Independent Sentencing Review

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[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?

[Robert Jenrick]

indicated assent.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not want to let criminals out early—you do.

[Josh Babarinde]

The right hon. Gentleman says that this Government want to let domestic abusers out early. He fails to remember that the end-of-custody supervised licence scheme under the Conservative Government from October to June last year released 10,083 offenders early, with no exclusions for domestic abusers. Does the Secretary of State agree it is critical that this Government provide more support for domestic abuse victims from the likes of their abusers in a way that the last Government failed to do on their watch?

Victims and Courts Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

In recent months, I have sat with Jeremy and Susan Everard, whose daughter, Sarah, was murdered in the most horrific circumstances; with Paula Hudgell, whose little boy, Tony, lost both legs through brutality and who asks why his abusers will one day walk free; with Katie Brett, whose sister, Sasha, was stabbed to death at 16; and with Ayse Hussein, cousin of Jan Mustafa, whose body was found in a freezer after a catalogue of official failings. Their stories are harrowing and their bravery and resilience is incredibly inspiring. They, and the relatives of countless other victims, have formed the Justice for Victims campaign group, because serious criminals are “escaping proper punishment.” Their demand is clear: make the system value the lives of those who were damaged or even taken.

We welcome legislation in the name of victims, but it must be worthy of that title. A Bill that carries the word “victims” should put victims first in practice and not just in prose. I appreciate, as the Secretary of State has rightly said, that some measures in the Bill are stronger than those in the predecessor Bill, but some measures are less strong, or at least different, to those in the prior Bill. Parliamentary time is precious. I know from my own period in government that one cannot always return to the same issues time and again, however worthy the topic, so we must not waste the opportunity afforded by the Bill to enact the most radical and serious changes to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of victims. I will explain why and make what I hope will be seen as constructive proposals to the Secretary of State.

First, victims rightly want offenders to face them at sentence and to confront their crimes. All too often, cowardly criminals squirm away from the consequences of their actions, so I welcome the intent behind clause 1, which proposes to correct that. I question how the Minister will deliver recalcitrant offenders to court, when our own prison officers are already fighting for their lives with bare hands and little serious protection. That is not a new problem, but it is one that we all have to confront together. With no kit, there can be no confidence. In the wake of the HMP Frankland attack, the Minister’s idea of a limited taser trial sometime this summer in a handful of prisons, for specifically trained staff only, seems inadequate. We still do not issue every single officer with a stab-proof vest; body armour is “under review”.

Clause 1, for understandable and right reasons, piles fresh duties on staff, who tell me that they are already one assault away from leaving the service. Until Ministers issue full body armour and staff our escort units properly, this duty will be a burden to them. Officers will not feel safe to force violent offenders out of their cells, not least because the Bill affords them only the use of “reasonable force”, not the ability to use force as long as it is not grossly disproportionate, which should surely be the threshold in law. Judges making such orders need only to take into consideration the “reasonable excuse” of an offender to override the concern and the will of victims. What is the reasonable excuse to dodge justice? Surely that should be tightened to the most exceptional circumstances.

Where in this Bill is the right for victims’ views to be heard and recorded in court? Some victims will want the offender to come before the court, even in the knowledge that they will be highly disruptive, challenge the solemnity of the court and, frankly, behave in a way that many would consider to be deeply shocking and even scarring. Surely that should be broadly the victim’s choice; they should at least be properly consulted by the judge. This legislation is ultimately for the victims, even if the judge might have reservations or it leads to challenging situations or confrontations that we are not accustomed to in our courts.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that using the test of reasonable force, as the Lord Chancellor proposes, raises the unpleasant prospect that prisoners so forced might bring claims for damages against the Lord Chancellor, which would be a further insult to victims? I firmly support my right hon. Friend’s view that “grossly disproportionate” is the correct legal test to use.

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made. Given that the threshold of “grossly disproportionate” is an available and established concept in law, why not apply it in these circumstances, so that we can equip the criminal justice system with the standard it needs to ensure that in all bar the most exceptional circumstances, these individuals are brought to court if it is the wish of the victims of crime?

Secondly, Ministers say that clause 3 protects children from predatory parents, but the devil is in the detail. Only abuse of an offender’s own child counts—a point understandably made by the Labour party when it was in opposition. If a man rapes a neighbour’s child, he keeps full rights over his own infant daughter. The BBC this morning highlighted the case of Bethan, who was forced to spend £30,000 in the family court to strip her ex-husband, jailed for the gravest of offences, of parental responsibility. Bethan’s family call the Bill very disappointing, because it would not protect them.

