Young Offender Institutions in England: Use of PAVA
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(4 days, 11 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited a crisis in our criminal justice system. This extends to the children and young people’s secure estate, which has seen increased levels of violence and instability in the past decade, particularly in the public sector young offender institutions HMP and YOI Feltham A, HMYOI Werrington and HMYOI Wetherby. Our hard-working staff manage young people who are in custody for serious crimes, and this situation is putting them both in danger.
Risk to staff and young people in custody is higher than ever before
There has been a welcome reduction in the overall number of young people in custody over the last decade (from over 1,000 under 18-year-olds a decade ago, to an average of 430 in latest published statistics, the lowest number on record).
Custody is only ever used as a last resort, with many young people successfully managed in the community or diverted away from a life of crime. But the fact remains that sometimes young people do need to be placed into custody for public protection. This means that those who are in youth custody today are predominantly older teenage boys, aged 16 to 18 years. Over two thirds of these are there for violent offences.
The levels of violence across the children and young people’s secure estate are unacceptable. On a weekly basis there are assaults involving young people in custody. Serious assaults can see these young people use homemade weapons, including stabbing implements, against each other and our staff. Today, levels of violence are higher than in the adult prison estate. For the 12 months to Dec 2024, the rate of assaults by children and young people on staff across the three public YOIs (HMYOI Feltham A, HMYOI Werrington and HMYOI Wetherby) increased by almost 25% compared to the previous year—rates are around 14 times higher than that in the adult estate. In July 2024, HM Inspectorate of Prisons described HMP & YOI Feltham A as the
“most violent prison in the country”.
Officers working in the YOIs are trained to use physical restraint at the lowest possible level that is required. However, we have seen levels of violence that mean staff must place themselves at risk of considerable harm to intervene—for example, when a violent attack involves the use of a homemade weapon, or when a large group of young people in custody are engaged in an assault against one other. This type of situation hampers the ability of staff to quickly intervene to protect those who are being attacked, and their ability to protect themselves from injury.
In recent months, incidents have seen staff members act as human shields to protect victims from attack, where they have been stamped and kicked in the head by numerous assailants. This has seen young people in custody and staff sustain serious injuries, including fractures, dislocations, puncture wounds and lacerations. The nature of this violence presents a high risk of life-changing injury, and trauma for staff and the young people in custody experiencing this violence.
Decision on PAVA
After considering the evidence carefully and listening closely to a range of views, I have decided to authorise the issuing of PAVA (a synthetic pepper spray) to a specially trained and selected group of staff in the three public sector YOIs (Feltham A, Werrington and Wetherby) for a 12-month period. This is a specific authorisation for use in youth settings, and is different from how this tactic is deployed in the adult estate, where all officers carry it as part of their personal protective equipment.
PAVA will only be authorised for use as a last resort. This means it can be used when use is necessary, proportionate and appropriate to reduce the risk of serious or life-threatening injury to a young person in custody or a member of staff. This will allow staff to respond to these serious incidents more effectively. It will potentially reduce the severity of injury and will help restore control much more quickly.
PAVA can already be used during the most serious incidents in the YOIs, but only by national tactical response officers, who are nationally based, when authorised under the governance of a gold commander. It can typically take over an hour to deploy these officers. As altercations in YOIs arise rapidly, often with little warning, these officers can rarely, if ever, arrive on the scene in time to respond to active violence that is being experienced.
This change in policy will mean PAVA can now be drawn or deployed by local staff to diffuse a situation where it is deemed necessary to reduce the risk of serious physical harm.
Future checks and balances
Very close scrutiny and oversight will be in place to safeguard the use of this tactic. There will be a suitability assessment and training for the limited number of staff that will be authorised to carry and draw or discharge PAVA. The authorisation for this policy will only be for a 12-month period, allowing further review of whether to continue, change or stop the use of the tactic.
A live evaluation will be conducted. It will review each and every incident in which PAVA is used; collect data and evidence focused on necessary, appropriate and proportionate use of PAVA and its efficacy; and consider the impact of PAVA. Additionally:
Senior officials will review every incident of PAVA being drawn or deployed when young people in custody are involved, with every use reported to the local authority designated officer. Any unnecessary or inappropriate use will be investigated in line with safeguarding policies.
A weekly report to Ministers on any serious incidents will now include PAVA, and while use is expected to be low, Ministers will review incidents and all data related to the drawing and use of PAVA on a monthly basis. There will be a clear focus on any disproportionality and neurodiversity.
The independent restraint review panel will provide oversight of every PAVA use and will include this in their report to Ministers annually, which is published externally on gov.uk.
There will be a ministerial review of the roll-out after 12 months of operation to consider whether to continue with the policy; if, in doing so, any changes to the policy are necessary; or whether there should be a decision to withdraw the tactic, informed by the live evaluation and wider research.
The need for long-term reform
This is not a decision I have taken lightly, but I am clear that this vital measure is needed to urgently prioritise safety in these three YOIs at this present time. I believe that failing to act will place young people in custody and staff at risk of serious harm.
This decision will bring greater stability, which is essential to improving YOIs in the short to medium term, notably reducing the highest level of risk and the severity of violence.
However, while this measure is necessary, it is not sufficient alone. For that reason, we commissioned the Youth Custody Service to develop improvement plans for the YOIs, in the form of road maps to effective practice. These plans focus on preventing violence through effective behaviour management and relationships, and improving safety. I expect to see an increased focus on improving access to purposeful activity, including education and skills development, as well as greater time out of room for young people in custody.
We have published an independent review into placements for the small number of girls in custody, who are highly vulnerable, and have accepted the review’s recommendation to no longer place girls in YOIs, having not placed them there for several months (PAVA will therefore not be used on girls in the youth estate).
In the longer term, we intend to move away from the current estate, based on the evidence of what works for young people in custody. We will learn from the pilot of the first ever secure school and the operation of secure children’s homes.
Our work in the children and young people’s estate is part of our commitment to reforming the justice system so that it tackles the cycle of violence, ensures public safety, and safeguards vulnerable young people.
[HCWS599]
Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill
Shabana Mahmood ExcerptsTuesday 22nd April 2025
(6 days, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When I spoke in this House on 1 April, I set out the Government’s intention to introduce emergency legislation, because I believe that our justice system must be above all else fair, and that, standing before a judge, we are all equal, no matter the colour of our skin or the question of our faith. Given the existential nature of this matter for our justice system, I was clear that we would move at pace to change the law. The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill was introduced that same day. With Second Reading taking place just three weeks later, we are forging ahead with plans to legislate as quickly as possible.
Before I set out the contents of the Bill, it bears repeating how we came to be in the current situation and why expedited legislation is necessary. In the last Parliament, the Sentencing Council put forward revised guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. I should note that during a statutory consultation they were welcomed by the last Conservative Government in no uncertain terms. The shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who was a Justice Minister at the time, should be able to furnish his colleagues with the details, but as he is absent today, I will do so.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Can the right hon. Lady clarify whether the guidelines proposed under the previous Government were the same as those with which she is dealing now, or did they differ—and if they differed, how did they differ?
Shabana Mahmood
They did not differ in any substantial way. All the guidelines, in so far as they concern issues relating to race, religion, culture or belief, are exactly the same as those to which the Justice Minister responded under the Conservative Administration. Hiding behind that, I am afraid, shows a failure to reckon with the Opposition’s own track record, which has become quite a hallmark of theirs in recent weeks and months.
These guidelines help judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence, providing guidance on the thresholds for disposals of this type. In the process of deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where they consider such a report to be unnecessary. The reports are used to give the courts more context of the offending behaviour in a given case, and set out any factors that should be considered as part of the sentencing process. As I said to the House on 1 April, generally speaking I am in favour of the use of pre-sentence reports, and in fact I have recently freed up capacity in the Probation Service precisely so that it has more time to produce reports of this type.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The chairman of the Sentencing Council has argued that the sentence should be tailored to the offender, but my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the Secretary of State—think that the sentence should be tailored to the offence and its effect on the victim. That is what counts, not the background, circumstances, history or origins of the offender.
Shabana Mahmood
The purpose of the pre-sentence reports, used properly, is to provide the court with the full context of the offending behaviour. That enables the court to ensure that when it imposes a custodial sentence it will be successful and capable of being delivered in respect of that offender, or else a community sentence should be imposed instead. It is a useful mechanism that judges have at their disposal. We would expect it to be used in all cases except when the courts consider it unnecessary because they have all the information. Because I consider pre-sentence reports to be so important in giving the courts all the information that they need to pass the right sentence for the offender who is before them, I have specifically freed up capacity in the Probation Service so that it can do more work of this type. However, the updated guidelines specifically encourage judges to request them for some offenders and not others, stipulating circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. That is the bit that I am seeking to change.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The right hon. Lady has just said something very important: namely, that she would normally expect a pre-sentence report to be given in all, or at least almost all, cases. I hope that is her position, because what seems unfair to me is that a pre-sentence report, which presumably enables people to present arguments in mitigation, should be available to some people who have been convicted of a crime but not to others. Surely it should be available either to everyone or to no one, because everyone’s individual circumstances deserve the same degree of consideration.
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, we fully support section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020—the sentencing code—which makes it clear that a court must obtain a pre-sentence report unless it considers it unnecessary to do so. That would be in cases where judges consider that they already have at their disposal the facts that will enable them to make a determination of the correct sentence for any particular offender. I think that the Sentencing Council got things right in the paragraph of the current guidelines that comes before the one that is the subject of the debate and the Bill, which states:
“PSRs are necessary in all cases that would benefit from an assessment of one or more of the following: the offender’s dangerousness and risk of harm, the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the offender’s personal circumstances and any factors that may be helpful to the court in considering the offender’s suitability for different sentences or requirements.”
That covers all the areas in which we would normally consider PSRs to be necessary, and I would like them to be used more extensively. Indeed, I would like them to be the norm in all cases, because I think they offer important information to people who are passing sentence—unless, of course, it is unnecessary because judges have already been furnished with all the details, having heard the whole of the case that has been taking place before them.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor has just given us, very helpfully, the list of matters that might be relevantly considered in a pre-sentence report. As she has said, however, one of the items on that list is “personal circumstances”, and that is what the Bill will remove from the Sentencing Council’s discretion. May I ask her why she has not used in the Bill the language that is included in the explanatory notes? Paragraph 8 states that the Bill will
“prevent differential treatment… It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort”.
That strikes me as a much narrower exclusion, and perhaps one better targeted at the problem that the Lord Chancellor has, in my view, rightly identified.
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. That is why we have offered the additional context in the explanatory notes. Personal characteristics and personal circumstances have, over the years, been elided in different court judgments, and the different definitions of the two have sometimes slipped. I wanted to make it clear in the Bill that we are constraining the Sentencing Council’s ability to create guidance for PSRs in relation to personal characteristics. We refer in the Bill to race, religion, culture and belief, specifically to ensure that the Sentencing Council understands that we are targeting this part of the offending section of the imposition guideline. It will then have its own interpretation of how personal circumstances and personal characteristics should apply. I would expect this to be analogous to protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010, in terms of the way in which the courts are likely to approach the question of what a personal characteristic is for the purpose of the Bill.
However, I wanted to make the intention behind the Bill very clear to the Sentencing Council, and to everyone else. It is tightly focused on the offending section of the imposition guideline and leaves the wider question of personal circumstances untouched. As I will explain later in my speech, there is helpful Court of Appeal guidance on circumstances and on other occasions on which a PSR should normally be required, and nothing in the Bill will affect the Court of Appeal precedents that have already been set.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Is the Lord Chancellor aware that the Sentencing Council guidelines, and indeed the Bill, turn on issues that some of us have campaigned on for decades? I think that there would be concern if the Bill undermined the independence of the judiciary.
Shabana Mahmood
It certainly does not undermine the independence of the judiciary. There is a long tradition of campaigners, including my right hon. Friend, who have a lengthy track record of campaigning on issues relating to disparities within the criminal justice system and, indeed, across wider society. In so far as those disparities relate to the criminal justice system, my strong view is that they are matters of policy.
Parliament is the proper place for that policy to be debated, and Parliament is the proper place for us to agree on what is the best mechanism to deal with those problems. It is not within the purview of the Sentencing Council, because this is a matter of policy. Judges apply the laws that are passed by this House; that is their correct and proper function. I will always uphold their independence in that regard and will never interfere with it, but this turns on a matter of policy. It is right for the Government of the day to seek a policy response to this issue, and it is right for it to be debated and, ultimately, legislated for in the House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for opening the debate, and for her answers to the questions so far. I think every one of us believes that the foundational principle that justice is blind must be adhered to in every way, but we live in an age of ever-changing political correctness, which, regardless of whether we like it or not, invades Parliament and our lives.
I am very much in favour of what the Lord Chancellor has said about race and faith. As a person of faith, I want to make sure that race and faith can never be mitigating or aggravating factors when it comes to justice. Given the lives that we live, the world that we live in, and all the things that impact on us daily and in this House as MPs, can the Lord Chancellor confirm that faith, justice and religion will always be preserved in the way that they should be?
Shabana Mahmood
For me, one of the most moving parts of the parliamentary day is when the day starts with prayers. Those are Christian prayers, and I am of the Muslim faith, but I always find it moving to be part of them and to hear them. They remind us that we all belong to a country with a long heritage, which is steeped in faith. The source code for much of the law of England and Wales is the Bible. The hon. Gentleman makes some broader points on the issue of faith and how important it is, and I suspect that he and I have a lot in common in that regard. There must never be differential treatment before the law of our land, and before any court, on the basis of faith.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s point about parliamentary sovereignty and that fact that policy must be determined by this place. I think many Members from across the House will have been quite shocked by the response of the Sentencing Council to her letter when she asked it to consider the guidelines again. Does she agree that if this place continues to butt heads with the Sentencing Council over guidelines like these, maybe the best thing to do is abolish the Sentencing Council?
Shabana Mahmood
I have had constructive conversations with the Sentencing Council, and I have made it very clear that I do not really do personal. I certainly would not do it in relation to the judiciary, whose independence I uphold and whose security I am ultimately responsible for. I take those responsibilities very seriously. I swore an oath on my holy book, and that means a huge amount to me. There is a clear difference here about where the line is drawn between matters of policy and matters that are correctly within the purview of the judiciary, which is how the law should be applied in the cases that they hear. I am simply making it very clear that this is policy and is for this place to determine, but as I will come to later in my speech, this situation has highlighted that there is potentially a democratic deficit here. That is why I am reviewing the wider roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and will legislate in upcoming legislation if necessary. I will now make more progress with my speech and give way to other colleagues later if people wish to intervene again.
The updated guidelines specifically encouraged judges to request pre-sentence reports for some offenders and not for others, stipulating the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. This included cases involving offenders from ethnic, cultural or faith minorities. In other words, a pre-sentence report would normally be considered necessary for a black offender or a Muslim one, but not necessarily if an offender is Christian or white, and we must be clear about what that means. By singling out one group over another, all may be equal but some are more equal than others. We must also be honest about the impact that this could have. Equipped with more information about one offender than another, the court may be less likely to send that offender to prison. I therefore consider the guidance to be a clear example of differential treatment. As such, it risks undermining public confidence in a justice system that is built on the idea of equality before the law.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Given that the Sentencing Council refused the Lord Chancellor’s first invitation to rewrite its guidance, is she confident that the limited nature of this Bill is sufficient? Would she not be wiser to take a broader power to ensure that in future all sentencing guidance has an affirmative vote in this place?
