Nottingham Inquiry: Terms of Reference

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Written Statements

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

On 22 April, I established an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the attacks that took place on 13 June 2023 in Nottingham, which cost Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates their lives, and harmed three others.

The inquiry will be chaired by Her Honour Deborah Taylor.

HH Deborah Taylor is a retired senior circuit judge. She served as the resident judge at Southwark Crown court from 2017 to 2022. In accordance with section 3(1) of the Act, this inquiry will be undertaken by HH Deborah Taylor acting alone as chair.

In accordance with section 4(3), I have now consulted the chair on the terms of reference for the inquiry. This process is now complete, and I have today deposited a copy of the terms of reference in the Library of the House.

The terms of reference cover: a comprehensive timeline of events and the actions of and interactions between the various agencies involved, including health, policing and the wider criminal justice system. Rightly, the terms of reference allow for an inquiry that builds on previous reviews and offers scope for the chair to consider gaps and omissions where she considers it necessary to do so.

It is in the public interest—in particular for the bereaved families and survivors whose lives have been devastated by these events—that the inquiry reports in two years.

The inquiry will play a key role in learning the lessons from this terrible tragedy.

The inquiry’s investigations will now be a matter for the chair. As the sponsoring Department, the Ministry of Justice will provide support and ensure that the inquiry has the resources that it needs.

[HCWS656]

Judiciary and Prison Officer Workforce

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing my decision on the pay awards for prison staff and for the judiciary.

Prison Service Pay Award 2025-26

Having carefully considered the 13 recommendations made by the Prison Service Pay Review Body for the 2025-26 pay award, I can announce that we are accepting in full the recommendations made by the PSPRB for all staff within their remit.

The role of prison service staff in helping to keep the public safe and rehabilitate prisoners cannot be overstated. Acceptance of these recommendations reflects our priority of ensuring that prison service staff can deliver this essential frontline service and recognises their unwavering dedication to continuing protecting the public during the current prison capacity crisis.

The award will deliver a pay rise of at least 4% of base pay for all eligible prison staff between operational support grade and governors (bands 2-11), with a targeted focus on the lowest paid.

The award delivers headline pay increases of:

4% for prison officer grades (bands 3-5)

4% for managerial and prison governor grades (bands 7-12)

4% increase for operational support grades (band 2), in addition to the national living wage increase that band 2 staff received from 1 April 2025. Operational support grades will also receive a temporary increase of 5% to the unsocial hours allowance. This increase will be applied for a maximum period of 2 years, to 31 March 2027, while we consider arrangements for unsocial hours working for future years as part of future pay review body remits.

This pay award will be paid this summer and will be backdated to 1 April 2025. This Government value the vital contribution the almost 6 million public sector workers make across the UK, delivering the public services we all rely upon. The acceptance of the PSPRB’s recommendations is expected to further stabilise the recruitment and retention position in the prison service. This is key to ensuring prisons have the staff they need to deal with ongoing capacity pressures.

I would like to thank the PSPRB for their valuable advice and response to the Government’s evidence. The report has been laid before Parliament today and a copy is attached. I am grateful to the chair and members of the review body for their report.

Judiciary pay award 2025-26

The Senior Salaries Review Body shared their annual report with Government on 7 May 2025. This will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk.

I value the SSRB’s expertise and independent advice in recommending a judicial pay award that reflects the important role that the judiciary play across the justice system. When making my decision, I have carefully considered the SSRB’s advice alongside the financial implications for my Department.

The SSRB recommended a pay award of 4.75% for all judicial office holders within the remit group for 2025-26. I have decided to reject this recommendation, and instead a 4% judicial pay award will be applied equally to all judicial office holders for whom I have responsibility. This will be backdated to April 2025. This strikes a balance between addressing SSRB’s advice and managing the overall affordability to my Department.

The SSRB highlighted their concern over the persistent recruitment and retention issues affecting parts of the judiciary when making this recommendation. I share these concerns. That is why I commissioned the SSRB to undertake the major review of the judicial salary structure. The terms of reference for this review were published on 13 May, and include looking in depth at the specific recruitment and retention issues affecting the judiciary. As I set out in my evidence, the major review is the right place to address these areas through targeted reform, and presents better value than the flat-rate pay uplift of the annual pay review. I look forward to working closely with the SSRB over the course of the major review.

I am committed to strengthening our world-class judiciary. I hope this increase reflects that, and the value I place on their independence and commitment to the delivery of justice and the rule of law.

[HCWS665]

Independent Sentencing Review

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Written Statements

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

Today, the independent sentencing review published its findings and recommendations. The review was chaired by the right hon. David Gauke alongside a panel of experts, including a former Lord Chief Justice, and representatives from the police, prisons, probation and victims’ rights organisations. The Government are grateful for its recommendations, and I will ensure a copy of the review is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

This statement sets out the Government’s in-principle response. But this review must be set in its proper context. This Government inherited a prison system at the point of crisis. Our prisons are, once again, running out of space. If our prisons collapse, courts would be forced to suspend trials, the police would have to stop making arrests, and crime would go unpunished. It is shameful that, in this day and age, we are confronted by this crisis once more. The reasons are clear—the last Government added just 500 places to our prison estate in 14 years, while at the same time, sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and we are heading back towards zero capacity. It falls to this Government to end this cycle of crisis.