Additionally, offenders jailed for three years and 11 months, which is still a grave sentence, retain their rights. Where is the logic behind four years? Thus far, that is unexplained. Where is the child’s best interest? Conversely, the Bill states that the order

“does not cease to have effect if…the offender is acquitted”

on appeal, so an exonerated parent may still be barred for life unless they marshal funds to return to court. That is neither proportionate nor principled. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s view that that may well be a starting point, but let us get this clause right. This is the opportunity, and it may well be the only one for some time.

I turn to clause 11. The unduly lenient sentence scheme is the last safety valve for victims when a judge gets it badly wrong, and I know how important that is. Just last week, a case that I referred to the Attorney General alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) was heard in the Court of Appeal, and three defendants had their sentences increased. Today, a victim has only 28 days from the date of sentence to request that the Attorney General make a referral. That clock starts even while they are still waiting for the official transcript to land.

Everyone in this House has met families who discovered the scheme after the deadline, who will forever wonder whether justice slipped through their fingers because they Google-searched the rules a week too late or did not reach out to their lawyers or friends in the system who were more knowledgeable. I have been very struck recently when speaking to victims—even victims of some of the most prominent and heinous crimes of modern times, who one might have thought would have been equipped with the very best legal advice and support—who simply did not know that the scheme even existed, let alone that it had such a short time limit attached to it.

Clause 11 gives only the Attorney General, not the victim, an extra 14 days when the paperwork arrives on day 28. Officials get six weeks; the mother of a murdered child still gets only four. Ministers claim that this is levelling the playing field, but it is nothing of the sort. Victims’ groups, from rape and sexual abuse centres to the Centre for Women’s Justice, have pleaded for a straightforward fix: double the victim application window to 56 days, and require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify every complainant in writing of the existence of the scheme and of that deadline on the day of the sentence. Those groups asked for time; on this occasion, the Government have delivered bureaucracy. That is clause 11 in a nutshell—a lifeline for Whitehall and the Attorney General’s staff, but not for the people we are sent to Parliament to defend.

Let me now turn to what the Bill does not try to do. The court backlog is spiralling, and the Ministry of Justice cannot yet provide a date by which it will start to come down. Going before the Justice Select Committee, its permanent secretary could not answer that most basic question for an official charged with leading the service. When is this going to start getting better? Cases are being listed today for as far away as 2029; meanwhile, victims are in limbo with their lives left on hold. Justice delayed is justice denied. Today, 74 courtrooms across the country are sitting empty because the Justice Secretary still has not taken the Lady Chief Justice up on her offer of extra sitting days. There is barely anything in this Bill that will put a dent in the court backlog—nothing that maximises court sitting days. Not one clause addresses listings, disclosure or digital evidence.

For many people, our justice system is opaque and secretive. I am a firm believer that sunlight is the best disinfectant—that greater transparency drives change and enhances confidence—but there is nothing in this Bill that enhances transparency on the court backlog, such as publishing the number of courtrooms that are not sitting each day and why they are not sitting. It falls to start-ups producing websites and apps to provide that information, not the Ministry of Justice itself. Nothing in this Bill increases access to court transcripts, so that victims, the press and the public can see justice dispensed. That issue was recently given further prominence by the public’s shock and anger when they heard or read fragments of the transcripts of grooming gang trials. As technology transforms the ability of the courts to provide reliable transcripts using artificial intelligence, we should provide a better and more transparent service to the public and the media. That is possible, so why not use this Bill to establish basic standards in law for the benefit of every victim across our country?

There is also nothing in the Bill that mandates the publication of data on offenders’ visa status or asylum status, so that we know where offenders are coming from. We need that information in order to design a criminal justice system and, above all, an immigration system that protects the British public. The London Victims’ Commissioner has said that the £1 billion of unpaid court fines is “truly astounding”, and that the failure of the Courts and Tribunals Service to recoup outstanding offenders’ fines must come under greater scrutiny. Again, the Bill is silent on that—it contains no extra powers to recoup that money. At a time when the Ministry of Justice’s budget is unquestionably under strain, why not do everything to recoup unpaid court fines, beginning with those? Victims are suffering as a result.

We welcome legislation in the name of victims, but it must be worthy of that title. Victims have asked for justice that is swift and certain; in many respects, this Bill is slow and tentative. I urge the Government to amend it—to strengthen it—so that it really does put victims first, in practice and not just in prose. Where it does, the Secretary of State and the Government will have our support, for justice and for the victims.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on the public safety implications of the Government’s plan to set a 28-day limit on prison sentences for recalled offenders.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Since taking office, we have deported over 1,800 foreign national offenders in custody, securing their early removal from our prisons—15% higher than in the previous 12 months. We have just announced 110,000 court sitting days, which is the highest level for a very long time.