Shabana Mahmood
It is right that, moving at pace, I have sought to have a targeted Bill that deals with this particular imposition guideline. I have made it very clear that I am conducting a wider review of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council. If we need to legislate further—maybe in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, although other mechanisms are also potentially available—I will do so. I am not ruling out further legislation—in fact, it is very much on the table—but it is right that we are moving quickly in order to deal with the problems that could be caused by the guidelines coming into force, and that I have taken targeted action in this short but focused Bill.
As I told the House a few weeks ago, I had several discussions with the Sentencing Council in the time leading up to 1 April, when the updated guidelines were due to come into force. I reiterate my gratitude to the council’s chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for engaging with me on this issue and for ultimately making the right call by pausing the guidelines while Parliament has its say. I should say again that I have no doubt whatsoever about the noble intentions behind the proposed changes, because I understand the problem that the Sentencing Council was attempting to address. Racial inequalities exist in our justice system and are evident in the sentencing disparities between offenders from different backgrounds, but as the Sentencing Council acknowledges, the reasons for this are unclear. Addressing inequalities in the justice system is something that this Government take very seriously, and we are determined to increase confidence in its outcomes, which is why we are working with the judiciary to make the system more representative of the public it serves.
I have also commissioned a review of the data that my Department holds on disparities in the justice system in order to better understand the drivers of the problem, but although I agree with the Sentencing Council’s diagnosis, I believe it has prescribed the wrong cure. Going ahead with the new guidelines would have been an extraordinary step to take. It would have been extraordinary because of what it puts at risk: the very foundations of our justice system, which was built on equality before the law. The unintended consequences would have been considerable, because the idea that we improve things for people in this country who look like me by telling the public that we will be given favourable treatment is not just wrong, but dangerous. We are all safer in this country when everyone knows we are treated the same. If we sacrifice that, even in pursuit of a noble ideal such as equality, we risk bringing the whole edifice crashing to the ground.
I know there are disagreements in this House with regard to the correct policy to pursue, not least between the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, who opposes the guidelines, and the shadow Transport Secretary, whose support for them I have noted already—though I suppose that does assume that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice really is who he shows himself to be today. I must admit that I have begun to question whether his principles are set or really of no fixed abode. After all, he did pose as a Cameroon centrist for so many years, and only recently became his party’s populist flag bearer. It is enough to make me wonder whether he is, in fact, a Marxist—but one of the Groucho variety. “These are my principles,” he says, and if you do not like them, he has others.
Regardless of our positions on this question of policy, one thing is clear: this is a question of policy. How the state addresses an issue that is systemic, complex and of unclear origin is a question of what the law should be, not how the law should be applied. Let me be clear about that distinction: Parliament sets the laws and the judiciary determine how they are applied, and they must be defended as they do so. I will always defend judicial independence, and as I said earlier, I swore an oath to do so when I became the Lord Chancellor. Given the shadow Lord Chancellor’s recent diatribes, including just hours ago in this place, he may want to acquaint himself with that oath, if he intends ever succeeding me in this position, although I am assuming that it is my job he wants, not that of the Leader of the Opposition.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I think the Lord Chancellor just said that the approach to the guidelines taken by the Sentencing Council puts the foundation of the justice system at risk. Given that, how can she have confidence in a Sentencing Council that takes such an approach?
Shabana Mahmood
I have engaged constructively with the Sentencing Council and will continue to do so, and I am in the process of legislating to prevent this imposition guideline from ever coming into force. It has currently been paused, and I think that was the right step for the Sentencing Council to take. I am conducting a wider review of the roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and it is right that I take a bit more time to think carefully about that, about what we may or may not want it to do, and about how we may right the democratic deficit that has been uncovered. I think my approach to the Sentencing Council is very clear from the action I am taking.
Sir Julian Lewis
I do not think anyone is questioning the firm action the Lord Chancellor is taking. The point my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made is: why should it be necessary for her to take that action? Surely, if the Sentencing Council cannot see the distinction she makes between its proper role and Parliament’s proper role, it is not fit to do the job.
Shabana Mahmood
The Sentencing Council might argue, rightly, that given the guideline was welcomed by the former Government, it probably thought it was on safer ground than I consider it to be. However, there is clearly a confusion, a change in practice, or a development in ways I disagree with about the proper line between what is practice or the application of the law and what is properly in the realm of policy. That is what I am absolutely not going to give any ground on and that I will be setting right.
Sir John Hayes
The right hon. Lady is right about the moving process or trend that she has described, but the trouble is that it is part of a bigger problem, is it not? It is the problem of judicial activism, and it is not new. For some time, judicial activists have sought to do exactly what she has said, and it is they, not people in this House, who endanger the separation of powers.
Shabana Mahmood
However, it is always up to the people in this House, if they feel that a law is being applied in ways that were not intended, to put that law right. I am afraid the right hon. Member’s comment is a rather damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative Government, with 14 years of sitting back and allowing other people to do the policy work that Ministers in the previous Government perhaps did not have the time or inclination to do themselves.
I do not think that judges, in applying the law, are doing anything wrong; they are doing their job. They are public servants, and they do their job independently. It is right that we have an independent judiciary in this country. We are very lucky to have a judiciary that is world class and highly regarded. One of the reasons why so many businesses from all over the world want to do business in this country is that they know they can trust our courts system and the independence of our judges. I think it is incumbent on the whole of this House to defend the independence of the judiciary, because that independence was hard won. It is one of our absolute USPs as a rule of law jurisdiction in this country, and none of us must ever do anything that puts it at risk.
If there are issues about the way in which the law is applied—if Parliament or Ministers ever consider that it has strayed too far from the original intention—we can always legislate, and I am doing just that today. I hope this is an example that others, if they have issues in their areas, may consider taking as well. It is a question of policy, and that should be decided and debated here in this place, in this House, and the public must be able to hold us to account for the decisions we take, rewarding or punishing us at the ballot box as they see fit. This is the domain of government, politics and Parliament, and today we reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The right hon. Lady is making a point about the wider justice system and the importance of equality before the law. What has she done to assure herself and the House that, in all aspects of her Department’s work, people are being treated equally under the law—whether in relation to parole, how they are treated in prison, bail conditions and so on?
Shabana Mahmood
I have ordered a wider review of all guidance across all the MOJ’s work in so far as it relates to equality before the law to make sure that the problems we have uncovered here are not replicated elsewhere. There is the issue of bail guidance, which was discussed in the House earlier. I have already ordered a review, and that guidance is being redrafted as we speak. That particular guidance has been something like 20 years in the making—it has been added to over many years—so the redraft has to be careful and we must make sure it does not have any unintended consequences. However, we are cracking on with that work at pace, and I will make sure that, by the time I am done, we can all be absolutely clear that this sweep towards allowing potential differential treatment is sorted out once and for all.
Shabana Mahmood
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make more progress. I think I have been more than generous.
That brings me to the Bill before us today. While the updated Sentencing Council guidelines are currently paused, if we do not act they will come into force— [Interruption.] Well, there was a lot to say, gentlemen, about the previous Government’s track record and it needed to be said. And I do not think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) should mind me taking interventions from people on his own side. That is a novel approach for the shadow Front Bench.
Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. It is tightly focused, containing just two clauses. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which brought the Sentencing Council into existence. It dictates that the guidelines the council produces may not include references to personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. Clause 2 relates to how the Bill will be enacted: that it will apply only to England and Wales, and that its measures will come into force on the day after it passes.
It is also important to be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not stop the Sentencing Council from issuing broader guidance concerning requests for pre-sentence reports in those cases where it is helpful for the court to understand more about an offender’s history and personal circumstances. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, for example those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. And, as detailed in the Bill’s explanatory notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; or Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt a principle which finds its ancient origins in Magna Carta and has developed over the centuries to serve the interests of justice not just here but in jurisdictions around the world: that each of us, no matter who we are, where we come from or what we believe, stand equal before the law of the land.
Wider questions remain about the role and the powers of the Sentencing Council, as I have noted. The council does important work, bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it is clear in this instance that it went beyond its original remit. It sought to set policy, which stood out of step with the Government of the day. Therefore, it raises the question: who should set sentencing policy? Today’s legislation only addresses this question in the narrowest terms, considering the guidance on pre-sentence reports. It does not give us a definitive resolution as to whether it is Government Ministers or members of the Sentencing Council who should decide policy in the future. As I noted, that leaves us with a democratic deficit.
As I told the House on 1 April, the question of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council must therefore be considered further. That work is already under way in my Department. Should a further change be required, the Government will include it in upcoming legislation. The Sentencing Council plays an important role in our justice system, and any changes to it must be made carefully and with the consideration it deserves. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them.
The Bill we are debating today is small, but the issues it contains could not be of greater significance. I know the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree that the Sentencing Council’s intentions on this issue were noble, but in trying to reach for equality of outcome, they sacrificed too much, undermining the sacred principle of equality before the law. It is right that we, as policymakers, stop the updated guidelines from coming into force. We must stand up for the idea that no matter our race or religion, no person should receive preferential treatment as they stand in the dock before a judge, so I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(6 days, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The Sentencing Council does important work bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it was clear in recent weeks that it had moved beyond that role to take in policy that is not mine and not the Government’s. A review of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council is ongoing and I will legislate further if necessary.
Sir Ashley Fox
Draft guidelines from the Sentencing Council now propose substantially lower sentences for immigration offences than levels agreed by Parliament, so will the Lord Chancellor call on the Sentencing Council to revise those guidelines, so that they align with the time periods agreed by Parliament?
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?
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.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited a situation where around 10% of offenders account for over half of all convictions. We also inherited rising levels of theft and shoplifting. In February, I announced reforms to the probation service that will focus more of its time on offenders who pose a higher risk of reoffending, and I have asked David Gauke to review how sentences could be reformed to address prolific offending, cut the cycle of reoffending and ultimately make our streets safer.
Blake Stephenson
In my constituency there is a particular problem of hyper-prolific shoplifting. There are no credible deterrents and it is a scourge on our local communities and shop owners. Can the Justice Secretary rule out any possibility of allowing career criminals to avoid prison, even for short sentences?
Shabana Mahmood
First, in the Crime and Policing Bill this Government have removed the effective immunity from prosecution for thefts relating to values under £200, so we are already taking clear, definitive action to deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman sees in his constituency. I will not pre-empt the findings of the sentencing review. I am interested in how we ensure that those who he correctly described as career criminals turn their back on a life of crime, because in the end that is the best strategy for cutting crime and making our streets safer.
Mr French
Tool theft has a devastating impact on tradespeople and their families across the country. That is why I am pleased to support the shadow Justice Secretary, Sidcup police, On The Tools, Checkatrade and others in tool-marking initiatives and raids at boot sales where stolen goods are normally sold, but there is more to do across the criminal justice system to tackle this issue. Will the Government support Conservative amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill and ensure that these prolific offenders face tougher sentences and tradespeople get the justice they finally deserve?
Shabana Mahmood
I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome efforts on the Labour Back Benches relating to tool trade; my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) has introduced a private Member’s Bill. As I say, I will not pre-empt the findings of the sentencing review, but it is precisely because we take such offending very seriously that I asked the review to consider carefully interventions that will work in ensuring that offenders turn their backs on a life of crime, ultimately helping us to cut the crime that they cause, which creates victims in the process. I know we all want to ensure that that is the case. As far as specific amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill are concerned, I am sure that the Ministers responsible will respond in due course.
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?
Shabana Mahmood
As I said, we have already removed the effective immunity from prosecution for thefts relating to values under £200, reversing the previous Conservative Government’s policy in this area. We will legislate to ensure that assault on a retail worker is a new offence in the Crime and Policing Bill, so we are already taking measures to help my hon. Friend and his constituents with the issues they face. As I say, it is because we take this type of offending particularly seriously that I asked the sentencing review to consider the specifics of prolific offenders.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Earlier this month, Bovis House in Hartlepool, which hosts a number of businesses, was robbed. The people who did that were so well known that within minutes of the CCTV footage being put on social media, people were messaging me their names. These are hyper-prolific offenders; tiny numbers of people are responsible for huge amounts of crime. Does the Justice Secretary agree that the only solution is to lock them up for longer?
Shabana Mahmood
The solutions we pursue have to be shown to work. In the end, we need solutions that will work, because these people are often locked up for considerable periods of time, and when they come back out they still offend again. For some of those individuals, the problems will relate partly to addiction issues. It is important that we trial and use methods that help people to cut their addiction and usage in order to stop them committing crimes fuelled by that addiction. As I say, that will need a multi-layered response. I am determined that we will crack down on the scourge of prolific offenders; that is the only strategy for cutting crime, and we are determined to pursue it. We want to have measures that work, which is why I asked the sentencing review to consider them specifically.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The last Government left our prisons in crisis. We came within days of running out of space entirely, and the emergency release programme was designed to stop that crisis happening. Numbers are rising again, which is why this Government are committed to building 14,000 prison places by 2031, compared with the 500 that the last Conservative Government added in 14 years, and to reforming sentencing so that we never run out of prison places again.
Rebecca Paul
Last month, the Prisons Minister said that the longest time that an early-released prisoner had been left to wander the streets without an electronic tag was 53 days. However, just over a week ago, it was reported that prisoners have not been tagged for up to 78 days. Can the Secretary of State please clarify this apparent inconsistency?
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?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member is right: this is one of the many difficult inheritances left for us by the previous Conservative Government. The contract with Serco was agreed by the previous Conservative Administration. We acknowledge that the performance of Serco has been unacceptable. We have already been closely monitoring—day by day—its performance and delivery under the contract, and we have imposed fines for poor performance. Some of the issues relating to the SDS40 emergency releases were ultimately dealt with after close oversight by officials and Ministers, and we continue to monitor the contract very closely. As I have said, should further fines or other measures be required, all options are on the table.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
Equality before the law is a cornerstone of our justice system, and my position on this is clear. Later today, this House will debate legislation to overturn guidelines that the last Conservative Government welcomed, and I am not stopping there. I am reviewing current policy, and this guidance is being redrafted as we speak, including on the approach to bail information for courts.
Robbie Moore
After the conviction of eight men for a string of horrendous child rape offences in Keighley, I wish I could stand here and say that justice has been fully served, but I cannot, because two of these men—dual nationals—absconded during their trial, are still evading justice and are known to be abroad. Does the Secretary of State agree that in such serious cases, where dual or foreign nationals are charged with the most grotesque and serious sexual crimes against children, the court should be under a duty to impose stricter bail conditions, including surrendering passports and electronic monitoring, or even to provide no bail conditions, to stop them fleeing the country and evading justice?
Shabana Mahmood
First, I share the hon. Member’s outrage over the crimes that were committed in his community, and the fact that two of those individuals have been able to leave the country, and therefore evade the full force of the law and serving their sentence here. He will know that the decision to remand an individual in custody or on bail is solely a matter for the independent judiciary, and courts are already required to consider the likelihood to abscond as part of that decision.
More broadly, courts have the power to impose a broad range of robust bail conditions, including the surrender of passports, electronically monitored exclusion zones and curfews. He knows that I cannot comment on the specifics, because that is a matter for the independent judge who sat on that case and made that decision, but those are the rules that apply, and I would be happy to discuss that further with him if he wishes.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The House will be aware of the attack at HMP Frankland on 12 April. The bravery of the officers involved undoubtedly saved lives, and my thoughts are with them as they recover. I think also of the victims of the Manchester arena bombing and their families, who are understandably outraged. Since the attack, I have suspended access to kitchens in separation centres and close supervision centres. An independent review will ascertain how the incident was able to happen, what more must be done to protect prison staff and, more widely, how separation centres are run, and the prison service will also conduct a snap review of the use of protective body armour. In addition, I can today announce that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will trial the use of tasers in our prisons. Wherever we can strengthen our defences to better protect our staff and the public, we will do so.
