Independent Sentencing Review
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on sentencing in England and Wales. As the House will be aware, the independent sentencing review was published today. It was chaired by David Gauke and his panel comprised experts, including a former Lord Chief Justice, and representatives from the police, prisons, probation and victims’ rights organisations. The Government are grateful for the review’s recommendations, and I will ensure that a copy is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Today, I will set out our in-principle response.
First, however, it is essential that we set the review in its proper context. A year ago today, the Conservative party called an election. They did so because they were confronted by the prospect of prisons about to collapse. Rather than confront their failure, they chose to hide it and hoodwink the public into re-electing them. It did not work, but their legacy lives on.
Our prisons are, once again, running out of space and it is vital that the implications are understood. If our prisons collapse, courts are forced to suspend trials, the police must halt their arrests, crime goes unpunished, criminals run amok and chaos reigns. We face the breakdown of law and order in this country. It is shameful that, in this day and age, we are confronted by this crisis once more. The reasons are clear. The last Government added just 500 places to our prison estate, while at the same time, sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and we are heading back towards zero capacity. It now falls to this Government to end this cycle of crisis. That starts by building prisons.
Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 places. Last week, I announced an additional £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 places by 2031, in the largest expansion since the Victorian era. That investment is necessary, but not sufficient. We cannot build our way out of this crisis. Despite building as quickly as we can, demand for places will outstrip supply by 9,500 in early 2028, and that is why I commissioned the sentencing review. Its task was clear: this country must never run out of prison places again. There must always be space for dangerous offenders.
At the same time, the review was tasked with addressing the fact that our prisons too often create better criminals, not better citizens. Instead of cutting crime, they are breeding grounds for it. The reviewers have followed the evidence and example of countries across the world. Today I present an initial response, with further detail to follow once legislation is placed before the House.
Let me start with the report’s central recommendation: the move to a three-part sentence called the earned progression model, which the Government accept in principle. Under the model, an offender will not necessarily leave prison at an automatic point. Instead, their release date will be determined by their behaviour. If they follow prison rules, they will earn earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. That echoes the model I witnessed in Texas earlier this year, which cut crime and brought their prison population under control.
Under the new model, offenders serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release of 40% or 50% will now earn their release. The earliest possible release will be one third, with additional days added for bad behaviour. The review suggests a new maximum of 50%, but for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit. For those currently serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%, their earliest possible release will be 50%. Again, for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit.
David Gauke also suggests that those serving extended determinate sentences should also earn an earlier release. This we will not accept. Judges give extended sentences to those they consider dangerous, with no Parole Board hearing until two thirds of time served, and I will not change that. I can also confirm that no sentences being served for terror offences will be eligible for earlier release from prison.
In the second part of the progression model, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision. That will see more offenders tagged and close management from probation. The Government will therefore significantly increase funding: by the final year of the spending review period, an annual £1.6 billion will rise by up to £700 million, allowing us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders. If offenders do not comply with the conditions of their release, the sentencing review has suggested that recall to prison should be capped at 56 days. We have agreed to this policy in principle, though the precise details will be placed before the House when we legislate. In the final stage of the three-part sentence, offenders could still be recalled if a new offence is committed, and I will also ensure that the most serious offenders continue to be subject to strict conditions.
The review also recommends a reduction in short prison sentences. A compelling case for doing so has been proposed in this House many times. In the most recent data, nearly 60% of those receiving a 12-month sentence reoffended within a year. With reoffending rates for community punishment consistently lower, we must ask ourselves whether alternative forms of punishment would make the public safer. It is important, however, to note that the review recommends a reduction in short sentences, not abolition. It is right that judges retain the discretion to hand them down in exceptional circumstances. In considering exceptional circumstances, we will continue to ensure that courts have access to thorough risk assessments for domestic abuse and stalking cases, and breaches of protective orders linked to violence against women and girls will be excluded.
The review also recommends an extension of suspended sentences from two to three years. In this period, the prospect of prison time hangs over an offender should they break any conditions imposed upon them, and we accept that recommendation.
The recommendations set out above will see more community punishment. For that reason, it is essential that it works. The review recommends a series of measures to make community punishment tougher and force offenders to pay back to those they have harmed. We will consider new financial penalties, which could see offenders’ assets seized, even if they are not knowingly linked to crime, and expanded use of punishments such as travel and driving bans that would curtail offenders’ liberty.
We accept a recommendation to expand intensive supervision courts. Those impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements, that tackle the root causes of prolific offending. Offenders are brought before a judge regularly to monitor compliance, and the prospect of prison hangs over them like the sword of Damocles.
However, I believe community punishment must be tougher still. Unpaid work must pay back, so I will shortly bring together business leaders to explore a model whereby offenders work for them, and the salary is paid not to the offender but towards the good of victims. I will also work with local authorities to determine how unpaid work teams could give back to their communities, whether by filling potholes or cleaning up rubbish.
I invited David Gauke to consider cohorts of offenders who this Government believe require particular focus. I welcome his recommendations on female offenders. Approximately two thirds of female offenders receive short sentences. Around the same number are victims of domestic abusers. I am pleased to say that the review’s recommendation on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison.
I asked David Gauke to consider how we tackle foreign national offenders. Today, our deportation rate is ahead of the last Government’s. I welcome the recommendations to make it quicker and easier to deport foreign criminals. Under the existing scheme, they are sent back to their country of origin after serving 50% of the custodial sentence. We will bring that down to 30%. We will also conduct further work with the Home Office on how we can deport foreign prisoners serving less than three years as soon as possible after their sentencing.
I also asked the review to consider how we manage sex offenders. The review has recommended we continue a pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal. I will go further, with a national roll-out beginning in two regions, covering 20 prisons. I am exploring whether mandating the approach is possible. Of course, it is vital that this approach is taken alongside psychological interventions that target other causes of offending, such as asserting power and control.
When discussing sentencing, it is too easy to focus on how we punish offenders when we should talk more about victims. Everything I am announcing today is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse, it is victims who pay the price. By cutting reoffending, we will have fewer victims in future, but there is more we must do to support victims today. The review recommends a number of important measures, including better identifying domestic abusers at sentencing, so that we can monitor and manage them more effectively. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned on this, particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I also welcome the recommendation to expand the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, where trained staff support victims. To improve transparency in the system, we will extend a pilot of free sentencing transcripts for victims of rape and serious sexual offences.
I want to go further than the review recommends to better support victims. Exclusion zones are an important tool, preventing offenders from entering areas their victims might be in, but these place greater limits on victims than on offenders. I want to change that, locking offenders down to specific locations so that victims know they are safe wherever else they want to go.
This review sets out major reform. I know its recommendations will not be welcomed by all. By appointing David Gauke, a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, I hoped to show that two politicians from different traditions can agree on the reforms our justice system requires. I do not expect Conservative Members to join me to solve this crisis. In fact, I can hear their soundbites already. “Just build faster,” they will say. Well, we are building faster than they did: we have already added 2,400 places, and we are now investing £4.7 billion more. “Just deport more foreign criminals,” they will say. Well, we are ahead of where they were, and today we have accepted major reform to go further and faster. “Clear the courts backlog,” they will say despite having created it themselves. Well, we are investing more in our courts than they ever did, and we are ready to embrace once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims.
While we are doing more on each of these areas than they ever did, these are not solutions that rise to the scale of the crisis that they left behind. We must build prisons on an historic scale, deport foreign national offenders faster than ever, and speed up our courts; and yet still, despite all that, we must reform sentencing too. So, more in hope than expectation, and despite, not because of, experience, by appealing to the better angels of their nature—if they have any—I end by inviting those opposite to help us fix the crisis that they left behind. I commend this statement to the House.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Today is about one question: should violent and prolific criminals be on the streets or behind bars? I think they should be behind bars. For all the Justice Secretary’s rhetoric, the substance of her statement could not be clearer: she is okay and her party is okay with criminals terrorising our streets and tormenting our country. The truth is this: any Government—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I thought people had come to listen to the statement and I expect them to listen. I expected the Opposition Front Bench to be quiet; I certainly expect better from the Government Front Bench.