To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, we will exclude anyone serving more than four years in prison; all those convicted of a terrorist or national security crime; and those who are subject to higher levels of risk management by multiple agencies where the police and the Prison and Probation Service work together, which includes certain sexual and violent offenders, including many domestic abusers. If there are ongoing concerns about the risk posed by an offender who is due to be released after the 28-day period, frontline workers can apply additional licence conditions to manage that. If further information related to an offender’s risk is received after they have been recalled, meaning that 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 by the HMPPS public protection team.

We know how important it is that victims are kept informed. All those eligible for the victim contact scheme will be notified about an offender’s release and will have the opportunity to make representations about victim-related licence conditions. Although there are certain exclusions for serious offenders, changing recalls for fixed-term offenders is necessary. It would be even worse to run out of space, which at this stage would mean the managed breakdown of the criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor said rightly that that would be unconscionable. No Government should leave that challenge as a legacy to their successors, as the right hon. Gentleman’s Government did.

Protection of Prison Staff

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on the failure of the prison estate to protect staff from serious and sustained violence by high-risk inmates.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am shocked and saddened to hear about the serious assault against a prison officer that took place on Thursday 8 May at HMP Belmarsh. My thoughts are with the family and colleagues of the brave, hard-working prison officer at this time. We will not tolerate any violence against prison officers. Prisoners who are violent towards staff will face the full consequences of their actions.

The incident at HMP Belmarsh is subject to a police investigation. As such, we are unable to comment further in any level of detail at this stage. The Prison Service has also commissioned an investigation, and its terms of reference are being finalised. It will include details of what happened and why, as well as recommendations to prevent recurrences. We will provide updates to Parliament in due course. Separately, on 22 April we announced to Parliament an independent review of the recent terrible incident where staff were assaulted by Hashem Abedi at HMP Frankland; we will make further announcements in the coming days.

Our prison officers are some of the hardest working and bravest public servants this country has. We are committed to ensuring that they are safe at work and are able to keep the public safe. We announced at last the Justice oral questions that the Prison Service has commissioned a rapid review of access to and use of self-cook areas across the prison estate, including their use in special units. The review will report back with recommendations in June. We recently announced a review of conducted energy devices—also known as Tasers—and there is a trial involving a small number of national operational response and resilience unit staff.

Body-worn video cameras, batons, PAVA spray and rigid bar handcuffs are currently available for use by staff, and protective body armour is already worn by specialist prison staff and officers in cases where there is planned use of force or where safe systems of work for the management of high-risk prisoners dictates. We have also announced a review into whether protective body armour should be made available to frontline staff, and that review will report in June. I repeat: the safety and security of our frontline prison staff is our No. 1 priority.

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me place on record our sympathies to the prison officer injured at HMP Belmarsh. We wish them a full recovery and thank all prison officers for their courage in the face of growing danger.

Let us be clear about what is happening in our prisons. Violence against officers has spiralled out of control. In just the past month, two of Britain’s most dangerous terrorists—Axel Rudakubana and Hashem Abedi—have launched vicious attacks on officers in two of our supposedly most secure prisons. The Secretary of State ordered a snap review into the attack at HMP Frankland, but three weeks later we have no answers and no action. Every day it goes on, the safety of officers is at risk, so I ask the Minister, when will this review conclude? Why has every prison officer exposed to dangerous inmates not already been provided with a stab vest—not in June, but today? I have spoken to officers who say that attacks with boiling water are not uncommon. Will the Minister commit to ordering the removal of every kettle from high-risk prisoners—not in June, but today?

This goes deeper than one review. Men like Rudakubana and Abedi glorify violence and dream of martyrdom, and still governors pander to them. I could not care less if Rudakubana never had a hot drink again—nor would the British public. This culture of appeasement and protecting the rights of convicted terrorists and criminals over the safety of our officers must end now. If that means keeping them in cells with just a bed, so be it. If it means no contact, no privileges, and certainly no cups of tea, so be it. Let segregation truly and finally mean segregation.

I want to say this as clearly as I can. I warn the House now that if the Government do not get a grip, a prison officer will be killed. We have had enough reviews. We need action. That is the least that prison officers deserve.