The horrific attacks in Nottingham on 13 June 2023 cost Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates their lives. I pay tribute to their families and the survivors, many of whom are in the Public Gallery today. The Prime Minister promised that we would heed their calls for a public inquiry, and I can today announce that a full statutory inquiry will take place, chaired by Her Honour Deborah Taylor and with the power to compel witnesses. I will place its full terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses at the earliest opportunity. The inquiry must be thorough in its assessment of the facts and unsparing in its recommendations—that is the very least that we owe those who have lost so much and fought so hard for this moment. I am sure that this House, so often divided, will be united on that at least today.
Gregory Stafford
I associate myself with the Lord Chancellor’s comments and extend my sympathies to the families of those who were attacked.
In Bordon, the release of a sex offender to a property near the Hogmoor inclosure—frequently used by young people, families and children—has caused consternation in my constituency. What is the Lord Chancellor doing to ensure that people who have been convicted of sex offences are properly monitored when released into the community? Do our national and local agencies have the resources and powers to ensure that these risks are monitored and the public are kept safe?
Shabana Mahmood
We have robust processes in place to ensure that those offenders can be monitored effectively at both national and local levels and that those monitoring mechanisms are as robust as possible. I will happily look into the case that the hon. Gentleman raises and ensure that he gets a ministerial response.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
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.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
It is not appropriate in these difficult cases to misrepresent what the correct position is. The Home Secretary has already set out our position in this House and answered questions on our approach to the grooming gangs issue and the local inquiries. On court transcripts, we are piloting artificial intelligence technology for accuracy so that hopefully in the future we can produce transcripts. At the moment, the costs are prohibitive and the accuracy of the technology that is available is just not there.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
I will chase that up this afternoon and ensure that the hon. Member gets a response as quickly as possible. She will know that release on temporary licence is a mechanism that has governor supervision. If people follow the rules in prison, they become eligible for release on temporary licence. If they do not follow the rules, they are not eligible.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Can the Minister give an assessment of the potential merits of restricting triable either-way offences to summary trial, except for sentencing?
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
Sentencing remarks are already available for some of those cases. We have a robust judicial system that can handle difficult cases. I have already dealt with concerns about transcripts. The cost of full court transcripts is very prohibitive, which is why we are looking at technological solutions—AI in particular. We have a number of pilots running. The key thing is that we make sure that the transcripts are accurate so that the information put into the public domain reflects what was said and done in the courtroom.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
Although the extra sitting days to reduce court delays announced by the Secretary of State are welcome, does the Minister agree that the state of the court estate needs some attention, as some courts are out of action due to disrepair issues?
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The passing of Pope Francis was a profound loss. Throughout his life, he was a passionate advocate for a justice system that put reconciliation at its heart. With the publication of the independent sentencing review expected imminently, will the Government take this opportunity to move our justice system towards one that contains, in the words of Pope Francis, a “horizon of hope” and reintegration, and will they commit to restorative justice being placed at the heart of our justice system?
Shabana Mahmood
Restorative justice clearly has a role to play, but the principles of our sentencing review, with which I hope Members across the House can agree, are clear: there must always be a prison place available for people who are dangerous and need to be locked up, and we have to do more to help people to turn their back on a life of crime.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Compared with the same period in 2023, 21% more foreign national offenders have been removed since July 2024 when this Government came into office. May I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on this achievement and ask what the new funding announced to speed the process up will do to increase the numbers being removed?
Shabana Mahmood
We have already got off to a good start in the deportation of foreign national offenders from our prisons. The new funding will enable more caseworkers to speed up the removal of even more FNOs. I am very pleased that we have seen a higher number deported this year compared to the previous year, when the Conservatives were in office.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
A British mother in my constituency, having fled domestic abuse, faces forced return to Poland to stay with her young children under the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. With no knowledge of the local language and no source of income there, she risks either dependence on her abuser or homelessness. That is because the convention ignores the issue of domestic abuse, allowing it to be manipulated by abusers. Would Ministers support my Bill on the Hague abduction convention and domestic abuse, which I will present soon and which would change the implementation of the Hague convention in UK domestic law to protect mothers from the threat of return in this way?
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary for the announcement she made today and the Government for listening to bereaved families and surviving victims. It is only right that the inquiry is statutory to ensure that it has the power to compel witnesses and hold those responsible for failings to account. What assurances can she give that the inquiry will be conducted in a timely manner and that the lessons it uncovers will be implemented swiftly to help ensure that similar attacks do not take place?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, for her support and for assiduously representing the needs of her constituents. As I said, the inquiry will be chaired by Her Honour Deborah Taylor, who is an experienced, senior retired judge. I have every confidence in her. She is already meeting the families of the victims and the survivors, and she has undertaken to ensure that the inquiry works at pace and makes its findings as quickly as possible.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
May I press the Secretary of State on transcripts? When I asked recently for a transcript of a major trial, Manchester Crown court told me that the cost would be £100,000; when pressed, that went down to £9,000, but that is still way beyond the reach of most people. This is a travesty of justice. Other countries, including some American states, have free transcripts available now. When will she sort this out?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Member will know that the issue at the moment is that transcripts have to be physically transcribed by hand by a human listening back to what was said and done in court. Speech-to-text transcription was piloted by the previous Government; it was not accurate enough. I am sure he will agree that any transcripts that are ultimately published have to be accurate. That is why we are looking at AI models. We hope to be able to find a model that gives us the requisite level of accuracy and speed to be able to publish transcripts, and to do so cheaply.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Children adopted from care or living under special guardianship are currently disproportionately at risk of entering the criminal justice system later in life if early trauma goes untreated. Given the recent changes in the adoption and special guardianship support fund, what steps is the Lord Chancellor taking alongside Cabinet colleagues to ensure the availability of more equitable access to such support?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for establishing the inquiry into the Nottingham attacks, but freedom of information requests by the charity Hundred Families disclosed last month that at least 392 mental health patients in England committed or were suspected of murder or manslaughter between 2018 and 2023. The victims included Susan and Jeffrey Farrance, the elderly parents of my constituent. Will the inquiry consider cases like that of the Farrances so that we can learn all lessons necessary to prevent these tragic and avoidable crimes?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for raising an important issue for his own constituents that also has wider significance. I will publish the full terms of reference and place them in the Libraries of both Houses very soon. Regardless of whether the review goes into the specifics of every other type of case, I am sure that it will make findings on how such cases, particularly involving people with mental health conditions, are properly managed. I am sure that those findings will be of interest not just to our Department but to others, and will be implemented by the Government in due course.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
We have a case in my constituency of a young offender, well below 16, who is causing havoc—he has been arrested many times—and is not complying with a court order. The assumption is against incarceration because of his age. Will the Minister explain what work the Government are doing to crack down on prolific offending by young people well below 16 who are causing stress and fear in their local communities?
Sentencing Council Guidelines
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days 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, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on sentencing in England and Wales. As the House will be aware, new guidelines from the Sentencing Council on pre-sentence reports have come under scrutiny in recent weeks, specifically on whether an offender’s faith or the colour of their skin should be a factor in their use. This is a question of huge import: whether we all stand equal before the law. That is an ideal that has underpinned justice in this country for centuries and an ancient right that each of us in this House has a responsibility to uphold. The new guidelines on the use of pre-sentence reports were due to come into force from today, but in recent weeks I have had constructive talks with the Sentencing Council and I am grateful to its chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for that engagement. As a result, I am pleased to tell the House that the guidelines have been put on pause while Parliament rightly has its say.
It is important to first understand how we got into this position. Under the previous Government, the Sentencing Council proposed changes to its imposition of community and custodial sentences guidelines, which are concerned with whether a judge should make a community or custodial order when sentencing an offender, and the thresholds for these disposals. When the courts are deciding whether the community order threshold is met, or the custody threshold is met, they are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report unless they consider it unnecessary to do so. These reports provide more information to the court, helping to provide a greater understanding of the background and context of the offending behaviour. They are a tool at the disposal of judges. The guidelines provide further guidance to courts on how to approach the decision whether to request a pre-sentence report. In this instance, they help them to determine what sentence might best be handed down.
In general, I should be clear, I welcome the use of pre-sentence reports. In the last few months, I have created capacity within the Probation Service to ensure that it has more time for vital work such as this. But the new guidance, if it came into force, would encourage judges to request them for some cohorts of offenders and not others. Specifically, it notes that it would “normally be considered necessary” to request pre-sentence reports for ethnic, cultural or faith minorities. It is important to be clear about the impact that a pre-sentence report is likely to have in this instance: it is more likely to discourage a judge from sending an offender to jail. It is this that creates the perception of differential treatment before the law and risks undermining public confidence in the justice system.
A repeated theme of my engagement with the Sentencing Council over the guidelines has been the intention behind them. It was attempting to address very real inequalities that exist in our justice system—inequalities that are evident in the sentences that offenders receive. It is unclear why this happens, as the Sentencing Council acknowledges. There is no doubt that more must be done to understand the problem we face and to address it. Some measures are already taking place across our justice system to make it more representative of the public that it serves, such that it can deliver outcomes in which we can all have confidence, and I note that the proportion of ethnic minorities within the judiciary has risen from just 7% 10 years ago to 11% today.
While change can feel slow and must accelerate, my view is that despite the noble intentions behind these guidelines, in attempting to address inequalities in our justice system they sacrifice too much. They raise a serious question of policy: in the pursuit of equality of outcome for different religions and races, should we treat them differently before the eyes of the law and move so far away from an ideal that has underpinned justice in this country for centuries? On this, I am clear: all must be equal before the law.
I know there will be disagreement in this House with regard to the correct policy to pursue. There have been, as I have noted, differences of opinion among the Opposition. I expect that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who opposes these guidelines, and the now shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who welcomed them while in office, have been having some robust conversations in recent days.
I doubt, however, that there is any disagreement that this is a question of policy. How the state addresses a systemic and complex issue is clearly the domain of policymakers. It is right that questions like these are discussed and debated here. It is right that the public can hold us to account for the decisions we take and that they can ultimately reward or punish us at the ballot box.
The role of judges is entirely different. They are concerned not with how policy is made but how it is applied. The independence of our judges to make those determinations is fundamental to our justice system. Over centuries they have built a reputation for fairness, making them world-renowned and respected. They are the embodiment of the rule of law in our country. To play that role, they must be able to make decisions on the facts without any outside influence. They must know they have the Government behind them, protecting them as they do that vital work. When I swore my oath as Lord Chancellor, I made a solemn pledge to protect and defend the independence of the judiciary, and I always will. But to do so, it is essential that the boundaries between what is policy and what is judicial decision making are clear. For that reason, the Government will today introduce the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill. It is a tightly focused Bill. It does not interfere with the vital work of the council providing guidance to judges on how to sentence offenders. It addresses the issue of when a pre-sentence report should be ordered.
The Bill adopts a targeted approach. It does not prevent council guidance from advising in general terms that pre-sentence reports should be requested when judges need more information about an offender’s personal circumstances. It will remain the case, for example, that where an offender is a victim of domestic abuse, a judge can consider it in deciding whether to order a pre-sentence report. But it prohibits the council from making guidelines about pre-sentence reports with specific reference to the offender’s personal characteristics, such as their race, religion or belief, or cultural background.
The Bill will not affect the court’s existing duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, nor does it change court precedent around them—like the recent case of Thompson, in which the Court of Appeal noted the importance of obtaining a pre-sentence report in cases involving pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; like the case of Meanley, where the court referred to the importance of pre-sentence reports in serious cases involving young defendants; or like the case of Kurmekaj, where the court emphasised the defendant’s traumatic upbringing, vulnerability and the fact they had been a victim of modern slavery as reasons why a pre-sentence report should be ordered. Judges will continue to request pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would—for example, those involving pregnant women or young people.
I accept that the Bill will, however, raise wider questions about the role of the Sentencing Council. The council does important work bringing greater consistency to judicial decision making, but we are here discussing a question of policy—a difficult, disputed and uncertain one at that. If the Government cannot determine national policy on the question of equality of treatment before the law, we have uncovered a democratic deficit. The Bill exposes that question but does not address it. The proper role of the Sentencing Council, and the process for making guidelines of this type, must be considered further, and I will do so in the coming months. It is right that this question is considered in greater depth, and should further legislation be required, I shall propose it as part of the upcoming sentencing Bill.
The Sentencing Council, although only 15 years old, holds an important position within the firmament of our justice system, and any changes must be made carefully and with due consideration. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead. The Government will today introduce the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill. The issues it contains are of great consequence because the path to a more equal society can only be paved by equality before the law. Again, I thank the Sentencing Council for putting a pause on its guidelines while Parliament has its say. I believe that we must reverse them and reassert that no race or religion should receive preferential treatment before the law. The Bill we will introduce today will achieve that, and I commend this statement to the House.
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.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I realise that this is not a popular view in the House, but the Justice Secretary will be aware that some of us are astonished that she thinks our judges are so weak-minded as to be affected by what are guidelines in relation to how they sentence black and brown defendants.
The Justice Secretary will be aware that report after report and repeated statistical analysis have demonstrated what some of us consider to be unfairness in relation to black and brown people and the criminal justice system. She will also be aware that the reason the Sentencing Council was made a statutory independent body was to avoid even the appearance of ministerial interference in sentencing. This is not the United States; our political and judicial systems are entirely separate. Can she explain why she is so triumphant about not just interfering in sentencing, but passing a piece of legislation to cut across what the Sentencing Council is saying?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my right hon. Friend for her questions—at least she asks some proper questions. She says that her view on the policy might be an unpopular one, but this is the place where views on policy, popular or unpopular, can and should be debated. That is at the heart of my disagreement with the Sentencing Council on the guideline.
I think that the matters that my right hon. Friend raises in relation to race and the disparities in the criminal justice system are the proper preserve of politicians. The answer to how we deal with those issues will be a policy answer, and it is for the Government, the Opposition and other Members to debate that policy answer and pursue it through Parliament. That is why I reject entirely the suggestion that anything I have done impinges upon the independence of the judiciary or calls into question the separation of powers in this country.
The Sentencing Council is itself a creature of statute; it is only 15 years old. It is entirely proper for a politician—a Government Minister, the Lord Chancellor—to assert that there is a boundary between that which is policy and a matter for Parliament and that which is judicial practice and consistency in judicial cases. I have sought to reassert that boundary. I look forward to working with Members with differing views from across the House in considering the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. As I have said, I will return to those matters in the coming months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
There is only one group in this House that lost control of our justice system: the decimated former Government on the Opposition Benches. Overcrowded prisons, reoffending through the roof, victims waiting for justice—what a disgrace. That disgrace continues today through the downplaying of the impact of intergenerational trauma—of which child abuse is a form—by the shadow Justice Secretary.
I thank the Lord Chancellor for engaging with me on this issue in advance of her statement. Our criminal justice system’s ability to take someone’s freedom away is one of the most humbling powers that it holds, which is why sentencing decisions must include all available information. Pre-sentence reports are a critical part of that process. She mentioned pregnant women, survivors of domestic abuse and survivors of modern slavery as important examples of where that is considered. However, because everybody has a context, the Liberal Democrats believe that such reports should consistently be made available whenever anyone’s liberty is at stake. We will therefore scrutinise the legislation through that lens of equality before the law.