Robert Jenrick
Mr Speaker, the truth is this: any Government serious about keeping violent criminals behind bars, any Government willing to do whatever it took, could obviously find and build the prison cells required to negate the need for these disastrous changes. What do the changes amount to? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Swallow, you are getting very excited. You were telling me how good a schoolteacher you were; this is a very bad example of that.
Robert Jenrick
What do these changes amount to? They are a “get out of jail free” card for dangerous criminals. Has the Justice Secretary even gone through a court listing recently? Pick one from anywhere in our country: those currently going to jail for 12 months or less are not angels. They are Adam Gregory in Calne, who got 12 months for sexually assaulting his partner; Vinnie Nolan, who got 12 months for breaking someone’s jaw; Shaun Yardley, 10 months for beating his partner; or Paul Morris, who got six and a half months for shoplifting 36 times. Her plan is to let precisely these criminals loose. It is a recipe for a crime wave.
What about the Justice Secretary’s plan for most criminals going to jail to serve just one third of their prison sentence there and for her slashing of sentences across the board—discounts so big they would make Aldi and Lidl blush? I would call it a joke if the consequences for the public were not so terrifying. In fact it gets worse, because criminals who plead guilty—and most do—already get a third cut in their sentence, so under her scheme a burglar who pleads guilty to an 18-month headline term would spend just one fifth of that term in jail—barely 11 weeks. Eleven weeks for smashing through a family’s door and storming through a child’s bedroom looking for valuables, leaving them traumatised for life. Is that the Justice Secretary’s idea of justice for victims? The least she could do is here and now guarantee that violent criminals, domestic abusers, stalkers and sexual assaulters will not be eligible for any discount in their sentence. Will she commit to that?
If not prison, what is the plan to punish these criminals and to keep the public safe? Well, the Justice Secretary says it is digital prisons—as she puts it, prison outside of prison, words that lead most people in this country to conclude that the Justice Secretary is out of her mind. I am all for technology but tags are not iron bars—they cannot stop your child being stabbed on their walk home from school, or a shop being ransacked time and again, or a domestic abuser returning to their victim’s front door.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think that “out of her mind” is language that should be used. I am sure the shadow Secretary of State would like to reflect on that.
Robert Jenrick
Of course, Mr Speaker.
The Ministry of Justice’s own pilot scheme found that 71% of tagged offenders breached their curfew. When it comes to stopping reoffending, tags are about as useful as smoke alarms are at putting out bonfires. What is the Justice Secretary going to say when she meets the victims of offenders that she let off? How is she going to look them in the eye and say with a straight face, “I’m sorry—we are looking into how this criminal escaped from their digital prison cell.” Her reforms are a recipe for carnage.
I urge the Justice Secretary to change course and to make different choices—yes, choices—from the ones that we knew the Government would make from the day that the Prime Minister hand-picked Lord Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, a man who is on record as saying that
“a lot of people in prison…shouldn’t be there”—
two thirds of them in fact, he said—
“and they are there for far too long”.
The Labour party is clearly ideologically opposed to prison and that is why the Government are letting criminals off with a “get out of jail free” card, rather than deporting the 10,800 foreign national offenders in our prisons—one in every eight cells—a figure that is rising under the Justice Secretary’s watch. If she is actually serious about keeping violent criminals off our streets and finding the cells that are needed, will she bring forward legislation, tomorrow, and disapply the Human Rights Act 1998, which is stopping us from swiftly deporting foreign national offenders?
Some 17,800 prisoners are on remand awaiting trial—another figure that has risen under the Justice Secretary. In fact, her own Department’s figures forecast that it could rise to as many as 23,600. If she is serious, will she commit to taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s request for extra court sitting days to hear those cases and free up prison spaces? Will she commit, here and now, to building more than the meagre 250 rapid deployment cells her prison capacity strategy says she is planning to build this year? They have been built in seven months before, and they can be built even faster.
If the Justice Secretary were serious, she would commit to striking deals with the 14 European countries with spare prison capacity, renting their cells from them at an affordable price, as Denmark is doing with Kosovo. Between 1993 and 1996, her beloved Texas, the state on which she modelled these reforms—a state that, by the way, has an incarceration rate five times higher than that of the United Kingdom—built 75,000 extra cells. If the Government were serious, why can they not build 10,000 over a similar time period?
Labour is not serious about keeping hyper-prolific offenders behind bars. In fact, there is nothing in the Justice Secretary’s statement on locking them up or cutting crime, because the Labour party does not believe in punishing criminals and it does not really believe in prison. The radical, terrible changes made today are cloaked in necessity, but their root is Labour’s ideology. It is the public who will be paying the price for her weakness.
Shabana Mahmood
The shadow Secretary of State talks about serious Government—if the Government that he was a part of had ever been serious, they would have built more than 500 prison places in 14 years in office—[Interruption.] He is a new convert to the prison-building cause. He and his party have never stood up in this Chamber and apologised for adding only 500 places—
Mr Speaker
Order. I want the same respect from Members on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] Do we understand each other?
Shabana Mahmood
Mr Speaker, if I were waiting for respect from Opposition Members, I would be waiting for a long time, so it is a good job that I do not need it.
The shadow Secretary of State talks about “iron bars”, but he was part of a Government that did not build the prison places that this country needs. Unlike him, I take responsibility, and it has fallen to me to clean up the mess that he and his party left behind. In case there is any confusion, let me spell out what happens when he and his party leave our prison system on the brink of collapse, which is exactly what they did, and set out the prospect that faced me on day one, when I walked into the Justice Department. When prisons are on the verge of collapse, we basically have only two choices left at our disposal: either we shut the front door, or we have to open the back door. The right hon. Gentleman’s party knew that that was the situation it was confronted with, but did it make any decisions? No, it just decided to call an election instead and did a runner.
The public put the Conservatives in their current position. If they ever want to get out of that position, I suggest that they start by reckoning with the reality of their own track record in office. In any other reality, they should have started already with an apology. Conservative Members have had many chances to apologise to the country for leaving our prisons on the point of absolute collapse, but they have never taken them. Frankly, that tells us everything that anyone needs to know about the modern Conservative party.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the report and the Government’s response. It is a comprehensive and measured response to the prisons crisis, as one would expect from David Gauke, in contrast with the hysterical nonsense that we have heard from the Opposition today. I particularly welcome the additional resources for probation and electronic monitoring to enable robust punishment and control in the community as an alternative to custody, but even the aggregate effect of the measures in the report will only stabilise the prison population over the longer term. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we also need effective rehabilitation to end the cycle of reoffending if we are to see a fall in historically high prison numbers?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me be clear: we will be adding prison places to the estate, and we will be filling them up. The prison population will rise year on year by the end of this Parliament, but my hon. Friend is right that the measures we have announced today stabilise the prison population. As a whole country, we will have to do better at ensuring that our prisons are churning out better citizens, rather than better criminals. When we know that 80% of offenders are reoffenders, there is clearly much work to be done in this area.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I start by saying that it is an absolute honour to be able to share with my mum, who is a survivor of domestic abuse at the hands of a former partner, that campaigning fuelled by our harrowing experiences at home all those years ago, and the experiences of many other survivors across the country, has contributed to the Government heeding our calls to better identify domestic abuse in the criminal justice system. The increased visibility and the interventions that it will inform to patch up what was an outrageous gap in the system stand to protect victims and survivors across the country, and I sincerely thank the Government for listening to us.
My party and I will hold the Government to account on the implementation, and we would like to get clarity on the record that the new identifier will mean that the Government can be empowered to exclude domestic abusers from, for example, an SDS40 early release scheme, and that partners using Clare’s law will see offences flagged as domestic abuse in the light of the report.
It must be said that it is absolutely appalling that the shadow Justice Secretary has just tried to play politics with domestic abusers.
Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 3 days 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The Lord Chancellor laid a written ministerial statement yesterday, the background to which are the changes around fixed-term recall in the light of the prison capacity challenges that the Government face. When we were elected almost a year ago, we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. Although we took immediate action to prevent the catastrophe, prisons continue to be perilously close to filling up entirely. Last December we published a long-term building strategy, setting out our aim to open up 14,000 prison places by 2031. That is the largest expansion of the prison estate since the Victorians. We have already committed £2.3 billion to prison expansion, and since taking office we have delivered 2,400 new places.
We also commissioned the independent sentencing review, which will report shortly. The sentencing review will hopefully offer us a path to ending the capacity crisis in our prisons for good, but the impact of sentencing reforms will not be felt before next spring. On our current trajectory, we will hit zero capacity in our prisons in November—we cannot allow that to happen. That is why we have announced our intention to lay a fixed-term recall statutory instrument that will mean that those serving sentences of between one and four years can only be returned to prison for a fixed 28-day period. The measure builds on previous legislation, introduced by the last Government, that mandated 14-day recalls for those serving sentences of under a year.
To be clear, higher-risk offenders have been exempted from that change. If further information relating to an offender’s risk is received after they have been recalled which means they are no longer considered suitable for fixed-term recall, they may be detained for longer on a standard recall if that is assessed as necessary.
Robert Jenrick
“Sorry” seems to be the hardest word today. I see that the Justice Secretary has still not come to Parliament to defend her policy. Yesterday she deliberately avoided scrutiny in this House, because she knows that this decision is wildly unpopular and risks the safety of the public. To govern is to choose. There are 10,500 foreign criminals in our jails and 17,000 people in prison awaiting trial. Combined, those two groups make up roughly a third of the prison population.
The sensible step forward would obviously be to introduce emergency measures to expedite deportations and get the courts sitting around the clock. If the Justice Secretary chose to do that, we would support her, but so far she has not. She has refused to take the judiciary up on its offer of extra court sitting days. It is not uncommon for as many as half the courts at the Old Bailey to sit empty on any given day. Instead, she has decided to let out early criminals who reoffend or breach their licence. There is now no punishment or deterrent for criminals who immediately reoffend or cheat the system. The Justice Secretary says these people will be “in prison outside of prison”—I am sure that hardened criminals will be quaking in their boots at that farcical doublespeak.
There is no two ways about it: this decision has put the public in danger and victims in jeopardy. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, has said that she
“cannot stress enough the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger”.
Is the Justice Secretary or her Minister really telling domestic abuse victims that their abusers will be back on the streets in just 28 days if they breach their licence, and that nobody will even check with the Parole Board? Can the Minister explain to the House who is exempted from the scheme, because right now confusion reigns? Yesterday the Justice Secretary gave the impression that no domestic abusers or sexual offenders would be eligible for her scheme, but her Department has since said that it will include “many” but not all.
The written ministerial statement laid yesterday deliberately concealed the answer to the question of which criminals will be excluded, so will the Minister take this opportunity to tell the House? If he does not know the answer, will he commit to publishing it by the end of the day? Lastly, can he confirm to the House that anyone in breach of a restraining order will be ineligible for a fixed-term recall, because anything else would be an insult to the victims?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
We should never forget that the crisis in our prisons that the current Lord Chancellor is seeking to resolve was created over 14 years by the irresponsible mismanagement of the previous Government. Although today’s announcement makes sense in the short term, subject to safeguards, we must consider the whole way in which recall has developed, from 100 cases 30 years ago to more than 13,000 today—over 15% of the prison population—with less than 30% of recalls being for further offences. Will the Government consider the way in which recall operates? Without the freeing up of space in prisons, rehabilitation is impossible, overcrowding reaches ridiculous levels and we run out of space altogether.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend is right: the recall population has doubled in just seven years and we need to address that. The independent sentencing review will report shortly, and I hope that there will be recommendations to which we can respond in that report.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
There is no doubt that the Conservatives plunged our prisons into crisis. [Interruption.] They chunter from a sedentary position, but what else would they call it? It is clear that the Government have failed to step up and tackle the sheer scale of the problem. Across the country, victims and survivors are worried about what this will mean for them. If there were a specific domestic abuse offence, dangerous offenders could be excluded from early release, but the Government have taken no action at all since the Liberal Democrats raised that solution with them last autumn. Will the Minister finally commit to giving victims and survivors the protections that they deserve by creating new domestic abuse aggravated offences, and will he go further to protect our communities by introducing a clear plan to reduce reoffending, which is the only way to solve prison crowding once and for all? If the Minister will not listen to me, will he listen to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who has just warned that lives are now at risk?
Speaker’s Statement: Ministerial Code
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Once again, I have had to grant an urgent question on a matter that was briefed extensively to the media in recent days. I recognise that a written ministerial statement was issued, but I am surprised that the Government did not think that Members would want an opportunity to question Ministers on a very important issue.
On Monday, the Home Secretary was unapologetic about the fact that details of the immigration White Paper were given to the media, starting on Sunday morning, before it was laid before this House and long before she came to make a statement. I note that those who now occupy senior ministerial roles were not slow to complain when the previous Government made major policy announcements outside this place. I will continue to uphold and defend the rights of this House—the rights of Back Benchers—to be the first to hear the most important announcements of Government policy and the rights of hon. Members to question Ministers on those announcements in person. That was my position under the previous Government and it has not changed under this Government.
It is clear to me that the general principle set out in paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code is being disregarded more often than it is observed. I will write to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to invite that Committee to consider the issues in more detail. If the Government are not going to take the ministerial code seriously, who will?
I do not like doing this. I believe that I am here to represent all Back Benchers, and Back Benchers have the right to question Ministers first. I am not interested in Sky News, the BBC or political programmes; I am here to defend you all, and I will continue to defend you. I say to the Government: please do not take MPs for granted. It is not acceptable. I know it is not the fault of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is about to respond to the urgent question, but the message has to go back loud and clear: when you are in the wrong, apologise to Members.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
Mr Speaker, I hear your words very clearly. I very much respect the role of Parliament and I am pleased to be here today to follow up the written ministerial statement that was laid yesterday by the Lord Chancellor.
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me gently say to the Minister: you would not be here at all if I had not granted the urgent question. That is the thing we should remember. You are only here because I have decided that you should be here. Please, do not try to take advantage of a situation that is not of your own making.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I will certainly apologise, Mr Speaker. I was not trying to take advantage. Clearly, it also took the action of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), laying an urgent question. That is how Parliament works, and rightly so.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not want to labour the point—but, no, this is not the way we should be acting. The statement should have been brought here on the day the plan was announced. Let us get this very, very clear: this is not about having to grant an urgent question; this is about the Government doing the right thing, rather than somebody else having to drag Ministers here. That is not how we should be working.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sorry for any misinformation that I have given in trying to respond.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We respect each other, and I respect very much that you are standing up for Parliament, which is exactly the right thing to do. I applaud that.
Protection of Prison Staff
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 6 days 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
Sir Nicholas Dakin
We are managing the most complex people in the most complex system. Our prison staff have to manage extremely dangerous people, and they do it with real bravery. We will do whatever it takes to keep them safe. That is why we have already taken the actions that we have.
All prisons carry out regular risk assessments and implement associated safe systems of work. If a risk is identified regarding kettle use or intelligence is received that one might be used in an assault, the kettle will be withdrawn. Frankly, kettles were used for 14 years under the previous Government’s watch, as they rightly trusted the professional skill and expertise of those running and working in our prisons. That is what we are doing now.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Last week, the Justice Committee visited Wandsworth prison and noted improvements, but from a very low base. We heard that the poor reputation of some prisons, including rising violence, makes recruitment more difficult. That is the legacy of 14 years of starving prisons of resources. What are the current Government doing to improve the recruitment and retention of prison officers?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend is completely correct: we inherited a prison system in crisis, where prisons were on the edge of collapse. Reducing violence in prisons is a key priority. That is why we have taken the actions we have in building new prisons and in the sentencing review: to ensure that we always have prison spaces to lock dangerous people up.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
No prison officer should go to work in fear that they may leave in an ambulance. I therefore send my sympathies and those of the Liberal Democrats to the officer injured at HMP Belmarsh. Assaults on prison staff have doubled since 2015—a reality for which the Conservatives should hang their heads in shame.