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We inherited the current policy on transgender people in the prison service and we have continued the policy that the right hon. Gentleman describes during our period in office. In the light of last week’s Supreme Court ruling, the Department is reviewing all areas that could be impacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

What a load of nonsense. I am the Lord Chancellor who is rectifying the situation with the proper distinction between matters of policy and matters of independent judicial decision through the Bill that we will debate on Second Reading later today. I have already dealt with the issues in relation to the immigration guidelines. The right hon. Gentleman has made some comments about that which do not bear resemblance to fact, so perhaps he would like to correct the record. On the bail guidance and on all other guidance that relates to equality before the law, I have said that we are reviewing absolutely everything. I will ensure that under this Government equality before the law is never a principle that is compromised, although it was compromised under the Conservative Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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—

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

How did we get here? It takes a special kind of uselessness to engineer a crisis entirely of your own making and then to come to this House asking for applause as you legislate your way out of it. Let us remind ourselves what actually happened here. The Sentencing Council, an unelected unaccountable quango created by the Labour party, issued guidance that would have divided our criminal justice system by race, religion and identity; a two-tier system as offensive to common sense as it was to the most basic and important principle of equality before the law.

The Justice Secretary, asleep at the wheel, either did not know or did not care. Her officials signed off the guidance, her Ministry nodded it through, and the council published it; the guidance was due to come into force. Only then, after I raised this issue with her in this House, and in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservatives, the press and the public, did she rouse herself from her stupor—only then did she discover her principles.

Even at that point, however, the Justice Secretary did not act decisively. She did not use her powers to sack the architects of this shameful guidance, support my legislation or bring forward immediate legislation of her own to stop it. What did she do instead? She wrote a letter begging the council to reconsider. Such is the pace at which she moves—or, rather, crawls—that it took a further seven days to put her thoughts in writing after a meeting.

When the council did not move, the Justice Secretary threatened action—only to be humiliated by the chair of the council, who made clear that if she tried, he would take legal action and potentially challenge his own Justice Secretary. So incompetent was she that the Opposition had to take it upon ourselves to prepare a judicial review to do the Justice Secretary’s job for her, and such was the level of chaos over which she nominally presided that the Government’s own legal service was trooped out against us to defend the very sentencing guidelines that the Justice Secretary had denounced as two tier.

[Mr Brash]

In November 2023, the Sentencing Council consulted on these guidelines, and said that a pre-sentence report may be “particularly important” if an offender belongs to an ethnic, cultural and/or faith minority community. Does the shadow Minister agree that it was particularly important? I do not. If he does not agree, why did he say nothing for two years?

[Robert Jenrick]

I have to applaud the hon. Gentleman for reading out his Whips’ questions there. I have said it before and I will say it again, however: I do wish that he and those on the Labour Front Bench would stop perpetuating something that is obviously untrue. They know it is untrue. It has been said numerous times. The Sentencing Council itself—[Interruption.] Let me finish my point, because it is important.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Lord Chancellor has just suggested that those on the Government Front Bench are perpetuating an untruth. He might like to think about whether he wishes to withdraw that comment.

[Robert Jenrick]

It is, I hope, inadvertent, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Sentencing Council wrote to the Lord Chancellor correcting her on this very point, and made clear that the guidance that was put before the previous Conservative Government was materially different from the one—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me finish the point. If hon. Members do not like the answer, perhaps they should hear it in full.

The Sentencing Council made it clear that the guidance that was put before the previous Conservative Government was materially different from what was ultimately put before this Labour Government. The council said in the previous iteration that pre-sentencing reports would usually be required. There was a presumption that pre- sentencing reports would come forward, but importantly, it preserved full discretion. The guidance that was ultimately brought forward, which was given the nod by the Justice Secretary’s officials who were present at the final meeting of the Sentencing Council, made a significant distinction: it said that such reports “must” be requested. That removed the discretion available to judges, which was a very significant difference.

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I have the pre-sentence report guidance in front of me. It says:

“When considering a community or custodial sentence, the court must request and consider a pre-sentence report (PSR) before forming an opinion of the sentence, unless it considers that it is unnecessary”.

It then goes on to describe various circumstances in which a pre-sentence report might be considered necessary and may “normally be considered necessary”. It does not remove judicial stipulations and interventions completely, and to suggest otherwise is not accurate.

[Robert Jenrick]

The guidance does not use that phrase. It says a report would “usually” be required. That is an important point, because it removes discretion. Of course, there might be instances in which a judge would not request a report, but I think it would be extremely unlikely, in practice, that a judge would choose not to take forward a pre-sentence report, in the light of the new guidance. That is why we felt it so important to take action.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me make some progress.