It is rich of the Conservatives to complain about inequality in our justice system when it was they who presided over a state of affairs in which someone from one our country’s most deprived areas is 10 times more likely to be in prison than someone from the least deprived, someone who looks like me is four times more likely to be stopped and searched than others, and people with special educational needs represent half the prison population compared to a fifth of the general population. Will the Justice Secretary outline how she will fairly tackle those disparities to restore confidence in the justice system, which was so shattered by the Conservative party?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his questions. He is right: as I said in my statement, pre-sentence reports are an incredibly vital tool for judges. In fact, the requirement is that they should ask for a pre-sentence report unless the court considers it unnecessary to do so. There is a strong push towards obtaining pre-sentence reports in the vast majority of cases. The Probation Service that I inherited from the previous Administration has struggled under increased workloads. It was a service that the Conservative party privatised and then partly renationalised—our Probation Service officers, who do vital work every single day, have been through the mill.
I have been making changes to the focus of the Probation Service in the last few months to pivot its work to focus on high and medium-risk offenders and free up probation capacity, so that more time can be spent doing vital work such as the preparation of pre-sentence reports. I will carry on working with the Probation Service to ensure it is ready to do what is asked of it, to a very high and consistent standard, which I know will be important to all Members. I have already announced 1,300 extra probation officers in the financial year that has just passed and another 1,000 in the coming financial year. Probation remains vital to the preparation of pre-sentence reports, and we will ensure it is in a position to meet the asks that are made of it.
On the hon. Gentleman’s wider points about disparities across the criminal justice system, I thank him for the spirit in which he has engaged with me on those matters. I have the same concerns as him, but I believe we should understand what the latest data is showing us. That is why I have asked for a review of all the current data, and we should test any solutions we come up with. They are policy solutions, so they would have to be debated and passed in this House, and politicians are ultimately responsible at the ballot box for the choices they make, but those solutions have to work—they have to yield a change in these disparities. That is what I want to test.
In my engagement with the Sentencing Council on this particular guideline, it has accepted that the causes of the disparities are unclear, and no one is sure whether the changes to pre-sentence reports would make a difference anyway. I am not willing to sacrifice public confidence in the criminal justice system or chip away at the idea of equality before the law for solutions that are appropriate for debate in this place and that we are not even sure would work. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman closely in the coming weeks and months on these issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Sentencing Council is a judicial body whose president is the Lady Chief Justice and whose chair is a distinguished Court of Appeal judge. Its function was previously executed by the Court of Appeal. It is fully independent but is linked to Parliament, not least because the Justice Committee is a statutory consultee for all its guidelines, including those under discussion today. Its judicial leadership, independence and democratic accountability are its strength and a primary reason it is held in high esteem in the criminal justice system. Will the Lord Chancellor reassure me that those attributes will remain integral to the council, whatever changes are proposed in the current legislation, sentencing review and sentencing Bill?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. Of course, I respect the independence of the judiciary. I think I was very clear in my statement and the remarks I have made that I not only stand behind that principle, but have taken an oath that I fulfil and consider my duty to do so. Where I consider to be in disagreement with the Sentencing Council is that this is properly an area of policy, rather than a mere tool for the consistency of judicial practice when it comes to sentencing. That is the point of principle on which we have a disagreement, and it is why I will be considering a further review of the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. I simply repeat to my hon. Friend that ensuring that a creature of statute is operating in the way that was intended when that statute was put in place is the proper preserve of politicians and Parliament. I hope we can all agree on that.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for her rather belated statement. I particularly welcome her observation that recent events have uncovered a democratic deficit. Is she not concerned that it was the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who uncovered this deficit, and not herself, her ministerial team or her Department? It was my right hon. Friend who first raised the issue of two-tier sentencing guidelines in this Chamber on 5 March, four weeks ago. Could the Lord Chancellor tell us why she has waited until the eve of their introduction to bring forward her emergency legislation?
Shabana Mahmood
If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the guidelines and what was brought to his attention when, perhaps people in his party should not have waved them through before the general election and welcomed them, as the shadow Transport Secretary did. I notice that none of them is engaging on the substance of that point. I am the one who is dealing with the democratic deficit. They had 14 years in power and did nothing about it, and now they just carp from the sidelines.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the previous Government were consulted on and, indeed, welcomed the Sentencing Council’s new guidelines, and therefore it is totally unfair of Conservative Members to accuse this Government of having a two-tier system? Does she agree that it is yet another example of this Government having to clear up the previous Government’s mess?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right: many Conservative Members appear to have a very loose relationship with their own track record.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor is right that equality before the law lies at the heart of popular respect for justice. However, I must say to her that it is not this House that endangers the separation of powers, but judicial activists, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has made palpably clear, who are more interested in making laws than applying them. Will she, as my right hon. Friend requested, let this House know whether she retains faith in the Sentencing Council and its members or whether, like me, she believes that having been exposed, they should now do the honest and right thing and resign?
Shabana Mahmood
I have already said that I am not interested in making a personal attack on anybody. I have a disagreement on a point of principle with members of the Sentencing Council about what is the proper preserve of policy and what is the proper role they should play. We have tried to resolve it. They have agreed to pause their guideline. We will move forward constructively.
I will not stand back and let people attack the independence of the judiciary. I have sworn a solemn oath; I will fulfil that oath. We are very lucky in this country to have the sort of legal system that we do and a judiciary that is held in high regard. These are public servants of the highest order. It is easy for politicians to attack on matters of policy or politics they do not like, but as I have just shown, if politicians or parliamentarians disagree with something, we have the power to change it.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The juridification of law should worry us all, and we should make sure that primacy remains with this House; the Lord Chancellor has taken an important step towards that today. What is worrying is that for 14 years, no action was taken by the Conservative party. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that was because of incompetence or just a lack of understanding of what it meant for the country?
Shabana Mahmood
Who can say? I suggest asking any of the Conservative Members here whether they have an answer to that, but they appear to still wish to live on another planet and never reckon with their own track record in government.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Black people in Wales were the most over-represented ethnic group in prison in 2023, followed by those from a mixed background and people belonging to an Asian ethnic group. That over-representation is worse in Wales than in England. Pre-sentencing reports can help us to understand why people of black and minority ethnic backgrounds are more likely to be sent to prison. Even if she disagrees with the method, surely the Secretary of State agrees that action is necessary to tackle evidenced inequality within the criminal justice system, so what solutions is she bringing forward?
Shabana Mahmood
The proper role of a pre-sentence report is to give a judge who is about to pass down a sentence vital information about the context of that offender—for example, whether there has been domestic abuse, their age and other vital factors relevant to the offending behaviour—so that the judge can make a decision about the best sentence to pass. The pre-sentence report is not about setting right any other wrongs that exist, however legitimate they are—that is not the point of the pre-sentence report—but about giving the sentencer in every single individual case the information that they need, such as whether a woman is pregnant or has recently given birth, as the Court of Appeal upheld recently. Those circumstances should be properly understood by judges. The position in law is that a pre-sentence report should be sought by judges in all cases, unless the court considers it unnecessary to do so. That covers the majority of cases where a pre-sentence report should be sought, but we should not confuse the proper role of what the pre-sentence report is there to do.
To the extent that there are over-representations, I see them too. Over 70% of my constituents are non-white and, as the right hon. Lady can see, I am from an ethnic minority background myself, and I am also from a faith minority. I see those disparities—they are a lived reality of my own life—but I am not prepared to sacrifice the principle of equality before the law to put those disparities right. I wish to be more curious than anybody else has been in previous years about what lies behind those disparities, and about what are the proper levers that have to be pulled to put them right. We often discuss judicial diversity, but I am not sure that increases in diversity have necessarily led to a change in what the underlying data shows. Clearly, there is more going on. Any solutions that politicians come up with have to be tested in the House, because they are properly the domain of policy and Parliament.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a victory over the Sentencing Council on the fundamental principle of equality before the law? The independence of the Sentencing Council does not entitle its members to go over its boundaries, into the area of policy and politics into which they have strayed. That is such a fundamental issue that having made those fundamental errors of judgment, those members of the Sentencing Council should no longer be able to carry on in the job, whether it is by their own decision or that of the Secretary of State.
Shabana Mahmood
In fairness to the Sentencing Council, it sought views from the previous Government and was told that the Government welcomed its findings, both in the consultation and the guideline. The Sentencing Council did not do anything wrong in the process that it followed. I invited it to consider that there had been a change of Government and a change of policy since it began work on the guideline, and asked it to consider reopening the consultation. I was disappointed that it chose not to do so, but I am not interested in making this a personal debate about individuals. I am grateful to the Sentencing Council for pausing the guideline, which has not come into effect. All our previous arrangements in relation to pre-sentence reports remain in place. As I say, I am considering the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council, and I will return to the House with further proposals in due course.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The cherished idea of equal treatment before the law is fundamental to my constituents’ understanding of British justice, so why did the Justice Secretary not act immediately to stop the imposition of two-tier sentencing, rather than the last minute scramble we saw yesterday? In her statement today, she says:
“The proportion of ethnic minorities within the judiciary has risen from just 7% 10 years ago to 11% today.”
To what extent does she consider that that simply reflects a wider demographic change, rather than discrimination in the judiciary?
Shabana Mahmood
On diversity in the judiciary, there has been consensus in this House on that point. A lot of effort has gone into encouraging applications from people who may want to consider leaving private practice and becoming judges, which has started to have an effect. Having institutions that are more representative of the country that they represent is an important principle. I hope that there is cross-party consensus that it is important for Parliament to look, at least a little bit, like the people that it seeks to represent. However, I am not sure whether an increase in the diversity of judges is necessarily going to be the fix for the disparity issues that we see in the criminal justice system. That is why I have asked for a review of what the current data is telling us, to tease out whether there is a relationship between those two things. If there is not, then we will need to think more carefully about the other policy levers that might be needed. I think those are proper matters for this House to discuss.
On the hon. Lady’s broader point about the Sentencing Council, I used a power that has never been used before, in the 15 years of the Sentencing Council’s existence, to ask it to think again. I have done everything the proper way: I asked it to think again and I engaged with the Sentencing Council. At the end of last week, it told me that it was going to stick with and publish the guideline, and that it would come into force today, 1 April, which is why I said I would legislate. I brought forward a Bill, which has been published today, and thankfully the Sentencing Council has chosen to pause the guideline until Parliament has had its say. I have done everything exactly as I should have done, instead of rushing to rhetoric, which I do not believe solves anything.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Pregnant women and new mothers are at high risk in custody. They are seven times more likely to experience a stillbirth and at least two baby deaths have taken place in recent years. Among other important measures, the Sentencing Council has issued guidance on the use of prison sentences for pregnant women and new mothers, which were supposed to come into effect today. Any delay to that risks causing untold, preventable harm. I am relieved that the Lord Chancellor has committed to protecting that guidance, but how quickly will it be implemented, because women cannot wait any longer?
Shabana Mahmood
I can offer my hon. Friend immediate reassurance. The Bill that we have published today is a very targeted Bill on the ability of the Sentencing Council to bring forward guidelines relating only to pre-sentence reports and personal characteristics. It is a very tightly focused Bill and nothing in that Bill affects any Court of Appeal precedent, and there is already strong Court of Appeal precedent on the desirability of a court obtaining pre-sentence reports before it passes sentence in cases involving pregnant women and women who have recently given birth.
More widely, on the issues of policy relating to women in the criminal justice system, I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that I have set up the women’s justice board specifically to look at the needs of female offenders across the whole criminal justice system. I am determined—it is a position of policy for this Government—that we will send fewer women to prison and ultimately have fewer women’s prisons. That is properly a matter for policy. I am sure it will be contested in this House, but that is the realm of politics, Parliament and ultimately the ballot box.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I welcome the news today that the Sentencing Council had a last-minute change of heart on pre-sentencing reports. To go back to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), why did it take the efforts of the shadow Justice Secretary to get the Lord Chancellor to have a change of heart on that important matter? We did not get an answer on that before.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Whatever their ethnic background, my constituents in Rochdale are united in supporting the ancient British principle of equality under the law. I welcome what the Justice Secretary has produced today, in stark contrast to the Opposition, who welcomed the previous attempts at two-tier justice. Does she agree with me that pre-sentence reports should be available for all offenders and should never be linked to ethnicity, culture or faith?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. I wish to see the widest possible use of pre-sentencing reports. It is my job to ensure that the Probation Service is in a position to provide pre-sentencing reports whenever they are required by the court, and that courts have confidence in the reports that they are getting. I will ensure that that is the case.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Has the Lady Chief Justice been rebuked for the impertinence of her letter to the Prime Minister following Prime Minister’s questions on 12 February, when he perfectly properly questioned another absurd judicial decision?
Shabana Mahmood
No. I have very positive conversations with the Lady Chief Justice. She has an important constitutional function and obligations, as do I. Our conversations are collaborative and constructive. On that matter, the Government made their view clear that the exchange at Prime Minister’s questions turned on a question of policy, which is the proper realm of politicians and ultimately Parliament.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for her decisive action on this issue and note that this Government are not ducking political decisions, farming them out to quangos like the last lot did with bodies like NHS England, or blaming the blob for crashing the economy when it was Liz Truss’s mini-Budget that did that. Does the Justice Secretary agree that politics and policy are the domain of this House and its Ministers, and can she reassure me that this Government will continue to make sure that we in this House can make the decisions that the public expect us to make?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. The business of government is difficult and requires lots of effort. The contrast between this Government’s approach and the approach taken by the Tory party over its 14 years in government is stark. We are getting on with the job.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
While the Sentencing Council guidelines do not apply in Northern Ireland, does the Lord Chancellor accept that controversial changes in England, such as a reduced likelihood of custodial sentences for certain groups, risk undermining confidence in the justice system across the entire UK? Can she outline what steps she is taking to ensure fairness and consistency in sentencing across all jurisdictions, regardless of ethnicity, culture or faith?
Shabana Mahmood
In Wales, these are reserved matters, and the guidelines would impact only on England and Wales. There are devolved arrangements here as well, which I do not propose to upend in any way, but I am always happy to have constructive conversations with colleagues in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales on any such matters. In the end, we are a UK system, even where some matters are devolved, and I really appreciate and value that collaboration.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I join colleagues in paying tribute to the Lord Chancellor for her decisive leadership and for the thoughtful way in which she has answered questions today. [Laughter.] I welcome, as will my constituents in Pendle and Clitheroe, her confirmation that equality before the law will remain, and I look forward to seeing the Bill that she proposes. I can see the Tories railing against the justice system that they left us, but we on the Government Benches really are mad about it: we had a backlog of 70,000 Crown court cases, there were no prison places left and neighbourhood policing was hollowed out. Is it any wonder that voters so comprehensively rejected the Tories?
Shabana Mahmood
I think the country had its say on 14 years of the Tories in charge. To be honest, given their legacy in the criminal justice system, I would not take the same approach, but I am not surprised that they are laughing; the only other thing they could do is to cry.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Why does the Lord Chancellor propose to take only a very narrow power in respect of the two-tier pre-sentencing reports rather than a general power, given that other guidelines and draft guidelines, including for immigration offences, are far below the levels agreed to by this Parliament? The Sentencing Council is ignoring policy determined by this House. What more evidence does she need to act, and to act now?
Shabana Mahmood
On the immigration guideline, I will correct something that the shadow Justice Secretary said earlier. Nothing in that guideline prevents the deportation of any foreign national offenders, and this Government have been getting on with the job, having deported more than 24,000 foreign nationals. Our record on foreign national offenders is one of a 20% increase in removals this year compared with the same period last year. I wanted to ensure that the guideline did not come into effect, and that is why I published the targeted Bill. I have acknowledged that there is a debate to be had about the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council, which I will return to in the weeks and months ahead.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Sentencing Council was created in April 2010; a month later, the Conservatives came to power. If, as so many on the Conservative Benches seem to think, the Sentencing Council is a shadowy, revolutionary group of activist judges dangerously undermining the British way of life, why on earth did they not do anything about it?