That starts by building prisons. Last week, I announced £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 prison places by 2031. This is the largest expansion of the prison estate since the Victorian era. However, we cannot build our way out of this crisis. Even though we are building as quickly as we can, we expect demand for prison places to outstrip supply by 9,500 in early 2028.

It was in that context that I commissioned the independent sentencing review. Its task was clear—to ensure that the country must always have the prison places it needs, and that there must always be prison spaces for dangerous offenders. At the same time, I asked the review to address the fact that our prisons too often create better criminals, not better citizens. Instead of cutting crime, they are breeding grounds for it. The panel of experts have followed the evidence and looked at examples from countries across the world. Today, I set out an initial response—with further detail to follow once legislation is placed before the House.

The report’s central recommendation is to move to a three-part sentence called the “earned progression model”. The Government accept this in principle. Under this model, an offender will not necessarily leave prison at an automatic point. Instead, their release date will be determined by their behaviour. If they follow prison rules, they will earn earlier release. If they do not, they will be locked up for longer.

This echoes the model I witnessed in Texas earlier this year, which has cut crime and brought its prison population under control. Under this new model, offenders serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release of 40% or 50% will now earn their release. The earliest possible release will be at the one third mark, with additional days added for bad behaviour. The review has suggested a new maximum of 50%, but for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit beyond their full sentence.

For those serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%, their earliest possible release will be 50%. Again, for those who behave excessively badly, I will not set an upper limit.

We have rejected the recommendation to change the sentence structure for extended determinate sentences

The review also suggested that those serving extended determinate sentences should also earn an earlier release. This we will not accept. Judges give extended sentences to those they consider dangerous, with Parole Board hearings happening no earlier than two-thirds of the way through the custodial sentence. I will not change that. Furthermore, I can also confirm that no sentences being served for terror offences will be eligible for earlier release from prison.

We will increase investment in our Probation Service

In the second part of the progression model, offenders will enter a period of “intensive supervision”. This will see more offenders tagged and close management from probation. The Government will therefore significantly increase its funding—by the final year of the spending review period, probation’s annual £1.6 billion spend will rise by up to £700 million. This will allow us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders.

We will standardise the length of recall to prison

If offenders do not comply with the conditions of their release, the sentencing review has suggested that recall to prison should be capped at 56 days. We have agreed to this policy, in principle, though the precise details will be placed before the House when we legislate.

In the final stage of the three-part sentence, offenders could still be recalled if a new offence is committed, and I will also ensure that the most serious offenders continue to be subject to strict conditions.

We will reduce the use of short sentences and increase suspended sentences

The review also recommends a reduction in the use of short prison sentences. A compelling case for doing so has been proposed in this House many times. In the most recent data, nearly 60% of those sentenced to a prison sentence of 12 months or less reoffended within a year. With reoffending rates for those who receive community sentences consistently lower, we must ask whether alternative forms of punishment would make the public safer.

It is important, however, to note that the review recommends a reduction in short sentences—not an abolition. It is right that judges retain the discretion to hand down short sentences in exceptional circumstances. We will continue to ensure courts have access to thorough risk assessments for domestic abuse and stalking cases. In addition, breaches of protective orders linked to violence against women and girls will be excluded.

The review also recommends an extension of the length of custodial sentences that can be suspended from two years to three years. During this period, the prospect of prison time hangs over an offender, should they break any of the conditions imposed upon them. Again, we accept this recommendation.

We will make community sentences tougher

The recommendations set out above will see more community punishment. For that reason, it is essential that community punishment works. The review recommends a series of measures to make community punishment tougher and to force offenders to pay back to those they have harmed. We will consider new financial penalties which could see offenders’ assets seized, even if they are not proven to be linked to crime, and expanding the use of punishments such as travel and driving bans that will curtail an offenders’ liberty.

We also accept the recommendation to expand intensive supervision courts. These courts impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements, that tackle the root causes of prolific offending. In these courts, offenders are regularly brought before a judge to monitor compliance with the conditions set by the courts. This leaves the prospect of prison hanging over them.

However, I believe community punishment must be tougher still. Unpaid work must pay back. Therefore, I will shortly bring together business leaders to explore a model where offenders work for them and a salary is paid not to the offender but used for the good of victims. I will also work with local authorities to determine how unpaid work teams could give back to their communities, whether that be filling potholes or cleaning rubbish.

The number of women in prison will reduce

I also invited David Gauke to consider cohorts this Government believe require particular focus, and I welcome his recommendations on female offenders. Around two thirds of female offenders receive short sentences and around the same number are victims of domestic abusers. I am pleased to note that the review’s recommendation on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison.