Eventually the Sentencing Council did U-turn, but not before the guidance had briefly come into force. The council took until midday on 1 April, which was several hours after the guidance had come into force, to update magistrates and judges. Its email undermined the Lord Chancellor yet again. It stated that it still believed that the guidance was “necessary and appropriate”. The whole saga has been nothing short of farcical. It has been an embarrassment. It has damaged public confidence in the justice system, and the Justice Secretary’s Bill does not fix that trust deficit. It is half-baked. It is a half-job that stores up problems for another day—because, make no mistake, we will be back here again and again; it will be like Groundhog Day. The Justice Secretary has left in post at the Sentencing Council the very people who drafted these rules and declined her initial invitation to change them. She has left the system intact, and she has left the door wide open for this to happen again. That is not hypothetical. We know for a fact that more offensive two-tier sentencing guidelines are incoming.

The Sentencing Council is consulting on new immigration guidelines that water down sentences for people smugglers. If they come into force, hundreds of immigration offenders a year will not meet the 12-month threshold for automatic deportation, blowing a hole in border controls. If the Justice Secretary wanted to stop that—there are plenty of open-border activists who would oppose her—this Bill leaves her powerless to do so. She has chosen to be powerless. It is the definition of madness to repeat the same decisions and expect different results. History will keep repeating itself until Ministers take back control of sentencing frameworks. But still the Justice Secretary stands at the Dispatch Box and claims that there will be no two-tier justice under her leadership.

The Bill fixes one small element of the problem and leaves the rest of it entirely intact. It does nothing to stop the two-tier pre-sentence report guidance, which still instructs probation officers to take into account so-called intergenerational trauma—trauma suffered not by the defendant, but presumably by their ancestors. It does nothing to stop the bail guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice, which instructs officials to “prioritise” ethnic minority defendants for bail decisions—not on the facts of the offence, not on the basis of risk to the public, but because of their racial or cultural identity. It does nothing to stop the “Equal Treatment Bench Book”, the official handbook for judges, which is riddled with activist talking points, including the claim that migrants are mistreated by the press, and the adoption of a dangerously expansive definition of Islamophobia that could amount to a back-door blasphemy law.

Everywhere we look—more examples emerge every week—this ideology runs through the Ministry of Justice like rot through the rafters. The principle of equality before the law, one of the great inheritances of our country, is being systematically inverted, replaced by cultural relativism, by a hierarchy of victimhood. Some defendants are to be treated gently; others are to face the full force of the law—all depending on their background, race, religion or self-declared identity. That is not justice. It is injustice, wrapped in the language of compassion. But who is it compassionate to? The victims? Of course not; they do not get a look in.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend deserves great credit for championing the cause of justice and obliging the Government to follow suit, albeit grudgingly. Leaving aside the fundamental injustice that he describes—the two-tier justice system—does he acknowledge that what the Sentencing Council proposes and continues to do undermines popular faith in the rule of law and justice and, as the Lord Chancellor herself says, tears the whole system apart?

[Robert Jenrick]

That is the very real risk of what we see, not just in these aborted sentencing guidelines, but in the broader fabric of two-tier justice that we are revealing with every passing day. What we all want to see, and what I believe the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) wants to see as well, is equality before the law. That means that in no instance should the law be applied differently depending on the colour of people’s skin or the faith that they abide by. We must all fight against that, because it is immensely corrosive to public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system.

[Mr Brash]

The right hon. Member is painting a terrifying picture of our justice system. In his work, has he managed to identify when these issues all started?

[Robert Jenrick]

The guidelines we are talking about came into force—or would have done—under this Labour Government. I will not return to everything I said earlier, but those of us who were in this Chamber on the day that I revealed this issue all know that neither the Justice Secretary nor any of her Ministers had the faintest idea that any of this was happening. I watched the Justice Secretary look to her Ministers; she was greeted by blank faces. They had no grip on what was happening in their Department.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool makes the good point that the issues that we are discussing predate this Labour Government. This is a broader issue facing our country. We all have to be defenders of equality under the law. I do not seek equality of outcome in our criminal justice system; I seek equality of treatment. That is the heart of a fair criminal justice system. That may be a point of difference between some of us in this House. All I seek is for every person in this country—man or woman, regardless of their religion or the colour of their skin—to be treated exactly the same by the law.

Everywhere we look in the Ministry of Justice, we see this ideology. The most worrying part is that I think the Justice Secretary knows this. She stood here and said that the appearance of differential treatment before the law is particularly corrosive, and I agree wholeheartedly with her.

[Mrs Russell]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will make progress.