Jake Richards
I think they agree with that now—interesting. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that this episode shows that our constitution is working? Parliament is sovereign, and if Parliament seeks to change this guidance, under this Government it will.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is exactly right. At no point has anybody on the Conservative Benches shown any humility or tried to answer the question of why they did nothing about it. As I say, the case of amnesia from which the shadow Justice Secretary is suffering seems to be as bad as ever.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I certainly welcome the fact that the Sentencing Council has been forced to back down on its woke proposal. As the new legislation progresses, can the Lord Chancellor assure the House that there will be no dilution of the robust principles of the separation of powers and the independence of our judiciary; and that the right approach will continue to be that Parliament sets the maximum sentence for any criminal offence, and our judges decide on a case-by-case basis what the sentence should be?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. It is for Parliament to set the overall sentencing framework, but every single judge has to see the case in front of them and make their own decisions. As I made very clear in my statement, I will always defend the independence of our judiciary; they do vital work and are a crucial part of the separation of powers. Everything that I have sought to do, given this recent episode, has been to respect that separation of powers and assert what we properly consider to be the realm of policy, politicians and Parliament, and what is the realm of the judges.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement. Does she agree that we should all hold closely the ideal of equality before the law, and that the biggest cause of two-tier justice was the mess that the Conservative party made of our Probation Service?
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives me an opportunity at the conclusion of my statement to support the Probation Service. In all of the Tory party’s terrible legacy in the criminal justice system, including prisons on the point of collapse, what it did to the Probation Service was unconscionable. This Government are putting things right. I have already made changes to the Probation Service, and I will ensure that it is on the strongest possible footing going into the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement.
Prison Capacity: Operation Safeguard
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited a prison system on the verge of collapse, which would have left the courts unable to send offenders to prison and the police unable to arrest dangerous criminals. I took decisive action and implemented changes to the standard determinate sentence release point which provided essential but temporary relief to the system.
When I updated Parliament in July 2024, I was clear that the capacity crisis would not disappear immediately and the changes to release points were never the whole solution to the prison capacity crisis we inherited. To put our criminal justice system on a sustainable footing for the long term, I launched the independent review of sentencing in October and set out the 10-year prison capacity strategy to deliver the 14,000 new prison places we promised. In my commitment to transparency, I also laid the first annual statement on prison capacity, setting out expected demand and supply for prison places.
Over the last three months population growth in the prison estate has been high—January saw the highest average monthly prison population growth in almost two years, which has only just begun to slow. As of 17 March, there were 824 places remaining in the adult male estate. We are operating at more than 99% occupancy. Operating this close to critical capacity increases the risk that prisons do not have sufficient space for a given prisoner entering the system and so an alternative has to be found, which is most frequently in a police cell. In recent weeks this has happened hundreds of times, far above the rate seen during normal operations. On the night of 10 March, there were 124 no-space lockouts, which is the highest number of business-as-usual lockouts on record.
We have just opened a new 458-capacity houseblock at HMP Rye Hill. In addition, in a few weeks’ time, I will be opening HMP Millsike, a brand new 1,500 capacity prison in North Yorkshire.
However, I expect prison capacity will remain tight until the new capacity is fully operational. Given the recent increase in demand, it is necessary, and prudent, for me to temporarily reactivate Operation Safeguard to better manage the flow of offenders into the prison estate. This is an established protocol that will ensure that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and police forces can jointly plan which police cells may be required to hold offenders on any particular day. The previous Government last activated Operation Safeguard in February 2023; it ran until it was formally deactivated in October 2024 by this Government. This time we have a clear plan to improve capacity and minimise the use of Safeguard.
Safeguard will help ensure temporary pressures on the prison estate are managed effectively with partners in the police. We will keep its use under constant review and work closely with police colleagues to ensure we can stand down cells as soon as they are not required.
I am incredibly grateful for the support of police colleagues and want to pay tribute to the continued extraordinary work of our frontline staff in police, courts, prisons and probation whose daily efforts keep the public safe.
[HCWS531]
Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited an analogue justice system that has not kept pace with a digital world. Technology can and must transform the justice system. Since taking office, we have expanded the use of tagging; we are piloting new technology to automate manual work in the justice system; and I have launched a new unit, Justice AI, to further develop the use of artificial intelligence.
Shaun Davies
The recent announcement of 110,000 sitting days is welcome, but we need to use technology to streamline our justice system. Between 2016 and 2022, we saw a 25% reduction in cases being concluded. What plans do the Government have to use emerging new tech to enhance court processing, get faster justice for victims, and help manage offenders in the community, including through ankle tagging to enforce exclusion zones, and drug and alcohol testing?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. We need to make sure that the whole justice system, including what happens in our criminal courts, is as efficient as it can be. That is why I have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an independent review of the criminal courts. He will consider how to improve the courts’ efficiency, and we will report on that later in the year. There will be, I believe, a wider role for technology to play in tagging and monitoring of exclusion zones and curfews. I want to make sure that the justice system is in the best possible position to make use of emerging technology, so that we can keep our country safe.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor will accept that the effective use of electronic tags will not only make the criminal justice system more efficient, but mitigate the need for expensive prison places. Does she agree that two things are necessary for that effective use? First, the tags must be technically reliable; secondly, officials in her Department must have the commercial capacity to manage the contracts efficiently. If she agrees, what can be done to improve both those things?
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?
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.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited prisons in crisis: overcrowded, violent and rife with drugs. If we are to have regimes that reduce reoffending and cut crime, we have to crack down on drugs in prison. To do so, we must address the supply of drugs, and prisons use a range of tactics, including X-ray body scanners and baggage scanners. We must also tackle demand. Over 80 of our prisons now have drug-free wings.
Dr Evans
Before 2021, less than 1% of seized substances contained anabolic steroids. In 2023, it was 10%, with anabolic steroids being the third most prevalent drug class detected in Scottish prisons. Will the Lord Chancellor meet me and Dr Jayasena and Dr Grant, who are national leads on the topic from Imperial College, to look at conducting research into the impact of steroids on offending and the prison population?
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his long record of campaigning on this particular issue. It is an important point, and I will ensure that he can meet the Prisons Minister and look at what further research might be needed in this area.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
I will not pre-empt the final report of the sentencing review, but let us remember the crisis that we are dealing with. The previous Government ramped up sentences but added just 500 cells throughout the entire time they were in office. Just today, we have heard examples of Members who do not want any prison building in their areas. This Government will build 14,000 new prison places, but even that will not be enough to get us out of the mess left by the previous Administration. That is why I have asked the independent sentencing review to recommend sentencing policies that will ensure that we never again run out of space.
Joe Robertson
The Government will consider alternatives to prison and early release, but how are the public to have any confidence whatsoever when the Government released prisoners early and left them to roam the streets for eight weeks before fixing tags?
Shabana Mahmood
As I said in answer to an earlier question, we are holding Serco to account, and we ensured that the tagging backlog from the changes to SDS40—standard determinate sentences—was cleared as quickly as possible. We have levied financial penalties against that company. We continue to monitor performance and will not hesitate to take further action if we need to. Conservative Members have to wake up to the reality of their own track record in government: they failed to build the prison places that we needed to keep up with the sentences that they kept imposing, which has left us with an almighty mess to clear up. We are getting on with the job.
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?
Shabana Mahmood
I have not yet seen the hon. Gentleman’s proposals, which may be on their way, but I will look at them carefully. He will know that the picture is complex. Even jurisdictions with a catch-all domestic abuse offence face issues ensuring that it keeps up with the type of behaviour that they are trying to stamp out, and that other offences do not fall off, so there are technical issues in how such law works in practice. I would be happy to have further such conversations with him. I know this matter is of great interest to him and to Members across the House.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government are funding a record 110,000 Crown court sitting days, which is 4,000 more than the previous Government funded. To bring down the backlog we must embrace reform, and that is why I have launched an independent review into the efficiency of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. This Government will deliver swifter justice for victims.
Mrs Russell
In 2016, 120,000 cases were disposed of—concluded—in the Crown courts. That figure was never achieved again by the Conservative party, and by 2022 the figure was 17% lower. Conservative Members like to blame covid for everything, but there were problems in the system well before that. There has been a systematic failure to modernise processes in our courts for years, as we on the Justice Committee hear far too often. What more can we do to use technology to make our courts more efficient and, most importantly, ensure faster outcomes for victims?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to note the issue of falling disposals—in layman’s terms, the number of cases that are completed. The rate of disposals has indeed fallen in recent years, which why I have asked Sir Brian Leveson, as part of his review, to consider how we improve the efficiency of our courts, including further technical or AI-related reform that might assist cases to move more quickly through the system. We will need a three-pronged approach: more funding, which I have already delivered; once-in-a-generation reform, which Sir Brian Leveson is looking at; and going further and faster on productivity and efficiency in the system. That is how we will get swifter justice for victims.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The backlog in our criminal justice system means that offenders in my constituency are free to commit crime while waiting for the judicial process. I met Sussex police and residents last week and heard how the backlogs are making the already hard job of the police even harder, and residents’ lives a misery. How does the Secretary of State plan on tackling those backlogs, which are leading to offenders roaming free and more crimes being committed?
Shabana Mahmood
We are already tackling those issues, and as soon I came into office I increased the number of sitting days by 2,500 on what I inherited from the previous Administration. I have increased the sentencing powers of magistrates courts, and increased funding for legal aid. Criminal legal aid underpins the whole system, and for the next financial year we are funding a record 110,000 Crown court sitting days. That, combined with once-in-a-generation reform of the courts to deal with the demand coming into the system, and going further on productivity and efficiency, is how we will deal with the problems that the hon. Member rightly notes.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The Government inherited prisons on the point of collapse and a record and rising backlog in our courts. Eight months into office, the work of restoring justice in this country is well under way. Since the last Justice questions, I have announced record investment in our courts, and next year Crown courts will sit for up to 110,000 days, which is the highest allocation in recorded history. I have also announced vital reforms to the probation service, increasing its focus on medium and high-risk offenders, alongside recruiting 1,300 new probation officers.
I also visited Texas, where a tough and smart approach has reduced reoffending, cut crime to its lowest levels in the US since the 1960s, and brought its prison population under control. There is much that we will learn from that law and order state, particularly how we get offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime. Through our plan for change, the Government are delivering swifter justice, using punishment to cut crime, and making our streets safer.
Mr Campbell
On average, more than 130 people every week across the UK die from drug-related causes. That is more than 6,500 families and homes devasted each year by that tragic loss of life, including more than 200 in Northern Ireland alone. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with each of the devolved Administrations to prioritise prevention and review enforcement against the use of all illegal substances?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. Fixing the problems that he notes requires work by not just the Ministry of Justice, but the devolved Administrations and the Home Office. I will ensure that he can engage with the relevant Ministers on the issues he raises.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
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.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Shabana Mahmood
I notice that in all his references to letters, the shadow Lord Chancellor did not refer to the letter from the previous sentencing Minister, now the shadow Transport Secretary, who welcomed those guidelines. He knows full well that that was a reference to the guidelines around race, ethnicity and cultural background.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is why I set up the Women’s Justice Board specifically to make recommendations—I believe that these are policy choices that are properly made by directly elected politicians. We will make progress on the situation of women in our prisons, particularly those who are mothers, because we know that the harm passes down generations, and we are determined to stop it.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that this Government have made faster progress than the previous Government on the deportation of foreign national offenders from our prisons, with numbers that are over 20% higher than the same time last year, and we will keep moving forward.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s attempts to prevent the Sentencing Council from changing the sentencing process, which would lead to a two-tier justice system. If, however, the council will not budge—as appears to be the case—a two-tier justice system will arrive in just 21 days, contradicting the key principle of the legal system that everyone should be equal before the law without discrimination. Will the Secretary of State introduce legislation immediately to ensure that that two-tier justice system does not come about?
Shabana Mahmood
I have already set out exactly what I am going to do. I have written to the Sentencing Council, using the powers that I have to do so, and I will be meeting it later this week. I have made it very clear that I will consider its role and powers, and if I need to legislate, I will not hesitate to do so.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When someone enters this country illegally from another country to which we are not allowed to deport them, and when they have previously expressed support for terrorism and terrorist organisations, but not in this jurisdiction, is the Secretary of State content that the Government have enough powers to protect the community from such a person walking free in our society?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I am discussing with the Home Secretary the full range of powers that we need to have at our disposal, and she has already made it clear that we will not hesitate to act further if we need to. However, it is important that we are able to deport offenders who pose a risk to our country.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last week, at a Justice Committee hearing, it was confirmed that an effective probation service is essential to the rehabilitation of offenders and to prevent reoffending. However, over the years the service has been under immense strain owing to increased demand. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that probation officers have manageable caseloads, and that support is provided for their mental health and wellbeing to avoid high levels of stress and burnout, and also to help with the recruitment and retention of staff?
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
On Radio 4’s “Today” programme last week, Matthew Ryder KC, who sits as a judge, praised the extreme helpfulness of pre-sentencing reports for passing effective sentences. Will the Secretary of State do as he asks and endorse the importance, value and independence of the Sentencing Council?
Shabana Mahmood
We all agree across the House, I hope, that pre-sentencing reports play a vital role in ensuring that whoever is passing a sentence has all the relevant facts at their disposal. I do not believe that access to such reports, or whether a sentencer asks for them, should be dictated by race or ethnic background. They should be made available, and I would like to see more use of pre-sentencing reports across the board for every type of offender.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Manchester Metropolitan University estimates that over 1,000 people are convicted under joint enterprise each year, costing the taxpayer £1.2 billion. Does the Minister agree that we need to amend the law on joint enterprise to free up spaces in our prisons?
Shabana Mahmood
The law on joint enterprise has already developed somewhat since the previous Court of Appeal decision. I know that the Director of Public Prosecutions is keeping under review how prosecuting decisions are made. At this point we have no plans to go further, but I am happy to ensure that my hon. Friend can meet the relevant Minister.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Across the United Kingdom, inquests are defined as being for the purpose of finding out who the deceased was, and how, when and where they died; they are not trials and they are not about assigning blame, even when they are extended into article 2 investigations. Yet in Northern Ireland we have had findings of blame in respect of SAS soldiers killing active terrorists. Does the Minister agree that the Crime and Policing Bill affords an opportunity, through suitable amendment, to bring uniformity to the operation of inquests across the United Kingdom?
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
What I am shocked about is that we can see a disparity in the overall cohort sentencing outcomes. Everybody accepts that we are not quite sure why it is happening, and there has not been sufficient curiosity over the last few years to work out why that is the case. My view is that if we can see a problem or think we have one, we need to get to the bottom of what is actually going on before we start coming up with broad policy solutions to fix that problem. I also think that some of these broad policy decisions are better made by Ministers, because we are directly elected individuals who will pay the price for the consequences of our choices. That is a conversation that I will pick up with the Sentencing Council when we meet later this week.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
In 2020, Lorraine Cox was brutally murdered in Exeter. Her murderer dismembered her body, and as a result her family have never been able to fully lay Lorraine to rest. Her father, Tony Cox, has been campaigning for the implementation of Helen’s law 2, meaning that desecrating or concealing a body would become a separate criminal offence. Will the Minister meet me to discuss whether the implementation of Helen’s law 2 is possible?