The Government must now get a grip. The Prison Officers Association, which is holding its conference in my constituency this week, has requested more protective equipment. The Ministry of Justice is reviewing that, but will it accelerate the review to ensure that officers get that support now, not next month?
Recruitment and retention issues also compromise prison officers’ safety, so what are the Government doing to address that? Will not discontinuing prison officer graduate schemes such as Unlocked Graduates compromise safety? How is the MOJ robustly rehabilitating violent offenders to reduce the risk they pose to prison officers and our communities?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The hon. Member mentions an excellent counselling service in his constituency, which I praise. These counselling services are crucial and a very important part of the system.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
It has been six days since the Supreme Court handed down its landmark judgment in the case brought by For Women Scotland—a judgment that confirms basic biological reality and protects women and girls. It was a Conservative Government who brought in the policy to stop male offenders, however they identify, being held in the women’s estate, especially those convicted of violence or sexual offences. Will the Lord Chancellor and her Ministers confirm that the Government will implement the Supreme Court judgment in full and that they will take personal responsibility for ensuring that it is in every aspect of our justice system, or do they agree with senior Ministers in their party who now appear to be actively plotting to undermine the Supreme Court’s judgment?
Shabana Mahmood
The guidelines set a starting point for a sentence—that is usually the point of the guidelines. Judges can sentence outside the guideline range if they believe that is in the interests of justice. The guidelines set only a starting point, not an end point, which remains in the purview of judges sitting in their independent capacity in our courts. We are not seeking to overturn the immigration guidelines. In case there are hon. Members who are labouring under misinformation, I should say that it is an important point of fact that foreign national offenders and immigration offenders who receive sentences of less than 12 months can still be deported, and under this Government they will be.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
When it enacted the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Parliament decided that the Sentencing Council should be chaired by a judicial member, appointed by the Lady Chief Justice. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that Members of this House should respect the principle of judicial independence when discussing the leadership of the Sentencing Council?
Shabana Mahmood
When judges are acting as judges, they are acting in their independent capacity. All Members of this House should respect judicial independence. My hon. Friend will know that my disagreement with the Sentencing Council relates to where the line is drawn between matters that are correctly within the purview of our independent judiciary and matters that relate to policy that is correctly within the purview of this place.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Today, the Justice Secretary is belatedly introducing a Bill to restore fairness in who receives a pre-sentence report, but it will not correct what the pre-sentence report says. Under brand-new guidance that the Justice Secretary’s Department issued in January, pre-sentence reports must consider the “culture” of an offender and take into account whether they have suffered “intergenerational trauma” from “important historical events”. Evidently, the Labour party does not believe in individual responsibility and agency. Instead of treating people equally, it believes in cultural relativism. This time the Justice Secretary has nobody else to blame but herself. Will she change that or is there two-tier justice? Is that the Labour party’s policy now?
Alistair Strathern
Thank you, Mr Speaker—that is very kind. In less encouraging news, far too many retailers across my towns and villages, including my local Morrisons, are being hit by repeated shoplifting, which is all too often driven by prolific offenders and criminal gangs. How is the Secretary of State working with the Home Office to ensure that we are finally taking the scourge of shoplifting as seriously as we should?
Mr Speaker
Are we really sure that this question is linked to young people in Staffordshire committing crime?
Caroline Voaden
It might not be about Staffordshire, but we also have young people in Devon. We have a case in my constituency of a young offender who has been arrested multiple times and put under a court order, but the presumption is against incarceration because of his age. Local residents tell me that there is a disaster waiting to happen—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is not linking her question to the original, so we are going to move on.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Shabana Mahmood
We were transparent with the House about the problems with tagging during the second tranche of emergency releases last year. I will ensure that we publish the correct information, and I can write to the hon. Lady with the exact figures, but we have been holding Serco to account, because its performance on its contract has been unacceptable. We have levied fines, and we have said that all options are on the table for any further action that we might need to take.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
One of the dying acts of the last Conservative Government was to shake hands with Serco on an electronic tagging contract that Channel 4’s “Dispatches” found was completely inadequate. People with serious convictions were left without tags for days and weeks. Victims and survivors were failed, including survivors of those released early under the SDS40 scheme. What will the Secretary of State do to hold Serco to account for these failures, and to clear up the mess that was fundamentally created by the failures of the last Government?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
There is an ongoing audit of all the review’s recommendations. Our thoughts remain with our brave prison officers who were attacked, and with the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing and their families, who are understandably concerned by the shocking events in HMP Frankland. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor took immediate action to set a review in place.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Personal protective equipment is now worn in all kinds of jobs where people may have to deal with dangerous situations. As Professor Acheson has said, it is
“staggering that frontline police staff working in conditions of far greater peril…are not issued with stab vests capable of stopping an attack with a bladed weapon.”
We should all be ensuring that our prison officers come home safe to their loved ones. Unions have called for this measure, and I can assure the Minister that they have the full support of those on the Opposition side of the House. Will he act—not in two months or six months, but now—to protect prison officers before it is too late?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The hon. Gentleman urges us to get on with it. By my reckoning, the Conservative party had 14 years to get on with it. We are getting on with it. We set up the snap review straightaway. [Interruption.] “It’s not party political,” he says. Well, people might judge that for themselves by listening to the sort of questioning we have had today.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Key agents of reform in our prisons are prison officers. Unlocked Graduates is an amazing scheme that supports the production of prison officers with new innovations, but it has had the rug pulled from underneath its feet, beyond its current cohort. There are mixed accounts of what has happened from different civil servants and other individuals in government. Will the Minister explain exactly what has happened? Why has the contract not worked? Will he sit down with me and Unlocked Graduates to see if we can find a way forward?
Shabana Mahmood
I must caution Conservatives Members against groaning. I appreciate that they might not be proud of their record—I would not be if that was the record I had left behind after leaving government—but groaning shows the contempt in which they hold the public, who have had to suffer the consequences of a truly dire Conservative party legacy. My hon. Friend is right that technology can—and we hope will—provide better solutions to the management and supervision of offenders in the community. I look forward to the sentencing review’s findings in that regard.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I support the Lord Chancellor’s decision to commission a full statutory inquiry into the terrible attack in Nottingham. I know it will be welcomed by the families and everyone in the city and across my home county of Nottinghamshire. I fully support her welcome decision.
Greg Ó Ceallaigh is a serving immigration judge who decides asylum and deportation appeals. It took nothing more than a basic Google search to uncover his past comments that the Conservative party should be treated the same way as Nazis and cancer. As a sitting judge, he has publicly supported Labour’s plans to scrap the Rwanda scheme and for illegal entry into the United Kingdom to be decriminalised. Does the Lord Chancellor believe this is compatible with judicial impartiality? If not, what does she intend to do about it?
Shabana Mahmood
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks on the new Nottingham inquiry—I am very grateful for his support. I am sure the whole House will want to see the inquiry come to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that when people have a complaint to make about judges, they can do so via the well-placed mechanism of the judicial complaints office. If he wishes to make a complaint, he can do so, but what I will not do is indulge in, effectively, the doxing of judges, especially not when they are simply doing their job of applying the law in the cases that appear before them. If there are complaints to be made about judicial conduct, I am sure the shadow Lord Chancellor knows how to go about it.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that we must be careful about what we do here? We are not meant to criticise judges, and I know that this House would not do so. I am sure that we will now change the topic.
Robert Jenrick
Mr Speaker, it is important that judges and the manner in which they are appointed are properly scrutinised in this House, and I will not shy away from doing so. Helen Pitcher was forced to resign in disgrace as the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission after a formal panel found that she had failed in her duties during one of the worst miscarriages of justice in recent memory. But she is still in charge of judicial appointments, despite judges appearing in the media every week for their activism. Her commission has failed to conduct the most basic checks on potential judges, either out of sheer incompetence, or out of sympathy with their hard-left views on open borders. The commission is broken and is bringing the independence of the judiciary into disrepute. How much longer will it take for the Justice Secretary to act and remove the chair of this commission from her position and defend the independence and reputation of the judiciary?