The guidance does not just create the appearance of two-tier justice; it is two-tier justice. The Secretary of State cannot wash her hands of that. The bail guidance comes from her own Ministry. The pre-sentence guidance is issued by officials she oversees. The bench book is sanctioned by the Judicial College, under the watch of the Lady Chief Justice. If the Justice Secretary truly believes in equality before the law, and if her words are more than empty slogans, why is any of this happening on her watch? The truth is simple. This Bill is not the solution. It is a fig leaf. It is damage control. It is political theatre to distract from the deeper rot that the Government have permitted to fester. Until this type of guidance is ripped out, root and branch, from sentencing, bail, judicial training and appointments, the principle of equality before the law remains under direct assault.

We will not vote against the Bill, because we will never support two-tier justice, but we will not let the Justice Secretary rewrite history, either. She did not stop these rules or fight against them. She did not even know about them until we pointed them out to her. She allowed them to happen, and then panicked when the backlash came. Now she is using this House’s time to clean up her mess. She wears the robes and she dons the wig, but she is not in control of the justice system. Despite the big talk today, there is still two-tier justice on her watch. If she continues to do so little about it, we can only conclude that, at heart, she truly supports it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Mother of the House.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor must be living in a parallel universe if she is giving herself a pat on the back today. The truth is she has completely lost control of the justice system. She sat on her hands for weeks and took seven days to gather her thoughts and put her views in writing to the Sentencing Council. Her incompetence took this down to the wire.

Magistrates and judges were updated by the press office of the Sentencing Council only at midday that the guidelines due to come into force had in effect been suspended. That raises the very real prospect that magistrates and judges sitting from 10am this morning were unaware of this chaotic last-minute change and sentenced people under guidelines that the Justice Secretary herself has conceded are two-tier. But it gets worse. In that very email to thousands of judges and magistrates sent just 90 minutes ago, the Sentencing Council states:

“we remain of the view that the guidelines are necessary and appropriate”.

Confusion reigns. They are being told one thing by the Lord Chancellor and another by the Sentencing Council. Who really is in charge here? Yet again, the Justice Secretary has been humiliated and undermined by activist judges seeking to undermine the will of this place—our Parliament. Her authority has been shredded—she is being treated as a two-tier, second-tier Justice Secretary.

This situation was entirely preventable if the Justice Secretary had simply put party politics to one side and backed our Bill weeks ago to restore accountability and empower her to actually control justice policy, but the Labour party blocked it. If the Prime Minister has been tricked into sitting at the front of the docklands light railway thinking that he is in charge, as his chief of staff mocked him for the other day, the Lord Chancellor has chosen to sit there in the passenger seat allowing the judiciary to take charge. She decided to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, all-powerful to be impotent.

Even after this complete shambles, the Lord Chancellor will not even re-establish ministerial oversight. We are told via frantic press briefings that her Bill, which we have not even seen yet, will surgically remove these two-tier sentencing guidelines. That does not tackle the root cause of the problem at all, which is an activist legal quango that holds views completely divergent to the public, to Parliament and—now we are told—to the Government. Unless she follows the formula of the Bill produced by Conservative MPs, we will be back here time and again to unwind the next piece of madness coming out of the council.

Take the Sentencing Council’s immigration guidelines that water down sentences for immigration offences below the 12-month threshold for automatic deportation: if published, it will mean hundreds of illegal migrants and foreign national offenders will avoid deportation every single year. It will blow a hole in border security. It even waters down the maximum life sentence for people smugglers that was legislated for just under a year ago. It completely disregards parliamentary sovereignty.

At our last exchange, the Justice Secretary said there would be no two-tier justice on her watch. Well, there it is—and it is worse than that. On 2 January, her own Department—not the Sentencing Council—published guidance ordering the prioritisation of bail for ethnic minorities and transgender people, continuing a practice introduced under Gordon Brown. Contrary to the misinformation peddled by her press office, the Department produced new guidance on pre-sentencing reports that have been in force for months, which state that probation officers should consider the “culture” of an offender and whether they have suffered “intergenerational trauma” from “historical events”. Well, that is cultural relativism, which violates the rule of law and puts the British public at risk. This time, nobody is to blame other than her. It is her Department; it is black and white; it is two-tier justice.

I have some questions. Will the Justice Secretary reassure the House that nobody was sentenced this morning under guidelines that she concedes are two tier? Can she honestly say at the Dispatch Box that she has confidence in the head of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice Davies, given that he has brought it into total disrepute—yes or no? If she can, is she aware that he took to the airwaves yesterday, in an astonishing departure from the expected standards of judicial conduct, to advocate for abolishing short sentences, especially for hyper-prolific offenders, effectively instructing lower courts to follow suit? It is time for him to go, and if she will not sack him for that, what will it take?