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I was shocked to read the Sentencing Council’s response to the Secretary of State last night, with its arrogant tone. As she has said, this Parliament is sovereign, and the fact is that we have given too much power away to these unelected bodies in recent years. Can I reassure her of my support, and can she reassure me that she will not rest until we retain equality before the law?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend. I am very much looking forward to my meeting with the Sentencing Council later this week. As I have made clear, I am looking into the roles and powers of the council, and I will not hesitate to legislate if I need to do so.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The two-tier sentencing guidelines take effect on 1 April. If the Lord Chancellor is sincere about having a justice system that treats everyone equally, will she not support our Bill to block the guidelines?
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?
Shabana Mahmood
We have already pressed ahead with further measures on X-ray and baggage scanners, and we are taking action to deal with the problem of drones. My hon. Friend will be aware that, for security considerations, I am not going to give the detail of some of those mitigations and of our proposals for tackling drones, because they are used by those involved in serious organised crime. However, I can assure him that I, Ministers and all officials, including those working across the prison estate, are seized of this matter, and we are determined to crack down on drones bringing drugs into our prisons.
Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
As I informed the House earlier today, each financial year the Government and the judiciary seek to agree a number of sitting days, within an overall budget for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), through what is known as the concordat process.
I publicly committed to concluding the concordat earlier than in previous years and to introduce greater transparency. We have now concluded this process, several months ahead of last year’s process. I am also—for the first time—publishing the total sitting day allocations by jurisdiction. Taken together, this will mean greater certainty for the courts and tribunals to allow them to plan ahead and greater clarity for the public.
In terms of the settlement itself, I am pleased to confirm that for 2025-26, the Ministry of Justice will provide a total budget of £2,538 million (£2,332 million fiscal resource funding and £206 million capital funding).
This Government inherited a record and rising backlog in the Crown court. The backlog now stands at 73,000 cases, twice the figure of five years ago. The human cost of these delays is considerable—victims are waiting years for justice, and attrition in rape cases has more than doubled in the last five years.
This settlement means that the Crown court will be funded to sit up to 110,000 sitting days in this financial year. The increase will mean more trials will be heard in the coming year, helping victims see justice faster than they otherwise would have done.
It is also both the highest sitting day allocation made since HMCTS was created and the biggest fiscal resource settlement ever made for the Crown court. It is, in all respects, unprecedented and reflects how much importance I place on tackling the backlog.
Even outside the Crown court, this settlement constitutes the highest ever level of resource funding for the justice system, with allocations at or close to the maximum judicial capacity in almost every jurisdiction. This budget will also enable the magistrates to sit up to 114,000 days, the family court to sit up to 97,300 days and the civil court to sit up to 74,300 days.
With regard to tribunals, for the employment tribunal we will provide funding to support 33,900 sitting days, and for the social security and child support tribunal, funding will be provided to support 23,000 sitting days.
For the immigration and asylum chamber, we will provide funding to support 14,400 sitting days, and we expect to be able to increase this substantially with additional funding from the Home Office, helping to speed up asylum claims. This builds on the Government’s work to restore order to the immigration system so that every part—border security, case processing, appeals and returns—operates efficiently.
The table below summarises the sitting day allocations:
Jurisdiction | Sitting Day Allocation |
|---|---|
Crown | 110,000 |
Magistrates (Crime) | 114,000 |
Civil | 74,300 |
Family | 97,300 |
Court of Protection | 4,900 |
Immigration and Asylum Chamber* | 14,400 |
Social Security and Child Support** | 23,000 |
Employment | 33,900 |
Mental Health | 17,000 |
Other tribunals (Specials) *** | 36,100 |
*This allocation includes Ministry of Justice baseline funding only, and we expect it to sit above this level using funding from other sources. ** This figure includes funding from the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Work and Pensions. *** This figure only represents the sitting days included in the Ministry of Justice’s baseline funding. There are long-standing agreements with other Government Departments whereby they provide funding for capacity in specific tribunals. Additional days will be sat as a result of this additional funding. |
The record level of investment in our justice system for this financial year makes clear this Government’s commitment to improving the productivity and efficiency of our courts and tribunals. This should be our focus moving forward and is why I have appointed Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a wholesale review of our criminal courts.
Sir Brian will consider how the Crown court can be reformed to ensure cases are dealt with proportionately, including the case for moving more cases to the magistrates courts and the case for a new court to sit between the magistrates court and the Crown court.
The review’s recommendations will come later this spring. I expect the review to deliver recommendations that will improve the overall efficiency of the courts and there will be a role for all criminal justice partners to play to ensure that, together, we are delivering swift access to justice for victims.
[HCWS499]
Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 3 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
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.]
Mr Speaker
Order. As I said to Members on the Government Benches, I do need to hear.
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 thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and I pay tribute to him for his bravery in his own personal life, as he has sought justice for the crimes committed against him. His journey reflects that of too many people across our country. I have constituents whose cases are trapped in the Crown court backlog, so I hear regularly of the impact that it is having, and I am alive to the human cost. That is why, at every available opportunity, I have sought to make progress in increasing funding and allocation in-year and have made this record settlement for the next year. Of course, I know that we need to go further and do more. The work of Sir Brian Leveson is crucial because we know that without reform, no matter how much the Crown court sits, that backlog will still rise. I hope that when that review reports, I can count on support for reform from across the House. I hope that all those who want to see the Crown court backlog come down will want that reform. We have ringfenced funding for victims of rape and serious sexual offences, as well as domestic abuse. We will shortly set out our victims Bill, which will include further measures to strengthen the victims code.
The hon. Gentleman asked about targets and timelines—forgive me, the shadow Justice Secretary also raised that point. I have committed to once-in-a-generation reform of our Crown courts. Once Sir Brian Leveson’s review has reported and the Government have made decisions on the recommendations that they will take forward and have legislation ready, we will be able to set out the impact of future legislation to bring down that Crown court backlog.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I am absolutely flabbergasted by some of the things that the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) said today. I assure him that this backlog has not materialised just over the last eight months. I can say that as a Crown prosecutor who worked throughout the 14 years of the last Government and saw the waiting lists go up and up, despite the best efforts of the hard-working staff throughout the criminal justice service. Will the Lord Chancellor confirm that the measures that she has announced will finally allow victims, including those in my constituency, to have some confidence that there is finally a Government who will tackle this issue?
Shabana Mahmood
“Flabbergasted” is one way of describing it, and it is probably the only one that you will find to be in order, Mr Speaker, so I shall refrain from using other language. My hon. Friend is a former prosecutor, so she knows whereof she speaks, and I pay tribute to her for the work that she did in her former profession. The message should go out loud and clear to her constituents, and to people up and down the country, that this Government are acting to deal with the Crown courts backlog. We have a plan. We have increased funding, and we are considering the reform that is needed, and has been ducked by too many others, to get the system sorted out once and for all.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I refer the House to my registered voluntary interests.
I welcome the statement. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that one way of getting cash into the criminal justice system is to reduce the cost of the civil system? May I urge her to continue to consider alternative methods of dispute resolution, particularly mediation within the civil system?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. All the mechanisms at our disposal to reduce the cost of people going to court should be on the table, and we have already been acting to try to amplify the availability of mediation and other ways in which issues can be resolved. Going to court is always very expensive, sometimes for the individuals involved and often for the taxpayer, and it is important that we keep bearing down on those costs.
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.
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?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. In order to deal with all the problems in the criminal justice system relating to policing, prosecutors and the situation in the Crown courts, we need a system-wide approach. That means taking action on the crimes that affect neighbourhoods up and down the country, which is why the Home Secretary’s recent Crime and Policing Bill is such a landmark piece of legislation. We must all play our part, because the criminal justice system has been left in a truly terrible state by the last Administration, and this Government are getting on with the job of sorting it out.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
This announcement is small beer, is it not? The extra £92 million offered for criminal legal aid is exceeded twentyfold by the subsidies given to offshore wind, which amounted to £1.9 billion last year alone. Why do the Government have such perverse priorities, and when will they put the criminal justice system above the interests of offshore wind operators?
Shabana Mahmood
We are talking about the highest ever funded allocation in the Crown courts, and 110,000 sitting days, which is a record. The hon. Gentleman says that is small beer; I wonder whether he had been imbibing something before getting to his feet.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s announcement of additional sitting days. The Justice Committee has been looking into the court backlog issue, and we have also been hearing about the ongoing need for the digitisation of court and wider criminal justice processes. We need to replace the creaking paper-based system, which is contributing to the delays. Will the Lord Chancellor continue to support drives for successful digitisation of those processes, and will she also join me in congratulating the Conservative party on marking International Women’s Day in such style?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to make that point about digitisation and efficiency. Following the first phase of the spending review, I have funded ongoing work to improve digitisation of all our court processes, because, as my hon. Friend has said, we need to move away from our current paper-based and paper-heavy systems. Part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s work, which will produce a report in the autumn, will involve looking at cross-system efficiency as well. My hon. Friend is right about the need to increase productivity and efficiency, because that will be the final part of the puzzle if we are to sort out the backlog.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I welcome the announcement of the extra sitting days, and also the announcements about reform. I hope that the ancient right to trial by jury will remain.
Somerset Crown court in Taunton was closed in 2023, after work began in 2022 because items were falling on people’s heads from the ceiling. We have just been told that it will be closed for another year, during which victims of crime will have to travel tens of miles further. Some court users are even sleeping under a bush because they cannot travel back and forth. We need to get our Crown court open again, so will the Lord Chancellor please consider expediting these works?
Shabana Mahmood
I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman has a meeting with the courts Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), to discuss the situation in Taunton.
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.
Gareth Snell
It is getting worse. If the right hon. Gentleman spent more time providing leadership, rather than auditioning for it, he would own up to his failures in the House, and admit that the Conservatives left the country in a mess.
Courts are not run just by judges; there are many support staff in courts who make the system work. What cross-governmental conversations has the Lord Chancellor had about ensuring that those staff are available, so that as many courts as possible are operational? [Interruption.]
Shabana Mahmood
The shadow Lord Chancellor is having such fun with his audition for leadership that it would be a shame to deprive him of it. My hon. Friend has said that Conservative Members do not understand the mess that they have left behind, but I wonder whether they simply do not want to understand it. Members of a party that was willing to reckon with the mistakes it made in office would at least have started with some humility—and, perhaps, an apology for the mess they left behind.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need for a whole-system approach. One reason why the backlog is scheduled to become worse, no matter how many Crown court sitting days are provided, is the influx of cases into the system, which is actually a good thing, because it means that the police are doing their job and prosecutions are being brought, but even at maximum capacity, demand is far outstripping the disposal of cases. The case mix is more complex, and that requires a system-wide response, which the Government are providing.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
When does the Lord Chancellor expect the additional places to start bearing down on the remand population?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is right: the remand population is growing, and currently stands at 17,000. That has a big impact on prison capacity, which is why I increased magistrates court sentencing powers a few months ago, why I have increased the number of Crown court sitting days, and why we have a record allocation next year. The demand coming into the system is one of the reasons why bearing down on remand has been particularly challenging, but we continue to work on it with the judiciary; listings are, of course, a matter for the independent judiciary.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I expected a little more humility from Conservative Members, who left a legacy of chaos in our prisons and a huge court backlog. What we are dealing with, fundamentally, is the backlog that they left behind. My right hon. Friend has set out a process for dealing with this growing backlog, but ultimately the blame lies at the door of the Conservative party, which left the place in chaos. Should we not be hearing an apology from Conservative Members?
Shabana Mahmood
Sorry does seem to be the hardest word for Opposition Members, and I have long since stopped waiting for that apology. All I would observe—I say this with experience of 14 years of opposition under my belt—is that parties that do not acknowledge their mistakes and sort themselves out rarely get elected.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
In welcoming the statement, I reserve judgment on whether we need an additional court—an intermediate court—particularly if it will be resourced from the existing magistrates and Crown court system. Following on from the question from the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), we have a backlog in England and Northern Ireland, and people are on remand for too long. Increasingly, people are being released following a conviction with time served, and there is no opportunity whatsoever for rehabilitation. Will the opportunity to rehabilitate offenders while they are on remand form part of the Brian Leveson review?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise issues relating to remand. We do have a problem with the remand population, which is why I have made the changes that I have highlighted, and why both reviews—the one being conducted by Sir Brian Leveson, which looks at once-in-a-generation court reform, and the one by David Gauke and the independent panel, which looks at sentencing—are so crucial. It is essential that we not only bear down on the Crown court backlog, but get our prison capacity back into balance and have a sustainable prison system in this country.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Criminal justice was an easy target for Tory austerity cuts, which always impact the people with the smallest voice. Rape victims in Truro and Falmouth have told me that they have waited years for their cases to be heard and had hearings cancelled at the last minute, so I very much welcome this investment. Could I have more detail about the case for a new court that would sit between magistrates court and Crown court, and how that might work?
Shabana Mahmood
On the possibility of a court that sits between the magistrates and Crown courts, Sir Brian is considering that. My hon. Friend will understand why I want to wait until he has made his recommendations, but that is one of a range of ways in which we could change policy in order to bear down on the Crown courts backlog in the long term. We will consider his recommendations and bring forward legislation for those that we want to take forward in the spring.
I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says about the terrible experience of victims who have their cases cancelled on the day, and about the impact on rape victims in particular. We have already fulfilled our manifesto commitment to having independent legal advisers for victims of rape, so that their rights in law are always protected.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor has been in office for eight months today. Although her announcement of additional sitting days is welcome, it is regrettable that she did not make this statement seven months ago. There is only so long that she can blame the last Government for the Crown court backlog. We all know that the pandemic was largely responsible for the substantial increase. We know that the Lady Chief Justice has offered the Lord Chancellor a further 2,500 sitting days. Why is she not taking advantage of that? There are currently too many people on remand for too long, and it is clear that even the announcement that she made today will not lead to a reduction in the backlog, so we need structural change. Will the Lord Chancellor give serious consideration to the creation of an intermediate court, so that we can reduce the backlog more quickly?
Shabana Mahmood
I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the concordat process, which I have concluded with today’s announcement, has concluded earlier than the one that I inherited from his party would have done, so we have been cracking on. I have been getting on with the job: I increased sitting days immediately, I have taken every opportunity to increase them further, and I have now made a record allocation.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Lady Chief Justice has offered more sitting days, but he will know that she is not able to offer sitting days. She is able to comment on maximum judicial capacity, which she has done, as is appropriate. In order to make sure that sitting days are possible in the Crown courts, I have to consider wider system capacity issues, including the availability of legal aid, prosecutors and defence barristers. We have 110,000 Crown court sitting days—an unprecedented, record number—and I can say that there is capacity in the system overall, not just judicial capacity, for those days.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee published a report that says that rape and serious sexual offences are taking many years to come to trial. When I was a shadow Justice Minister, I asked the previous Government day in, day out from the Dispatch Box about what they were doing to reduce the court delays. For 14 years, they did nothing. In eight months, this Lord Chancellor has provided 110,000 court sitting days. Does she agree that the expression that comes to mind is “the pot calling the kettle black”?
Shabana Mahmood
I can tell my hon. Friend that many expressions have come to mind as I have been listening to the drivel from some Conservative Members—not all of which would not fall foul of “Erskine May”, so I will keep my counsel on that.
My hon. Friend refers to the Public Accounts Committee report, and I gently observe that I was a long-term member of that Committee. I have the highest regard for the Public Accounts Committee, but I reject its criticism, because this Government clearly have a plan—not just on funding and resources for the Crown court, but on the reform that will ultimately be needed to get the system into balance.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Despite this announcement, the backlog will increase. When cases do go to court, it is important that offenders serve the sentence they are given. Following the Lord Chancellor’s trip to Texas, where some prisoners serve as little as 25% of their sentence, will she rule out adopting such a soft sentencing policy?