Shabana Mahmood
I am afraid that the shadow Chancellor cannot elide the process for the appointment of judges with a wider attack on the independence of the judiciary. I hope that he will take the admonishment from you, Mr Speaker, and the clear disapprobation of this House to reflect on the way that he is approaching his role. If there are complaints to be made about judicial conduct, there is already a robust process in place for doing so. If the shadow Lord Chancellor wishes to avail himself of that, I am sure that, given how active he is, he will be happy to do so. What is completely improper is to take his position in this House to indulge in a wider attack of the judiciary at a time when we know that judicial security has been compromised—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is the time for topical questions, and we have other Members to get in. Tensions are running high, so let us calm everyone down with a question from Warinder Juss.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Alex Davies-Jones
If any crime is committed, or even alleged to have been committed, it should be reported to the police in the first instance. Victims have rights under the victims code. We have recently done a campaign to advertise the code to create awareness of it, and we will soon consult on the code so that it reaches all potential victims of crime more broadly.
Sentencing Council Guidelines
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week 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
Sir Nicholas Dakin
There is one thing that we know about Labour Governments: they always have to clear up the mess left by Conservative Governments. That is what the Lord Chancellor is doing at the moment. She is clearing up the mess left by the previous Government: the clogged-up the courts, the overflowing prisons and the overworked Probation Service.
Getting back to the facts of the case, the Lord Chancellor met the Sentencing Council last Thursday and had a constructive discussion. It was agreed that she will set out her position more fully in writing, which the Sentencing Council will then consider before the guidance is due to come into effect. This is serious government, not auditioning for government. The Conservatives were not only consulted; they welcomed these guidelines when they were in office. The former Minister for sentencing wrote a letter of welcome to the Sentencing Council setting this out on 19 February 2024. There is a process in place now that needs to be allowed to play out. We will not pre-empt that process.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Sentencing Council is—it should not need saying—a non-political body whose guidelines are carefully drafted and widely consulted on. These guidelines received positive responses from the Justice Committee under its previous Chair and from the previous Government. They do not require that a pre-sentence report is ordered, they do not limit who should be the subject of such a report and they do not tie the hands of the sentencer. Does my hon. Friend agree that by dragging the Sentencing Council into the political arena without good cause, the shadow Justice Secretary degrades both the Sentencing Council and himself?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee makes a good point about the way in which the shadow Justice Secretary conducts himself. The important thing is that the Lord Chancellor had a constructive meeting with the chair of the Sentencing Council and there is now a process in place to address this issue.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I would like to think that all in this House believe in equality under the law, in sentencing matters and otherwise, but it is clear that two-tier justice has existed in our country, having been governed by two-tier Tories who thought they could get away with illegal No. 10 parties while the rest of us were told to stay at home; two-tier Tories such as the shadow Justice Secretary, who unlawfully approved a development for his donor; and two-tier Tories who have pummelled our prisons and crashed our courts, leaving victims to pay the price. Can the Minister tell us how he will reform sentencing in England and Wales to protect the victims and survivors so let down by the Conservatives?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I have tried to explain this, and I will explain it once more. The Justice Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, has been extremely clear that she believes in equality before the law, and she is not happy with the guidelines. That is why she wrote as soon as they were published, unlike Conservative Members, who had sight of them earlier in the consultation. They went further than ignoring them; they responded to them in a very positive way.
Mr Speaker
Order. I know you like to think that in order to keep talking a bit—[Interruption.] One of us is going to sit down; it is not going to be me, Minister. There are other things to do and points of order to follow.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It seems like every week we are back here, dealing with culture wars—
Mr Speaker
Order. Is that a reflection on me granting the urgent question? I am beginning to feel that it is aimed at me. We have this urgent question today because I thought it was appropriate, not because we have it every week. Right, let’s have somebody else.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Judging by the lack of action, it appears that the Justice Secretary is comfortable with changes that she has described as two-tier coming into effect in just two weeks. We have heard that she is unhappy; if she really is, can the Minister tell the House and the country what the Secretary of State is doing, other than holding cordial and cosy meetings, to prevent two-tier justice?
Robert Jenrick
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his response to the urgent question, the Minister has repeatedly told the House that the previous Government approved the guidelines. In particular, he besmirched the name of the former sentencing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). What the Minister said to the House today was wrong. On page 4, paragraph 4, of the Sentencing Council’s letter of 10 March to the Justice Secretary, it made it perfectly clear that the guidelines published under this Government were materially different from those considered by the prior Government. In fact, the Minister’s official was present at the meeting of the Sentencing Council at which this version of the guidelines was signed off. Will he take the opportunity to correct the record? I am afraid that he has misled the House not once, not twice, but on numerous occasions today, and that is quite wrong.
Mr Speaker
Order. Nobody misleads the House; the right hon. Gentleman means “inadvertently” misled the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises two incredibly important points. There will be a bigger role for current, new and emerging technologies in the future of our justice system, particularly in expanding the range of punishment available to us outside of prison. I want to make sure that we are at the forefront of getting the best use of our current technology and emerging tech. He is absolutely right about making sure that any commercial contracts are value for money and maintain public confidence. I am ensuring that, across the Department, we have expertise available to us, which is why the new unit that I have set up, Justice AI, will be so crucial to our efforts.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Under the Justice Secretary’s leadership, her Department let out dozens of dangerous prisoners by mistake last year. Now we have uncovered that criminals who were let out early by her Department were not monitored for up to eight weeks, as they were not fitted with electronic tags. It is another glaring error. Will the Justice Secretary clear up some confusion? How many criminals did her Department fail to tag? Were any offences committed while these criminals went unmonitored, and who has been held accountable for this gross incompetence?
Alex Davies-Jones
This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with record Crown court caseloads that continue to rise. That has had an impact on far too many victims, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. Since July, we have put more funding into Crown courts, so that they will have their greatest capacity ever, and we have doubled magistrates’ sentencing powers, so that Crown courts can focus specifically on serious crimes. We are committed to bearing down on that caseload and bringing waiting times down, while also protecting victims’ funding and introducing domestic abuse protection orders to protect victims in pilot areas.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I start by associating myself with the comments made at the beginning in relation to Joanne. So many victims and survivors rely on the victim contact scheme to know when their abuser is being released from prison or moved to an open prison and to have input into the kind of conditions that should exist when they are released. However, the system that we have inherited from the last Government is such that only survivors whose abusers have been convicted for more than 12 months qualify for the scheme. In the upcoming Victims, Courts and Public Protection Bill, will the Minister commit to scrapping that threshold so that all victims and survivors can qualify for the scheme?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I applaud the work that the hon. Member describes. It is certainly the sort of work that needs to continue. Overall, the levels of homelessness and rough sleeping that we have inherited are far too high. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a long-term strategy to put us back on track to end homelessness. If he wishes to write to me about that particular case, I will follow it up.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
As part of the Justice Committee’s work on rehabilitation, I have come across some excellent projects on preventing reoffending, such as Revolving Doors, Peer Support and Key4Life, that use reformed ex-offenders as mentors. On a visit to Wormwood Scrubs prison last month, I saw the Right Course restaurant, which gets almost 60% of its trainees into employment on release. What are the Government doing to support and expand successful rehabilitation projects like these?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his identification of these very good actions that are going on within the prison estate. The Prison Service is keen to encourage all this sort of activity, and I will follow this up with my hon. Friend directly.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the efforts to help prison leavers to reintegrate, but I am concerned that this Government will soon be keeping people out of prison who should be there as part of their proper punishment for offending. The Government commissioned a sentencing review running on that very premise, and that review recently released its interim report. Can the Minister point to anywhere in that entire 65-page report that has anything to say about the evidence of what victims want?