Does the Justice Secretary have confidence in Johanna Robinson, another member of the Sentencing Council, who took a moral objection to border control and described the Illegal Migration Act 2023 as appalling? Lastly, will the Justice Secretary change the guidance that her own Department is producing and which has created a two-tier Probation Service? Or is it, once again on her watch, two-tier justice under two-tier Keir?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Dear, dear, dear me. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman’s amnesia is as bad as ever: 14 whole years appear to have disappeared entirely from his memory. He talks about parliamentary sovereignty, but when his party was in government and he was a Secretary of State or a Minister, he appeared never to know what on earth parliamentary sovereignty was or how to exercise power.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather distressed that my approach has led to a pause in the guidelines, that I will introduce a Bill that will deal with the offending bit of this guideline, and that I will consider the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council ahead of the sentencing Bill later this year. I understand that it must be very disappointing for him that he has been exposed as someone who is all talk and no action, and that I get the job done. I can see that that annoys him greatly.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to begin by apologising to the country, as I often invite him to do when we have our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. In 14 years, he never appeared to discover any of the things that he now discusses regularly from the Opposition Benches. He did nothing about those matters when he was a member of the Government that ran the country. Perhaps that is the problem: the Conservatives never really ran the country; they gave up on the job. He never rolled up his sleeves and put in the hard work to get the job done. That is why we inherited prisons on the brink of collapse, and why I am now unwinding all the mistakes that his party made and the guidance that he and his party welcomed.

The right hon. Gentleman did not tell me what discussions he has had with the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). Before the Conservatives explain why they are so het up about things now, they should explain why they welcomed those things when they were in office. There was no answer to those questions. I do not believe that there were many questions in that diatribe from the shadow Justice Secretary.

On sentencing, the pause in the guideline was communicated—that is a matter for the Sentencing Council. I will, of course, engage with the judiciary to ensure that all is understood regarding the pause. Nothing has changed in relation to the ordering of pre-sentencing reports by judges in all the circumstances in which they would ordinarily do so. The guideline is what has been paused, and it will now not come into effect until Parliament has had its say. The right hon. Gentleman references two individuals. That is the difference between me and him: I do not make it personal. I just focus on the job, and I get the job done.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on the Sentencing Council’s publication of community and custodial sentences guidelines.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The Sentencing Council is independent of Parliament and Government. The council decides on its own priorities and workplan for producing guidelines.

The Sentencing Council consulted the previous Government on a revised version of the imposition guideline, which included new guidance on pre-sentence reports. That consultation ran from November 2023 to February 2024. The previous Government responded to the consultation on the guideline on 19 February 2024. The former sentencing Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who is now the shadow Transport Secretary, wrote to the chair of the Sentencing Council thanking him for the revisions to the guideline. In particular, he thanked the council for fuller guidance on the circumstances in which courts should request a pre-sentence report.

The Lord Chancellor was clear about her discontent with the guideline when it was published. It is our view that there should not be differential treatment before the law. The House will be pleased to hear that the Lord Chancellor met the chair of the Sentencing Council last week, and the discussion was constructive. It was agreed that the Lord Chancellor will set out her position more fully in writing, which the Sentencing Council will consider before the guideline is due to come into effect.

[Robert Jenrick]

In just 14 days, new two-tier sentencing rules will come into force. These sentencing rules will infect our ancient justice system with the virus of identity politics, dividing fellow citizens on the basis of their skin colour and religion. The rules will ride roughshod over the rule of law and destroy confidence in our criminal justice system. The stakes are high, but the Justice Secretary seems clueless—in fact, she is not even here. Has the Department conducted an assessment of the additional pre-sentence reports that will be required and the impact of that on the Probation Service, given that it is already working above capacity? Is it considering providing the Probation Service with additional resources to cope with the extra demand? Does it expect the additional pre-sentence reports to lead to further delays in our courts?

I ask these questions because not only do these new rules violate the most foundational principle of equality before the law, but they also create immense pressure on the criminal justice system. If the Justice Secretary wanted to stop two-tier justice, she would have supported my Bill on Friday. She would have used her powers of appointment to sack the individuals who drafted the rules. Time is running out, and so is confidence in the Sentencing Council. Frankly, the public are losing confidence in the Justice Secretary and her Ministers, too.

I cannot escape the conclusion that the Justice Secretary actually supports these two-tier sentencing rules. Why? Because she supported a group that called the criminal system institutionally racist. Her representatives walked through the two-tier guidance and approved it, and she refuses to legislate to block the guidance coming into force or to take any sanction against the members of the Sentencing Council that drafted it. If there is one thing we know about Labour Governments, it is that they always end in tears. This time, it is a second-tier Justice Secretary pursuing two-tier justice, all to suck up to her boss, two-tier Keir.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The letter the previous Government wrote to the Sentencing Council during the consultation is clear. The previous Government were not just consulted; they welcomed the guidance. The initial version of the guidance included reference to specific cohorts of offenders, including ethnic minorities.