Shabana Mahmood
The Texans had similar problems to those we face today, but they had theirs 20 years or so ago. Their system of good behaviour credits incentivises offenders to engage in rehabilitation activity and to get help for their drug addictions, alcohol problems, mental health issues and so on. If offenders engage with that system and get their good behaviour credits, they can earn their way to an earlier parole hearing. It is the definition of a tough system, because it says to offenders, “You have to do something good in order to earn the possibility of an earlier release.” It is a system that is well worth learning from, because the reoffending rates are very low compared with ours. One of the prisons I visited in Texas has a reoffending rate of 17%. I dream of that number for us in this country, because every time we bear down on reoffending, that is cutting crime. It is a strategy for making sure that we have fewer victims in the future. I hope that if whatever proposals we bring forward lead to a reduction in reoffending, the hon. Gentleman will back those proposals.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
In June 2024, in the dying days of the last Conservative Government and after 14 years of their rule, there emerged a shocking statistic: 60% of rape victims were withdrawing from the court process, mainly because of court delays. Is that not a damning indictment of all Governments who have taken power in this country? What is the Lord Chancellor doing to help reduce the number of rape victims taking that awful decision?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the figure that he notes is a damning indictment of the last Conservative Government. The announcement we have made today will bear down on the courts backlog, and it will mean that some rape victims get their cases heard as cases move through the system more swiftly. We have already implemented our manifesto commitment on independent legal advisers, because we know that, in addition to delays, one of the things that causes many rape victims to drop out is inappropriate requests for personal information that go beyond what the law requires. Those independent legal advisers will ensure that rape victims’ rights in law are respected and that the process does not feel like it is retraumatising women who are already going through so much, and who are waiting for their day in court to have justice done.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Harrow Crown court has eight court rooms and could help alleviate the capacity problems. Sadly, it has been closed since 2023 as a result of finding reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in the roof. It was supposed to open last year. That was then moved to April this year, and it is now being said that the court will not open for a further year. Given the improved funding, could the Justice Secretary look at whether we can speed up the process of bringing that court back into action, and help the people who now have to go to Willesden, Amersham, Southwark and elsewhere in London for their cases to be heard, so that they can get justice at a local level?
Shabana Mahmood
I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration and that of his constituents. I understand that the problems at Harrow relate to RAAC, and that the delays are due to contractor issues. I will make sure that we write to him with a full plan of what we anticipate will happen to get the Crown court back into use. I hope he will recognise the record investment in Crown court maintenance, which is also being announced today. It is up by £28.5 million, which will go some way to alleviating some of the maintenance issues.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Under the last Conservative Government, we saw a reduction in the numbers of Crown court judges in Shropshire and Telford; courtrooms remained empty for years while victims waited for years for their trials to take place. With Labour, we now have an extra Crown court judge, a remand court back in the county and extra Crown court sitting times.
I have heard from magistrates and Crown court judges in my area that defendants are opting for a Crown court trial because they know it will take years to conclude. Can we make sure that that does not happen in future? We should absolutely tackle the backlog, but can the Lord Chancellor give an assurance that we, unlike the last Government, will not tell police officers to stop arresting people and putting them before the courts?
Shabana Mahmood
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that reassurance. This Government will deliver 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers, because we are absolutely clear that we need neighbourhood policing and bobbies back on the beat in this country. He is right to note that the size of the backlog and the structural problem with the backlog mean that many defendants are gaming the system. They know that they can take their chance, wait it out and hope that the victim gives up or that, for some other reason, the case simply never gets to court. That is why, in addition to the record funding, we have to consider once-in-a-generation reform of our Crown courts.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Lord Chancellor accept that part of the reason for the loss of public confidence lies with the sort of cases that are clogging up tribunal and court time? As explained by Jawad Iqbal in his column in The Times today, these involve dubious decisions about not being able to deport convicted criminals, such as an Iraqi cocaine dealer who cannot be sent back to his homeland because he is considered to be “too westernised”. Quite apart from the perversity of the result, is it not an insult to the genuine victims of crimes who are held up in getting the judgments that they deserve?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Member will know that it would be inappropriate for the Lord Chancellor to comment on individual judgments. On some of the decisions in the immigration chamber, which have been the subject of some public discussion, he will know that the Prime Minister has been very clear that where a policy or a legal change is required, it is for the Government to bring forward those changes and ultimately for the House to vote on them. In that respect, the Home Secretary is considering further changes to the law. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned deportations, and let me remind him that, under this Government, deportations of foreign national offenders from our prisons are up by 23%.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, like Chorley’s magistrates court, Harlow’s sadly closed in 2019. I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement, but does she agree that we need radical reforms to start driving down the Crown court backlog, including the use of magistrates courts—as I say, sadly, we cannot use Harlow’s at the moment—so that we can get through cases more quickly and give victims the justice they require?
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.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I speak as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which worked on the report about how justice delayed is justice denied, and I recommend that Members peruse it. What specific conversations has the Lord Chancellor had with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about speeding up the planning process so that we can get more courtrooms operating?
Shabana Mahmood
We are speeding up the planning process. The courts Minister is in regular conversation with the planning Minister. The issue of Crown court capacity is less one of planning and more about funding enough days so that maximum use can be made of every available courtroom, while recognising that there has to be some level of give in the system of courtroom usage to enable it to be run efficiently. Demand ebbs and flows at every court across the whole country, so some spare capacity needs to be maintained, and it was that spare capacity that enabled such a swift response to the summer riots. I hope the hon. Member will reflect on the fact that some spare capacity will always be required, but as I say, those conversations are happening regularly between the courts Minister and the planning Minister.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement and for the record funding. It is just a shame that the shadow Justice Secretary, bereft of any policy ideas, has basically turned up today to tackle the man—or in this case the woman—rather than play the ball. A little humility, contrition and a wholesome apology would not go amiss. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that, in allowing the backlog to spiral out of control, the previous Government failed countless victims? Will she confirm that today’s announcement means victims can have more confidence in the justice system under Labour?
Shabana Mahmood
I am very happy to fight the shadow Lord Chancellor—woman to man—any time he likes. Conservative Members should own up to the failure of the previous Administration and apologise—if they want a hearing from anybody in politics or, indeed, from the people in the country ever again. This Government have shown that we are determined to clean up the mess we inherited, and victims across the country can take confidence from the fact that we have made record funding available and we are considering the structural reform required to sort out the system.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
When I speak to the police in Tunbridge Wells, they often comment that a large court backlog has a real effect on levels of crime. There are more criminals in circulation and, frankly, the system is seen as a bit of a soft touch if cases are never brought to court. May I simply ask the Justice Secretary what is the backlog in Kent and when will it be cleared? If she does not have the figures to hand, would she write to me with them?
Shabana Mahmood
I would be happy to write to the hon. Member with the specific figures for Kent. However, he will know that the criminal justice system as a whole is under tremendous pressure and extreme stress because of the backlog and the prisons capacity crisis, all of which is the legacy of the previous Government that we are now fixing.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is no surprise to me that I am the third MP from Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent to take part today, because in Staffordshire we now have 1,350 open cases waiting to be heard by Crown courts. That figure more than doubled over the last five years of Conservative mismanagement, and it is the highest number since records began.
I spoke to the police commander in Lichfield on Monday, and one of his major concerns is that delays in justice being seen to be done in courts is making harder his job of building the relationships he needs with our community. The worst cases he has raised with me include serious sexual assault and rape cases that have been delayed for almost five years. What steps will the Secretary of State be taking to make sure that these additional extra sitting days are targeted at the most serious offenders?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. It is my job as Lord Chancellor to make sure that the overall settlement for Crown court sitting days is sufficiently big to help drive down the Crown court backlog, which is why I have made the record allocation today. The listing of individual cases is of course a matter for the independent judiciary, and it would be improper and inappropriate for me to comment on listings decisions. However, taken as a whole—with both the investment we are making and the reform we are considering once Sir Brian Leveson’s review has reported—I think he and his constituents can be confident that this Government are going to sort out the system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much thank the Lord Chancellor for increasing the number of sitting days to attempt to tackle the extremely large delays in court cases that we face in the United Kingdom, which is the sad reality for those seeking justice. As she will know, in Northern Ireland there are currently 18,907 pending cases in magistrates courts, which is an absolutely huge backlog. Given the drastic increase in cases involving violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland, may I gently ask the Lord Chancellor what discussions she has had with the policing and justice Minister to help address the court cases issue and reduce delays in the Province?
Shabana Mahmood
It is always a pleasure to respond to the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his remarks welcoming today’s announcement. A Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be meeting devolved Justice Ministers very soon and we will update the hon. Gentleman on the work we are doing with Ministers in Northern Ireland.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies), my constituency neighbour in Shropshire, in welcoming today’s much-needed funding announcement, in particular the structural reforms to increase capacity. In Shrewsbury we currently have no working magistrates court, despite being the county town for 350,000 residents. Will the reforms also enable and support the pragmatic reallocation of courtrooms between Crown and magistrate use in areas such as Shropshire, so that spare capacity can be unlocked specifically in towns, such as Shrewsbury, that are better served by public transport for all our rural population?
Shabana Mahmood
The principle of local justice is incredibly important to this Government and we will endeavour to ensure that it is at the heart of all our proposals and changes. We have also increased recruitment to the magistracy.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement. Recruitment and retention challenges have limited access to justice in recent years. Will the Lord Chancellor outline what steps she is taking to ensure that we have enough barristers and solicitors so that courts can get through as many cases as possible?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the availability of lawyers. That is why the Government have already increased criminal legal aid by up to £92 million and increased the number of prosecutors. We will be bringing forward more changes in the upcoming victims Bill to increase the availability of certain types of lawyers to do prosecution work.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have recently heard details about the shocking state of disrepair in our courts in recent years. The most recent report identified the Nightingale courts set up under the previous Government as a way to deal with the covid backlog. Many years on, some Nightingale courts still exist and in some cases are costing six times more than a normal court. Can she reassure us that they will continue to close and that we can direct that money to the courts that need repairs?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are keeping the situation in relation to Nightingale courts under review. Where they are making a contribution that is assisting with caseflow through the system, there is a case for keeping them, but it is under review and the courts Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), will be happy to write to her with further details.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I have been in this House for only a few months, but I must admit that I am absolutely staggered by the chutzpah of Conservative Members—most have left, but when they were here—in their attitude to this issue. In a competitive field, the state of our criminal courts and our criminal justice system perhaps wins the award for the most acute crisis as a result of the legacy of the previous Government. I really welcome today’s statement, in particular the emphasis not just on capacity but on productivity. May I just press the Government on whether that approach will also be taken in our family courts? I welcome the investment in infrastructure and capital spend in family courts, but we also need to look at how we can improve productivity.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point on productivity. That is why the second phase of Sir Brian Leveson’s work is so crucial. He will know that we have expanded our pathfinder pilot, which is making a really important contribution to the flow of cases through the family court, and we are keeping it under review.
Probation Service: Prioritisation
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The Probation Service is an essential part of our criminal justice system. Keeping our streets safe and cutting crime depends upon the vital work of probation officers and staff. Today, it supervises just over a quarter of a million offenders, from those on community sentences to those released from custody. That is not all. The Probation Service provides sentencing advice to judges and magistrates every day in our courts, oversees more than 4 million hours of community payback each year, monitors 9,000 offenders on tags at any given moment, provides a vital link to thousands of victims, through the victims contact and the victims notification schemes and works in close partnership with policing and the voluntary sector to keep our communities safe.
The pressure facing our Probation Service is considerable and I am grateful for everyone who works tirelessly across the system. It is only right to acknowledge the incredibly hard, and often hidden, work that probation officers do across England and Wales. These dedicated staff have been the single constant throughout the last decade of change. We need to ensure that the Probation Service can deliver the vital work that needs to be done to keep the public safe and reduce reoffending. However, the Probation Service this Government inherited was burdened with a workload that was, quite simply, impossible. We need to be honest and open about the state that the Probation Service was left in by the previous Government. The transforming rehabilitation strategy failed. The rhetoric was of a revolution in how we manage offenders, but the reality was far different. Workloads increased, as new offenders were brought under supervision for the first time, and scarce resources were stretched further than ever. We know that morale plummeted, and worrying numbers of staff voted with their feet, leaving the service altogether, leading the then inspector to declare a “national shortage” of probation professionals.
The new structures failed. The privately owned community rehabilitation companies set up to manage medium and low-risk offenders underperformed, and between 2017 and 2018, just five of 37 CRC audits carried out by HMPPS demonstrated that expected standards were being met. In 2019, eight out of the 10 CRCs inspected that year received the lowest possible rating—“inadequate”—for supervising offenders. The chief inspector of probation called them “irredeemably flawed”. The previous Administration reunified the Probation Service but wasted a decade and millions of pounds.
When we took office, we discovered that orders handed out by courts were not taking place. In the three years to March 2024, around 13,000 accredited programmes, a type of rehabilitative course, did not happen. This was not because an offender had failed to do what was expected of them, but instead because the Probation Service had been unable to deliver these courses in the required timeframe.
For that reason, I have asked the Probation Service to put in place a process of prioritisation. Accredited programmes handed down by the courts to those who are considered to have the higher risk of reoffending will be prioritised. This is not a decision I take lightly. But it is a decision to confront the reality of the challenges facing the Probation Service. Those who will not complete an accredited course will remain under the supervision of a probation officer. And all the requirements placed upon them will remain in place. Any breach of a community sentence could see them hauled back into court, and any breach of a licence condition could see them back behind bars.
In July, I committed to bringing on 1,000 trainee probation officers by March of this year—a commitment that we are making progress towards. Next financial year, we will onboard at least another 1,300. New probation officers are the lifeblood of the service, and they will guarantee its future. And I want to ensure that we are taking advantage of the latest technology, like AI. We must give probation staff access to modern digital services, drawing in data from across the justice system. Work is already ongoing that is improving the flow of information that is so critical to an accurate assessment of an offender’s risk, and new tools are beginning to strip away the administrative burden that gets between a probation officer and an offender.
However, given the challenges faced by the Probation Service, new staff and better processes are not sufficient on their own. Faced by a caseload of just over a quarter of a million we need to think about how we use the Probation Service most effectively. If the service is to fulfil its historic purpose—protecting the public by reducing reoffending—we need to look hard at what works, and where officers time is best spent. When it comes to the value of a probation officer’s time the evidence is clear that we must shift more of probation officers’ time towards the higher-risk offenders, spending more time on protecting the public, working with partners, and working with the offender to rehabilitate them and motivate them to change.
This Government will focus the Probation Service on the interventions that have the greatest impact. For lower-risk offenders, we will task probation officers with a swifter intervention. They will spend more time with an offender immediately after their sentencing or release from prison to assess the root causes of an offender’s crime. Then they will refer them to the services that will address that behaviour, which could be education, training, drug treatment or accommodation. Once they are following that direction, as long as the offender stays on the straight and narrow, we must then focus probation officer’s time more effectively. This means more time spent with the offenders who pose the higher risk of harm or reoffending and more time with offenders whose prolific offending causes so much social and economic damage to local communities.
[HCWS446]
Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The last Government left us with a record and rising backlog. Cases are taking years to be heard, and the number of victims dropping out at police stage has nearly doubled. We have taken steps to deliver swifter justice by increasing sitting days to a 10-year high and extending magistrates courts’ sentencing powers, but we must go further. That is why I have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review of the courts, asking him to propose once-in-a-generation reform.