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The independent sentencing review and the Justice Secretary have been taking inspiration from Texas when it comes to reforming our criminal justice system. She might be aware that Texas has a dedicated set of domestic abuse aggravated offences to help protect and respect survivors. Will she support me and Liberal Democrat colleagues in introducing proposals to the Crime and Policing Bill in order to make similar changes to the law in England and Wales?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
We recognise the unique and challenging role that prison officers play in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. The Lord Chancellor has requested advice from officials on the pension age of prison officers, and we will continue to engage with trade unions as we work through this complex issue while considering the wider fiscal context. I am meeting the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) to discuss this important issue next week, and I am very happy for my hon. Friend to join that meeting if he wishes.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Yesterday, the Sentencing Council issued a letter correcting the Justice Secretary. It made it clear that the new sentencing guidelines were not the same as the draft guidance under the last Government and explained that her Department supported the new two-tier guidance—her representative was at the meeting—and it was approved on 24 January. Her officials were even given a walkthrough on 3 March—a dummy’s guide to two-tier justice. After I brought that to her attention last Wednesday, her team briefed the papers that she was “incandescent”. Was she incandescent at her officials or at her own failure to read her papers and do her job properly?
Several hon. Members rose—
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
One of the key objectives of the Sentencing Council is to ensure that there is parity of sentence up and down the country. It is a known fact that people from ethnic minorities sometimes get tougher custodial sentences than their white counterparts for similar offences. Given that, does the Lord Chancellor regret her attempt to discredit the considered and evidence-based conclusions of some of the most esteemed members of our judiciary when they published the guidelines on pre-sentencing reports?
Shabana Mahmood
I have already made my position clear. I have written to the Sentencing Council, and I will be meeting it later this week. I am reviewing the roles and powers of the council, and I will not hesitate to legislate if I need to do so.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Last month, the Justice Committee heard evidence from governors of prisons with some of the highest drug use rates in the country. From detecting drones to body scanners and physical barriers, they all felt under-resourced in technology and investment. What is the Secretary of State doing to better equip prison staff to keep drugs out of prisons?
Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, I will make a statement on capacity in the Crown court.
When this Government took office eight months ago, we received an inheritance from the Conservative Government that was little short of disgraceful: our prisons were in crisis, on the edge of collapse, and our courts faced a record and rising backlog. While the crisis in our prisons was more obvious and visible, the harm caused by the backlog in our courts cannot be overestimated.
Today, the backlog stands at over 73,000 cases. Just five years earlier, it had been half that figure. We should stop and consider that fact, because the backlog is far more than a number. Behind each case is a victim. Many have waited years for justice and some will now not have their cases heard until 2028. With delays that long, it is little wonder that more victims are dropping out, and tragically that is true of victims of the most heinous crimes. Just five years ago, around 3% of adult rape victims whose cases were due to go to trial dropped out before their case was heard. Today, that figure has more than doubled.
An old adage has sadly come true in this country: for far too many, justice delayed is justice denied. Unlike our predecessors, who allowed this backlog to rise and rise, this Government will bear down on it. We will deliver swifter justice for the victims of crime. That starts today with a record investment in our criminal courts.
Each financial year, the Government determine the total number of days that can be sat across all our courts and tribunals, commonly referred to as sitting days. This process is called the concordat. Last year, I committed to concluding the process earlier than in previous years to give our courts greater certainty. We have now done so, several months ahead of last year’s settlement, so today I can announce that the Government will provide a total budget of £2.5 billion for our courts and tribunals in the next financial year. That represents a record level of investment, which will fund up to 110,000 sitting days in our Crown courts—4,000 more days than the previous Government funded last year. If the shadow Lord Chancellor would like to check the record books, he will find no higher allocation in recorded history.
Beyond the Crown court, investment in the family and civil courts brings those jurisdictions to, or close to, their maximum capacity, and the investment in court capacity is matched by an investment in court maintenance. Our courts have been allowed to fall into a shocking state of disrepair in recent years, so this Government will boost funding to £148.5 million, up from £128 million last year. That will be the highest figure spent on maintenance and capital works in the last 10 years, building on a consistent theme of this new Government, and it is a marked difference when compared with our predecessors.
In our first eight months in office, we have consistently invested more in the courts than the last Conservative Government. On entering office, I immediately funded 500 sitting days on top of the allocation provided by the previous Lord Chancellor. At the end of last year, when resources allowed, I added a further 2,000 sitting days. In October, this Government also increased the sentencing powers of magistrates courts; previously, they could impose only a six-month prison sentence, which we lifted to 12 months. In doing so, we freed up capacity in the Crown court to hear the most serious cases. That single change was equivalent to adding another 2,000 sitting days in our Crown courts. All those changes are necessary for the swift delivery of justice.
However, I must be honest, in a way that my predecessors never were: this investment is necessary, but it is not sufficient to reduce the Crown court backlog. Even with record levels of funding, if we do not take other, bolder measures, the backlog will grow. With a growing number of cases entering our courts and cases of increasing complexity being heard in front of our judges, we cannot simply do more of the same: we must do things differently. In December, I appointed Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct a wholesale review of our criminal courts. The review will propose long-term reform as well as reviewing the efficiency and timeliness of court processes from charge all the way through to case completion.
Crucially, I have also asked Sir Brian to address something that too many others have avoided: the question of structural reform. Today, 10% of criminal cases are heard in a Crown court, where a judge presides and a jury decides. Jury trials are a pillar of our justice system for the most serious offences, and that will never change. However, we must ask ourselves whether they are hearing cases that could be handled equally well elsewhere.
Some cases can already be heard in either a Crown court or a magistrates court, which we call “triable either way” cases. Those represent 40% of the courts backlog, but while a conviction—whether determined by a jury or a magistrate—is the same regardless of the type of courtroom, the demand that it places on our justice system is very different indeed. An either-way case is resolved by magistrates five times faster than before a judge and jury. Justice must be done and criminals must always face consequences—on that, I know this House will agree—but we must be willing to ask whether a judge and jury should be occupied, at great length and expense, with crimes that could be dealt with more swiftly elsewhere.
For that reason, I have asked Sir Brian to consider the case for reclassifying some less serious offences, whether magistrates’ sentencing powers are sufficient and the case for a new court to sit between the magistrates court and the Crown court. His recommendations will come later this spring. His goal and mine are one: to bear down on the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims. The consequences of failing to do so are all too clear—the backlog in the criminal courts will rise, cases will be listed even further into the future, and more victims of crime will decide that the wait is too painful with justice so distant, and as a result, dangerous criminals will walk free.
Today, we have announced a record investment in our courts: 110,000 sitting days funded, which is 4,000 more than the previous Administration funded. For many victims, their case will be heard sooner, but if we are to deliver swifter justice for all, we must embrace reform. This Government will deliver once-in-a-generation reform of our courts, and we will reverse the decline and the delays of the last Conservative Government. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I can always help by reopening Chorley court for you.
I call the shadow Lord Chancellor.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
It is great to see the Justice Secretary back in the country after her holiday in Texas. If she can find time to travel to America, why can she not find time to travel to the two category A prisons—[Interruption.] I will be pleased to hear from the right hon. Lady if that is the case. That was not the answer to our written parliamentary question the other day.
Today, the central criminal court has 13 courtrooms sat empty. In Preston, 40% of courtrooms sit empty, and in Winchester the figure is two thirds. That is a result of the court backlog, which has grown under this Justice Secretary. We need to be maximising court capacity, taking full advantage of all available days and probing the judiciary for options to create more capacity. I know that, and I would like to believe that the right hon. Lady knows that, but how did we get here? We got here because, just like in every other area, this Labour Government came into office with no plan whatsoever, and they have wasted their first eight months in office.
Upon the Justice Secretary entering office, the Lady Chief Justice informed her that there were at least 6,500 sitting days available to address the court backlog. The Justice Secretary responded by adding a measly 500 sitting days, and the court backlog kept growing. So frustrated was the Lady Chief Justice that she came to Parliament in November and took the unusual step of publicly chastising the Justice Secretary, and reiterated her offer of 6,500 sitting days. The Justice Secretary responded a month later by adding 2,000 sitting days, and the court backlog kept growing.