[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.

[Robert Jenrick]

I do hope it was inadvertent, Mr Speaker.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that I inadvertently misled the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am really concerned for the health of the shadow Justice Secretary, because he appears to have amnesia; he has forgotten who was in government just a few short months ago. He appears to have entirely forgotten that it was the previous Government who let the tagging contract to Serco, which I have inherited. I have made it clear that the delays that we have seen are totally unacceptable. Although the backlog has been significantly reduced, Serco’s performance is still not good enough, and although last year’s backlog of outstanding visits has been substantially reduced—it is down to normal levels—I will continue to hold it to account and will not hesitate to impose further financial penalties where necessary.

[Robert Jenrick]

We can all see that the Justice Secretary had no answers to my questions. If her Department cannot even tag prisoners properly, why should the public have any confidence in her plan to use tags in place of short prison sentences? The threshold for a prison sentence is already high. Often, criminals have committed multiple offences before they are first considered for prison, which is why scrapping short sentences will endanger the public and will serve as a green light for criminality. Will the Justice Secretary take this opportunity to reassure the public and rule out reducing sentences for burglary, theft or shoplifting? It is a simple question—yes or no?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The public will know that when the right hon. Gentleman’s Government left office, prisons were on the point of collapse. They can have confidence that this Government will fix the mess that his party left behind. We will ensure that prison places are always available for everyone who needs to be locked up to keep the public safe. We will expand the range of punishment outside prison and, crucially, we will ensure that those who enter the prison system can be helped to turn their back on crime. That is the best strategy for cutting crime, and one that his party never chose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The shadow Lord Chancellor’s amnesia continues, because he clearly has not done his homework; he has forgotten that his Government were consulted extensively on this guidance. It also appears that he cannot read, because the letter states very clearly all the consultation that took place under his Government. It shows that they were consulted numerous times on the new guidance and welcomed it—I notice that he did not refer to that. He knows full well that the change he refers to is a minor change, because the reference to race, ethnicity and cultural backgrounds has been retained in the time his Government seeing it and the changes that occurred, so he cannot hide behind that. The last few days have therefore been an expert lesson from the right hon. Gentleman: he has taught us all how to throw the shadow Transport Secretary under a bus.

[Robert Jenrick]

As a lawyer herself, I would have thought that the Justice Secretary would know the difference between the last set of guidance and the new one. I say “as a lawyer,” but in this Cabinet we never really know who is a real lawyer and who is just pretending to be one. In 21 days’ time, by the Justice Secretary’s own admission, we will have two-tier justice. Her plan to fix that will not come into effect for a year, and that is unacceptable. As she has been too lazy to do her job, I will do it for her. Today I am presenting a Bill to block these two-tier sentencing guidelines and fix her mess; it is here and ready to go. Will she support it? Will she stand with us on the Conservative Benches for equality under the law, or will it be two-tier justice with her and two-tier Keir?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The whole House can see that the only pretence at a job is the one that the shadow Lord Chancellor is making, because he is pretending to be the Leader of the Opposition. We all know exactly what he is about. My reaction to what has happened in relation to the Sentencing Council’s guidelines was very clear when I made the oral statement last week in this House: we will never stand for a two-tier approach to sentencing. I am actually getting on with fixing the problem, rather than looking for a bandwagon to jump on, which is why I have already written to the Sentencing Council. I will be meeting it later this week, and I have made it very clear that I will consider its role and its powers. If I need to legislate, I will do so, but I will ensure that whatever changes I bring forward are workable and deliver the fair justice system that we all need and deserve—one that his Government did not deliver.

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for her honesty in setting out so clearly the difficult situation that we have inherited from the Conservative party, and I welcome the measures that she has proposed: the record investment in the justice system, and the measures taken to reduce the number of cases going to the Crown courts.

[Robert Jenrick]

It is getting worse.

[Warinder Juss]

It has got worse, because of the Conservative party.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as focusing on the measures that she has already proposed, we should continue to focus on reducing crime in the first place, and pursue our policies for tackling youth crime, knife crime and violence against women and girls?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am slightly worried about Conservative Members, who appear to be the arsonists complaining that the fire brigade has turned up too late to put out the fire, when they were the ones who lit it in the first place. I worry that they do not understand the scale and magnitude of the challenge that they left behind, which I have heard about from constituents who have been waiting years for their court cases.

[Robert Jenrick]

It is getting worse.