked away.

Issues remain on workers’ rights and the organisation of the labour force in Bangladesh. Trade unions in this country have been active in trying to support Bangladeshi workers to be in a position where they can organise. There is a lot of discussion on labour law amendments in Bangladesh—whether they go far enough and whether workers will soon be able to organise and to negotiate with company owners on wages and their safety at work.

Regardless of the politics of the trade union movement in this House, we are privileged to have such things in this country. I would very much like to see Bangladeshi workers and poorer workers across the world in a similarly strong position when it comes to negotiating rights at work. I would be very grateful if the Minister said a little more about what DFID is doing to support labour law and rights in Bangladesh. There has been a lot of discussion about whether to take the United States route, which is to deny trade privileges, or whether to try to work with the Bangladeshi Government in a slightly different way, which is what the UK and the European Union have decided to do.

There remains, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) said, a big issue on the Rana Plaza compensation fund, which does not have half the money that it aimed to have. It was said to need £24 million, but only £9 million has been raised. I find that disgraceful and shocking. For the big companies that are involved in this industry, which is worth billions and billions of dollars, £24 million is small change. It is a tiny sum.

I remain shocked and deeply upset that that fund has still not got the money that it needs. I pay tribute to the companies that have paid into it. Primark, which has a base in my constituency, wrote to me recently to inform that it has paid in and taken the action that it feels that it can, but we need to continue to press other British companies to do the right thing and ensure that that fund has all the money that it needs.

On compensation for workers, in this country we are privileged that we have a body of personal injury law that makes it easy for lawyers to argue on behalf of victims for compensation that truly and accurately reflects lifelong loss of earnings or amenity. We have formulae in our legal system that enable us to provide adequate compensation to victims of injury at work and elsewhere, but I am worried that the robustness that we expect in Britain or elsewhere in Europe or in the States through such legal formulae for deciding rates of compensation, especially in the cases of injuries that prevent someone from being able to work fully for the rest of their life, will not necessarily translate into what will be received by the victims of the Rana Plaza disaster and their families.

I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little about the British Government’s view on compensation, as that is important. We must ensure that the families of those who lost their lives are adequately compensated, as well as the 2,500 people who were injured. Some of them, who are desperately poor, will never be able to work again and, as each day passes, they are getting into more desperate circumstances.

Terrible things happen in faraway parts of the world, but sometimes good can come out of those disasters and it is our duty to try to find that good. One such good is that, for consumers in wealthier parts of the world who enjoy fast and cheap fashion, this is a reminder of the human cost of our £10 dress from a British high street chain. We have responsibility as consumers to think more about that when we are buying and brands need to think not just about the moral and right thing to do, but their reputational risk when they find that they may have contributed in some way to the problems that caused disasters such as Rana Plaza.