Here we are again, eight months on from the Justice Secretary taking office and on the very day that the Public Accounts Committee has published an excoriating report into her Department, with her promising more sitting days. Is it third time lucky for the Justice Secretary? No. What we have learned again today is that she is still turning down available sitting days, and astonishingly, she has conceded that the court backlog will keep on rising. That is simply not acceptable.
Of course, I welcome the changes made by the Justice Secretary, but they are not enough. She says that victims will get quicker justice—tell that to the victims of rape who are having their court cases listed for 2028. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, I need to be able to hear the shadow Lord Chancellor, and when Government Front Benchers shout for so long, I cannot hear. I will decide whether a statement is in order or not—are we understanding each other?
Robert Jenrick
I do not pretend that cutting the court backlog is easy, or that it will be quick, but the Justice Secretary owes the country a plan and a timetable for when that backlog is actually going to fall. This morning, she was repeatedly asked that question, but refused to give an answer. Can she tell the country now when the court backlog will begin to fall, by what date her Department has forecast it falling, and why she will not take up the 2,500 additional sitting days offered time and time again by the Lady Chief Justice?
Lastly, the new sentencing guidelines published alongside this statement will make a custodial sentence less likely for those
“from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community”.
Why is the Justice Secretary enshrining this double standard—this two-tier approach to sentencing? It is an inversion of the rule of law. Conservative Members believe in equality under the law; why does she not?
Shabana Mahmood
The shadow Secretary of State asked, “How did we get here?” I will tell him how we got here—his Administration and the 14 years they had in power, and the absolute mess they made of the criminal justice system; a mess that this Government are clearing up. I am sorry to deprive him of what I am sure he thought was a clever attack line on my recent visit to Texas, but I can inform him that I have in fact visited HM Prison Manchester. I did so during the February recess. [Interruption.]
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman should welcome our seeking to learn from a tough law and order state in America, which 20 years ago had the same problems that we inherited from his Administration, and which has embarked on criminal justice reform that has seen reoffending at a level that we could only dream of in this country. He should seek to learn from other countries, as we are. If his Government had done so when they were in power, we would not have such a big mess to clear up in the criminal justice system.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to courtrooms sitting empty; one reason why is that one of his Government’s last acts on leaving office was to fund only 106,000 sitting days. I have lifted that number, and today the number of Crown court sitting days is at a record high, funded by this Labour Government. More courtrooms will be put to use. He will also know that to run the system efficiently, the normal practice is that some courtrooms will not be in use to cope with the flux in demand. However, as a result of today’s decision, more courtrooms will be in use than was ever the case under his Administration.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what I have been doing and what is the plan. When I came into office, the first thing I did was immediately to increase the number of sitting days by 500, up from 106,000 when his Government left office. I then made a further allocation and increased that again by 2,000 before Christmas—making progress on the Crown court backlog and picking up the pieces of the mess that his Government left behind. He will know that the changes that I made to magistrates court sentencing powers have also freed up capacity in the Crown courts. We have increased funding for criminal legal aid by £92 million so that we have the money to underpin the system. That is action. That is an increase in sitting days in-year and an unprecedented increase in sitting days for next year. That is what this Labour Government are delivering.
The right hon. Gentleman will also know that even if we were sitting at the maximum judicial capacity—he rightly referred to that, as did the Lady Chief Justice in Parliament—that backlog would still rise, because the demand in the system is fast outstripping the pace at which cases are being disposed of. Knowing that, it would be unconscionable if I stood before this House and behaved as if resources alone would fix the problem. That is why Sir Brian Leveson is considering once-in-a-generation reform of our Crown courts.
The combination of the steps that I have already taken, the funding that I have allocated and the review that will lead to once-in-a-generation reform—that is what a plan looks like to fix the mess that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government left behind. It is a plan that they could have had in place when they were in government, but they failed to do so, and now they carp from the sidelines when someone else is getting on with the job.
Finally, as somebody from an ethnic minority background, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law for anyone. There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch or under this Labour Government.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on the figures that she has announced and on starting to get to grips with her baleful inheritance. However, there is a long way to go. The Lady Chief Justice told the Lords Constitution Committee last week that she was pressing for Crown courts to sit to capacity. Does the 110,000 figure represent capacity? If not, what is capacity? Given that the backlog is 73,000 cases and rising, will the Lord Chancellor guarantee sitting days up to capacity for the whole of the coming year? In her statement, she rightly promised investment in the family and civil courts to bring those jurisdictions to, or close to, maximum capacity. Will she make the same commitment for the Crown court?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that there is a difference between system capacity and maximum judicial capacity. He is right that the Lady Chief Justice has said that the maximum judicial capacity is 113,000 sitting days in the Crown court. We are funding 110,000 sitting days there, because in my role as Lord Chancellor, I must be mindful of managing the wider system capacity—the availability not just of judges to sit in the Crown court but of the lawyers, prosecutors, legal aid and defence barristers that underpin the rest of the system. I am confident that the 110,000 sitting days represent the system capacity, and that is being delivered.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Tens of thousands of victims and survivors waiting for their day in court is one of the darkest legacies of the last Conservative Government. I feel that sincerely because, under that Conservative Government, I was one of those victims. After two decades of agonising over whether to report my own victimhood as a child, I waited two years for my own opportunity to seek justice in the Crown court. That is years of your heart racing whenever you get a phone call from an unknown number. Is it the court? Is it the Crown Prosecution Service? There are years of anxiety that your perpetrator will retaliate, and years of your life excruciatingly on hold. Many victims today are being forced to sit with all this for far longer than I did. The Liberal Democrats and I personally welcome the Justice Secretary’s announcement.
However, we all know that a huge backlog will remain, which means that victims and survivors will continue to be let down. At a time when victims and survivors need more support during these agonising waits, Government funding cuts and national insurance contribution increases are putting services such as Safeline and Victim Support at risk. Will the Lord Chancellor outline her year by year targets for reducing this backlog, and will she increase, not cut, support for charities to ensure that victims and survivors get the support that they need and deserve?
Shabana Mahmood
I am listening very carefully and taking under advisement all these lobbying requests, including from the Speaker himself, about courts in Members’ areas. I thank both you, Mr Speaker, and my hon. Friend for that.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need radical reform. Without radical reform, the backlog, no matter how many Crown court sitting days we fund, will keep going up and up, which is why Sir Brian Leveson’s work is so very crucial.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee that the backlog is far too high. He will know that, no matter what we do in terms of system efficiency and capacity, that backlog is projected to rise, because the demand coming into the system is particularly high and is itself rising. That is why I have asked Sir Brian Leveson to consider once-in-a-generation policy reform, so that we can make the legislative changes necessary to bring the backlog down. That is the change that is required, alongside system-wide efficiency and productivity.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has announced two major reviews of the criminal justice system—the Leveson review and the Gauke review—and has said that, very impressively, they might report by the spring, which could be 1 March. There is a difference between reporting and taking action, so could she set out exactly when she expects the results of those two reviews to have a direct impact on case numbers?
Shabana Mahmood
The Chair of the Justice Committee is tempting me to pre-empt what the reviews will find. Those findings will, of course, dictate the pace at which change can then occur. He will be aware of the acute pressure on our prisons system, despite the emergency levers that I have had to pull—that has only bought us some time, as I have said when regularly updating the House. The sentencing review measures have to take account of our remaining problem with prison capacity. Once the review has been published, we will move quickly to decide which recommendations to take forward. On the courts package, it is likely that any measures will also require legislative reform. Again, I will seek to move at pace on that, but that rather depends on the package of measures that Sir Brian Leveson ultimately recommends.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The courts backlog is growing by 500 cases every month, and the Ministry of Justice has not set a date for when it will come down. Victims are being forced to put their lives on hold while they wait for a trial date, yet today at the Old Bailey half of all the courtrooms sit empty. The Lady Chief Justice has said that there are 4,000 additional sitting days available that could be used now. Who is the obstacle to resolving this? Is it the Justice Secretary, who is content for rape trials to be scheduled for as far off as 2027, or is it the Chancellor, and the Justice Secretary has just had rings run around her by the Treasury?