Mr Mohindra
We all want justice to be served as quickly as possible, and many of my constituents have contacted me recently with concerns about law and order. Given the various media reports about unused capacity in courts up and down the country, what is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to ensure that every aspect of the justice system is working efficiently and at full capacity?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I share his concerns and those of his constituents—indeed, I see many such cases in my own constituency advice surgeries. We are working at pace to ensure that every bit of the criminal justice system is working at its maximum efficient capacity. That includes everything from police stage right through to sentencing in the courts. I am sure that he will be aware of the very strained situation we inherited. It will take some time for those changes to take effect, but we are driving forward system efficiency, and Sir Brian Leveson’s review will give us a policy package with which to reform the system for the benefit of all victims.
Bradley Thomas
Constituents across Bromsgrove and the villages are sick and tired of violent criminality and lawlessness creeping over the border from Birmingham into our constituency. In the past year, Romsley Co-op and Wythall post office at Drakes Cross—both of which are on the northern fringe of my constituency—have been raided, and it is hard to believe that proximity to Birmingham is not a factor in that. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that prosecutions are pursued and custodial sentences are given in the first instance, to crack down on crime and make our area safe again?
Shabana Mahmood
Through our landmark review of sentencing, this Government are ensuring that sentencing is fit for purpose. That will ultimately put us in a position where we can crack down on reoffending, thereby cutting crime and the number of victims. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is proposing carving out his part of the world from any other part of the country, but his argument about boundaries can apply to any part of the UK. That is why we need a functioning justice system for the whole of England and Wales, and that is what this Government are going to deliver.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The Justice Secretary has said that she agrees with the old legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. We currently have a record backlog of 73,000 in the Crown courts; rape cases are not being prosecuted for three or four years; and, in particular, on any one day 25% of cases do not take place, for a variety of reasons. What is the Justice Secretary doing to speed up the whole system?
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
What an absolutely outrageous set of remarks! The right hon. Member completely forgets that, only six months ago, his Government were in charge. The Government of which he was part all but ran our justice system into the ground. I do not recall seeing him standing up and speaking about delays for rape victims, or indeed any other kind of victim, when he was on this side of the House. I am glad he has now realised that the system ought to try to put victims first. His critique would have more force were it not for the fact that this Government, having come to office only six months ago, have increased Crown court sitting capacity by 2,500 days.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that our thoughts today are with the victims of these horrific crimes and their families. Last week we saw a measure of justice done, but over a number of years there was widespread state failure that meant that this attacker was not stopped. It is right that there will be an inquiry. The Ministry of Justice will play its full part, and I will ensure that any lessons for us are learned.
Liz Twist
When the tragedy of Southport happened, crucial details about the case could not be revealed to ensure that the trial did not collapse and the vile perpetrator did not walk away as a free man. However, some on social media were playing by different rules. Does the Secretary of State think that our contempt rules are fit for the modern world?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government would not say anything that would risk collapsing this trial. The media followed the law, and so did everyone in this House, but the same was not true online. As the Prime Minister has said, this challenge clearly must be addressed. The Law Commission is reviewing contempt laws. We will look closely at that work and consider these issues in the round.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
But the information released shortly before the trial did not collapse the case. Had it been released in August, it might have had a dampening effect on those unhelpful voices on social media, might it not?
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
There will always be differing views among lawyers about what can and cannot be said. It is right that the Government took their own position and that we did nothing that could risk collapsing the trial. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that the online world poses a significant challenge to our contempt laws. That is why that is already being looked at. As there is a piece of work already under way, I do not want to pre-empt where that could land. The Law Commission has a good track record of considering major law changes. Because of the inquiry and the fast-moving nature of these things, I will keep this area under close review myself.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
By failing to attend their sentencing hearings, criminals add insult to injury and deny victims and their families a vital part of seeing justice done. Iusb will be legislating to give judges the power to order attendance at sentencing hearings, and I will make it clear in the law that reasonable force can be used to make sure that happens. The Prime Minister and I met Cheryl Korbel last week to discuss these proposals, and we will ensure that the families of other victims are involved before the Bill is put before the House.
Anneliese Midgley
I thank the Secretary of State for that positive response, and I thank her and the Prime Minister for meeting me and my constituent Cheryl Korbel, the mother of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, the nine-year-old who was tragically murdered in 2022. Cheryl is pleased that the Government have committed to implementing Olivia’s law without delay. Can the Minister ensure that Cheryl is involved in the development of this law, placing victims and their families at the heart of the justice system?
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she is doing on behalf of her constituents. I was pleased to be able to discuss these matters with her. She is absolutely right, and it is crucial that we make progress in this area. We have committed to introducing that legislation before the summer, and I will, as I promised last week, consult Olivia’s family and the families of other victims for whom non-attendance at sentencing hearings has caused problems.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
There are a small number of people who, through due process, appear in court and are convicted, but who decline to come up to the court room for sentencing. The Secretary of State has indicated her intention to move on this. Does she agree that the Government need to show a very robust approach, so that people who show disdain and contempt for the rule of law are shown that there is no room for manoeuvre and that they must and will appear in court?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member is right. It is already expected that defendants will attend sentencing hearings, but we know that some take the opportunity not to face the families of their victims, which causes huge trauma to some of the families. We will clarify and put on a statutory footing the expectation of attendance at sentencing hearings, along with sanctions for dealing with offenders who still, despite being compelled to attend court—even through the use of reasonable force—seek to disrupt hearings.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The Government have inherited a situation where 10% of offenders account for 50% of all offences. We have also inherited an epidemic of shoplifting, the kind of antisocial crime that blights communities. I have commissioned David Gauke to review how sentences could be reformed to address prolific offending, reduce reoffending, cut crime and ultimately make our streets safer.
Mr Holden
I believe in second chances, and perhaps even more chances in some cases, but the excellent Policy Exchange report, “The ‘Wicked and the Redeemable’: A Long-Term Plan to Fix a Criminal Justice System in Crisis” found that hyper-prolific offenders—those with more than 45 previous convictions—are sent to prison on fewer than half of the occasions on which they are convicted of a subsequent indictable or either-way offence. Given that those people commit such high numbers of crimes, which usually affect our least affluent constituents, what consideration have the Government given to the report’s recommendations, particularly on introducing a mandatory two-year sentence for hyper-prolific offenders who are convicted of a subsequent indictable or either-way offence?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Member raises an important point about an issue that blights communities across the country. I agree that we need a specific strategy for dealing with prolific offenders. Of course, different organisations use different definitions of what counts as a prolific offender or hyper-prolific offender, and that is why I have asked David Gauke to look specifically at this cohort of offenders in the independent sentencing review. The revolving door of prison and other types of sentences for them is clearly not having an impact. We must think about the interventions that will make the biggest difference to the largest number of those offenders, so that we can cut crime and have fewer victims.
Katie Lam
The Lord Chancellor rightly says that less than 10% of criminals account for nearly half of crime. I understand that a sentencing review is under way, but any decisions are for Ministers to make. Will the right hon. Lady please rule out here and now any possibility of allowing career criminals to avoid prison, even for short sentences?
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?
Shabana Mahmood
As I have sought to do throughout this process, I will ensure transparency in the Government’s approach when it comes to not just the emergency releases data, but other information that underpins future policy choices.
Dr Mullan
I did not quite hear a “yes”, but I will take that as an encouraging commitment that the Secretary of State will publish the GPS tagging review ahead of any sentencing review. However, I am afraid that in Ministers’ discussions of these issues, they risk losing sight of the fact that imprisonment also serves the important purpose of punishing offenders in the interests of justice. Importantly, how will the Government decide whether any of David Gauke’s proposals that they are minded to accept sufficiently punish offenders? How will that judgment be made before any recommendations are accepted?
Shabana Mahmood
I have said on many occasions in this House that I believe in punishment and in prison. Prison has a core role to play in the punishment of offenders. However, we must not run out of prison places. We must balance the need to punish and imprison people with interventions that expand the use of punishment outside prison. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, “Build more” from a sedentary position. We are. We are moving forward to solve the 14,000 prison place deficit left by his Government at the last election. This Government will build prisons, but as he knows, we cannot build our way out of the prison capacity crisis. We must consider other measures as well, but let me be clear: we will always seek to punish offenders, and prison will always have a place. This Government will build more prison places than the previous one.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The last Government gave the public plenty of reasons to lose confidence in the justice system, including a rising courts backlog and prisons on the edge of collapse. We have already averted a crisis in our prisons, and have raised Crown court capacity to a 10-year high. We are now embarking on reform of our courts and our prisons. The work of restoring confidence in the justice system has started. It will, of course, take some time.
Mr Bedford
Jason Hoganson was wrongly released under the Government’s early release scheme. Last week, he was convicted of assaulting his ex-partner just a day after he was freed under that botched scheme. Does the Secretary of State agree that this shocking case, and cases like it, continue to undermine the public’s trust and confidence in our justice system?
Shabana Mahmood
What undermines confidence in the justice system is running out of prison places, which is the inheritance the Conservative Government left for this Government. That is the mess that we are cleaning up. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the previous Government’s end-of-custody supervised licence scheme was also an early release scheme, but without any of the measures on accountability and transparency, or the wider set of exclusions, that that we introduced with the SDS40 scheme.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
On Friday, I met my constituent Hayley Johns. She has given me permission to share her story in this place. Hayley was a victim of domestic abuse and actual bodily harm perpetrated by an ex-partner. I was absolutely shocked to hear her story. Her ex-partner was convicted for three years for his crimes. However, he is being considered for release after serving just three months. Does the Justice Secretary agree that given the legacy of the previous Government, we need to redouble our efforts, and the efforts of this Government, to improve confidence in the criminal justice system? Can I please ask her to take a personal interest in this case?
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?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficult fiscal inheritance for this Government, and that we have had to make some difficult choices. We received a good settlement from the Treasury at the last Budget, but it is not without its challenges, given the high demand in our system. He will know that we have protected funding for victims of violence against women and girls, including rape and sexual offences. We have sought to protect the most vulnerable victims when making decisions on our victims funding packages.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The right hon. Member raises a very important point on these heinous gangs and the crimes that they commit. The 20 recommendations made by Alexis Jay in her independent inquiry on child sexual abuse were ignored for far too long. The Government are working at pace to respond to them. We will also legislate to make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences, ensuring that the punishment fits these horrific crimes.
Sir John Hayes
As in Bradford last week, where more of the grooming gangsters, largely of Pakistani origin, who raped white girls there and elsewhere were sentenced, the paucity of the Home Secretary’s audit, whereby authorities mark their own homework, was made clear. Will the Justice Secretary agree to a wide-ranging review of these matters with statutory powers? Surely those whose lives have been ruined, and those whose lives may yet be ruined, deserve more than the weak reticence of people with power who refuse to face the facts.
Shabana Mahmood
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and I have a shared objective in making it clear that there is a desire in all parts of the House to ensure that we face the full facts and that the victims of these heinous crimes receive the justice they deserve. I am sorry to hear that there are concerns in Bradford about the audit ordered by the Home Secretary; I will ensure that they are passed on to the Home Secretary, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, these matters fall directly within the purview of the Home Department.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited a record and rising Crown court backlog and prisons on the point of collapse, serving as breeding grounds for crime that create better criminals, not better citizens. The work of restoring safer streets in this country will be long and hard, but we are taking immediate action. Since the last Justice orals, we have increased the number of sitting days in the Crown court by 2,000 this financial year and boosted criminal legal aid by up to £92 million a year to get cases moving through the courts more quickly. We have published a 10-year prison capacity strategy, setting out plans to build 14,000 new prison places to ensure we always have the space to lock up dangerous criminals. We launched the Women’s Justice Board, with one clear goal: to send fewer women to prison. We are doing what it takes to deliver swifter justice for victims and punishment that cuts crime.
Charlotte Cane
Ministers have talked quite a bit today about expanded powers for magistrates courts. Could the Secretary of State tell me what additional funding is being made available and what training there will be for magistrates to assist them with this expanded role?
Shabana Mahmood
The changes in relation to magistrates court sentencing powers were made by the previous Government due to prison capacity issues, and they were working well. We have restored those same powers, so I do not think those issues around training are necessarily engaged. However, we will ensure that legal advisers and the full package of measures that magistrates need to fulfil their obligations are in place.
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
We have a shared objective in making sure that these evil individuals feel the full force of the law. I will not comment on individual sentencing decisions, and the shadow Lord Chancellor might wish to reflect on that decision; it is not appropriate to do so, given our collective commitment to the independence of the judiciary. However, as I said in response to earlier questions, we will legislate to make grooming an aggravating factor, and this Government will make sure that victims get the justice they deserve.
Robert Jenrick
I have written to the Attorney General asking him to review those sentences as potentially unduly lenient. Two of the men who were sentenced at Bradford Crown court for grooming gang offences were absent. They are thought to have absconded abroad. Can the Justice Secretary confirm how many grooming gang defendants the Government are currently pursuing overseas and what efforts are being made by the Government with, in this case, the Pakistani authorities, using every lever of the British state to locate these evil men and get justice for the victims?
Shabana Mahmood
I will happily write to the right hon. Gentleman with details on the specific case that he raises. He is right to say that we have international agreements and arrangements with other jurisdictions to ensure that offenders can be brought back to face justice in this country. I am sure that those arrangements are being applied appropriately, but I will make sure that he gets a fuller answer on the case that he has raised.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Shabana Mahmood
I agree that we need to do everything we can to remove foreign national offenders from our prisons. Between 5 July 2024 and 4 January 2025, 2,580 foreign national offenders were returned—a 23% increase on the same period in the previous year—and we are currently on track to remove more foreign national offenders this year than at any time in recent years.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Humanist marriage has been legal in Scotland for 20 years but continues to wait to be legalised in England and Wales. The Law Commission made recommendations two years ago on clarifying the law, but when asked to set out a timetable for action, the Minister in the other place could only respond, “in the fullness of time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 2024; Vol. 841, c. 910.]
Can the Minister set out the timetable or, alternatively, say when the Government will make an order to end the long wait for humanist marriage?
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
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.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We believe that much more can be achieved through the increased use of AI and other digital technology to speed up some of the paper processes that create delays across the criminal justice system. As chair of the Criminal Justice Board, I have asked for a cross-system criminal justice response on this and I will update the House in due course.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
No doubt we all agree that preventable deaths should be prevented, and tragedies like Hillsborough and Grenfell must not be repeated because we fail to make changes, so what consideration has the Secretary of State given to creating a national oversight mechanism to ensure that lessons are learned from every state-related death?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government will shortly be publishing the Bill that campaigners refer to as the Hillsborough law, which will reflect issues relating to the duty of candour, which this Government are committed to, and I know that campaigners are making representations to the Home Office on the national oversight mechanism that it is currently considering.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State explain to the House in what circumstances the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are allowed to deny access to evidence, after a trial has concluded, to a defence lawyer who is seeking to appeal, as has happened in the Lucy Letby case and, I believe, in others?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as Justice Secretary, I am not able to interfere in any independent decisions made by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, but he has made his point and I will ensure that it is dealt with by the appropriate individuals—either the Home Secretary or the head of the CPS.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
There are serious questions about the transparency of the police, the CPS and the Government in the days and weeks following the Southport attack. In written answers to me, the Government have refused to provide the dates when the Prime Minister was told that Rudakubana possessed ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual. Can the Justice Secretary tell me why?
Shabana Mahmood
The Prime Minister has responded to the other questions that have been raised. The appropriate information was made available at the appropriate time to either the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. It was right that the Government did not give any commentary that could have collapsed the trial. On the specific charge relating to ricin, that decision required Law Officer approval, which was sought and immediately given.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I know that the Justice Secretary is aware of the tragic case of my constituent Sara Sharif. Will she consider reforming family courts and ending the presumption in favour of parental contact despite the fact that there were safeguarding concerns?