Shabana Mahmood
As I said in my previous answer, it is clear that the fast pace of the online world has some significant challenges for our present arrangements around contempt laws. The Government’s approach, which was to do nothing that might risk collapsing the trial, was the right one. I hope that will have support across the House. It would have been in no one’s interests to take any risks with the safety of the trial. As I have said, the online space poses some challenges for our contempt law arrangements, and the Law Commission is rightly looking into that.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Contempt of court laws are guardrails that ensure fair trials. Does the Justice Secretary accept that, as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said, by failing to provide basic information to the public that has been disclosed in previous cases—information that would not prejudice a trial—the authorities created a vacuum in which misinformation spread? That misinformation could itself have been prejudicial to the trial. Does she agree that in an age when most people consume their news through social media, saying nothing is not cost-free? Will she commit to reviewing this issue now, rather than waiting for the Law Commission?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member will know that I am not going to pre-empt any of the findings of the sentencing review. The point of having an independent review is to allow for a look at all the issues in the round. I have made it clear that I am particularly concerned about the people who she rightly terms career criminals, and I am particularly keen to think about the interventions that could make the biggest difference, so that we can reduce this blight on our communities. That is a clear statement of intent from the Government, showing how seriously we take prolific offending, but the measures that we choose to take forward will be clearer once the sentencing review has reported.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
As the Secretary of State mentioned, the approach to managing hyper-prolific offenders is part of David Gauke’s review, which could consider, for example, the wider use of GPS tagging and home curfew, but the Department has been undertaking its own assessment of the effectiveness of GPS tagging. Will the Government commit to publishing that review before or alongside the sentencing review, so that we can properly judge the merits of any proposed expansion?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend will know that this Government have a landmark ambition to halve violence against women and girls, and the criminal justice system has an important part to play in that. While setting that priority, whether it is for the CPS or our police, we want to drive charging decisions and drive up the conviction rate. Providing swifter justice for victims is going to require once-in-a-generation reform to bring down the Crown court backlog.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
In a recent written parliamentary question, I asked the Government how many domestic abusers there are in prison and what their reoffending rate is. Under the system this Government inherited from the Conservatives, they said that
“It is not possible to robustly calculate the number”.
That is shocking, and is in part because there is no specific offence of domestic abuse in the law to properly reflect and recognise these crimes. My Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill would correct that loophole. When will the Secretary of State honour the commitment she made on “Good Morning Britain” to meet me to discuss my Bill and how we can better protect victims and survivors?
Shabana Mahmood
I will happily look at the facts of the case. Some of those numbers do not sound like they should be possible, but that could be down to specific factors relating to that case. If my hon. Friend writes to me with the details, I will make sure he has a full response.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Confidence in the criminal justice system can be achieved only if support for victims and survivors is adequately funded, but charities such as Victim Support, whose services I have personally benefited from, have said that for them, the hike in employers’ national insurance contributions amounts to a real-terms budget cut of 7%. Victims need more support, not less. Will the Secretary of State fight to reverse that damaging cut and help restore victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. Last week, I hosted a roundtable for MPs to discuss their concerns about IPP sentences and share the work the Department is doing. The Prisons Minister in the other place hosted a similar roundtable for peers. We are determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for those serving IPP sentences, while recognising that at all times public protection is paramount.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Two weeks ago, three grooming gang members were sentenced at Bradford Crown court for the most appalling rapes of children, but they received only six, seven and nine-year sentences respectively—six years, out on licence in four, for the rape of a child. Does the Secretary of State agree that those sentences are disgracefully short, and will she commit to using the sentencing review to mandate full life sentences for these evil people? If she will, she will have our support.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady should know there are robust processes in place in government to manage conflict of interest, which were in place under the previous Administration as well, but this is not something that any Government Minister will be giving a running commentary on.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
We have just witnessed the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission being prised out of her job, six months after the Secretary of State described her as
“unable to fulfil her duties”.
When will a new chair be appointed, and will this be accompanied by a wider review of the CCRC, to restore confidence in that damaged organisation?
Drones: High-security Prisons
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick
Given that this is a question of national security, I find it astonishing that the Lord Chancellor cannot be bothered to turn up to the House today. Yesterday—[Interruption.]
Robert Jenrick
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Yesterday, the chief inspector of prisons warned that the police and prisons service have “ceded the airspace” above two high-security prisons to organised crime groups. The result is that organised crime gangs can deliver drugs, phones and weapons such as zombie knives to inmates with impunity due to the absence of basic security measures such as functional CCTV, protective netting and window repairs. Across two visits in September and October, he described a damning picture of thriving illicit economies that jeopardise the safety of dedicated prison staff.
In HMP Manchester, almost four in 10 prisoners have tested positive in mandatory drug tests, and in HMP Long Lartin the figure was nearly three in 10. Those two prisons hold some of the most dangerous men in our country, including murderers and terrorists. If organised crime gangs can deliver phones and drugs to inmates’ cells, they could be delivering serious weapons and explosives as well.
The chief inspector said that the potential for escapes or hostage taking is of enormous concern. This could not be more serious. The situation has become, in his words,
“a threat to national security.”
I do not pretend that these problems are entirely new, but they have deteriorated and they need urgent action. Will the Minister provide the timeframes for fixing the most basic security measures? What visits has the Lord Chancellor made to HMP Manchester and HMP Long Lartin? If she has not visited, when does she intend to go? Little else could be more pressing. What discussions has she held with the prison governors? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government have confidence in the senior management to restore order? Does he agree with the chief inspector that the failure to grip the situation is a serious indictment of the Department?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Who had 14 years to grip this situation? At least this Government are taking action—[Interruption.]
Sir Nicholas Dakin
This Government are taking action in the first six months. The right hon. Member will know that drone sightings around prisons increased by over 770% between 2019 and 2023—on his Government’s watch. Much like everything in our prisons, his Government have left it to us to fix the broken system and clean up their mess. It is a bit rich for him to come here and lecture us when he had 14 years to put this right.
We are installing new CCTV systems, netting and other countermeasures to combat drones. We have clamped down on the contraband that fuels violence behind bars. We are tackling drones through a cross-Government approach, as well as learning from our international counterparts to support our efforts. We are working with our Five Eyes partners—they face the same issues across their prison estates, because this is not a UK problem but a global problem—along with the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. We have 99 X-ray body scanners in 96 prisons, providing full coverage of the closed adult male estate, to prevent the internal smuggling of illicit contraband. We are taking action while the Opposition just spout.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Minister will no doubt be pleased that the Justice Committee has just announced an inquiry into drugs in prisons, with an emphasis on the use of drones by organised crime gangs to supply inmates. What makes it easy for drones to access prisons is the appalling state of prison maintenance. There is a £1.8 billion backlog, which did not accrue in the past six months. The shadow Secretary of State’s surprise is, in itself, surprising. What is the timetable for repairing the problems in prisons and getting to grips with that maintenance backlog?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend is completely right that the prison maintenance programme that we inherited was in a state. That is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget a £500 million boost to the prison maintenance budget over the next couple of years. That is important. He is right also to say that we need to grip this, which is why the Prisons Minister in the other place has visited Manchester and is regularly updated on the situation there.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The word that was missing from the shadow Justice Secretary’s question just now was “sorry”. A National Audit Office report said of the then Conservative Treasury’s investment in prison maintenance and security that
“capital budget allocations for prisons have been well below the level needed.”
Who was a Treasury Minister at that time? None other than the shadow Justice Secretary. Today’s report is the latest chapter in a catalogue of Tory prison failures that scuppered their mission to reduce reoffending, and therefore let down victims of crime. Will the Minister tell us about a new approach to better empower governors with the investment and the autonomy needed to properly invest in prison maintenance and security? What investment will he make in prison officer recruitment through programmes such as Unlocked Graduates, which are critical to help drive security in our prisons?