We will make it easier and quicker to send foreign national offenders back to their country of origin

I also asked David Gauke to consider how we tackle foreign national offenders. Today, our deportation rate is ahead of the last Government’s. I welcome the recommendations to make it quicker and easier to deport foreign criminals. Under the existing scheme, foreign offenders are sent back to their country of origin after serving 50% of the custodial sentence. We will bring this down to 30%. We will also conduct further work with the Home Office on how we can deport foreign prisoners serving less than three years as soon as possible after sentencing.

We will expand the pilot of medication to manage problematic sexual arousal for sex offenders

I also asked the review to consider how we manage sex offenders. The review has recommended that we continue a pilot of so-called “medication to manage problematic sexual arousal”. I will go further than this, with a national roll-out beginning in two regions, covering 20 prisons. I am also exploring whether mandating the approach is possible. It is, of course, vital that this approach is taken alongside psychological interventions that target other causes of offending, like asserting power and control.

We will ensure our justice system serves victims

When discussing these issues, it is too easy to focus on how we punish offenders when we should be talking more about victims. I welcome the recommendations to improve the way the system serves victims. Everything I am announcing today is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse, it is victims who pay the price. By cutting reoffending, we will have fewer victims in future. However, there is also more we must do to support victims today.

The review recommends a number of important measures, including better identifying domestic abusers at sentencing so that we can monitor and manage them.

I also welcome the recommendation to expand the use of domestic abuse specialist courts, where trained staff support victims. To improve transparency in the system, we will extend a pilot in which free sentencing transcripts are provided to victims of rape and serious sexual offences. Again, I want to go further than the review recommends to better support victims. Exclusion zones are an important protective tool, preventing offenders from entering areas where victims might be, but these can place greater limits on victims than they do offenders. I want to change this: locking offenders down to specific areas so that victims know that they are safe wherever else they want to go.

This review sets out major reform. In appointing David Gauke, a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, to conduct this review I hoped to show that two politicians from different political traditions can agree on the reforms that our justice system requires. To end this cycle of crisis we must not only build prisons on a historic scale, deport foreign nationals faster than ever, and speed up our courts, but reform criminal sentencing.

These reforms are designed to ensure that we never again find ourselves in the prison capacity crisis which this Government has faced, and will ensure that we never again run out of prison places for dangerous offenders.

[HCWS667]

Independent Sentencing Review

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on sentencing in England and Wales. As the House will be aware, the independent sentencing review was published today. It was chaired by David Gauke and his panel comprised experts, including a former Lord Chief Justice, and representatives from the police, prisons, probation and victims’ rights organisations. The Government are grateful for the review’s recommendations, and I will ensure that a copy is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Today, I will set out our in-principle response.

First, however, it is essential that we set the review in its proper context. A year ago today, the Conservative party called an election. They did so because they were confronted by the prospect of prisons about to collapse. Rather than confront their failure, they chose to hide it and hoodwink the public into re-electing them. It did not work, but their legacy lives on.

Our prisons are, once again, running out of space and it is vital that the implications are understood. If our prisons collapse, courts are forced to suspend trials, the police must halt their arrests, crime goes unpunished, criminals run amok and chaos reigns. We face the breakdown of law and order in this country. It is shameful that, in this day and age, we are confronted by this crisis once more. The reasons are clear. The last Government added just 500 places to our prison estate, while at the same time, sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and we are heading back towards zero capacity. It now falls to this Government to end this cycle of crisis. That starts by building prisons.

Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 places. Last week, I announced an additional £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 places by 2031, in the largest expansion since the Victorian era. That investment is necessary, but not sufficient. We cannot build our way out of this crisis. Despite building as quickly as we can, demand for places will outstrip supply by 9,500 in early 2028, and that is why I commissioned the sentencing review. Its task was clear: this country must never run out of prison places again. There must always be space for dangerous offenders.

At the same time, the review was tasked with addressing the fact that our prisons too often create better criminals, not better citizens. Instead of cutting crime, they are breeding grounds for it. The reviewers have followed the evidence and example of countries across the world. Today I present an initial response, with further detail to follow once legislation is placed before the House.

Let me start with the report’s central recommendation: the move to a three-part sentence called the earned progression model, which the Government accept in principle. Under the model, an offender will not necessarily leave prison at an automatic point. Instead, their release date will be determined by their behaviour. If they follow prison rules, they will earn earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. That echoes the model I witnessed in Texas earlier this year, which cut crime and brought their prison population under control.

Under the new model, offenders serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release of 40% or 50% will now earn their release. The earliest possible release will be one third, with additional days added for bad behaviour. The review suggests a new maximum of 50%, but for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit. For those currently serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%, their earliest possible release will be 50%. Again, for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit.

David Gauke also suggests that those serving extended determinate sentences should also earn an earlier release. This we will not accept. Judges give extended sentences to those they consider dangerous, with no Parole Board hearing until two thirds of time served, and I will not change that. I can also confirm that no sentences being served for terror offences will be eligible for earlier release from prison.

In the second part of the progression model, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision. That will see more offenders tagged and close management from probation. The Government will therefore significantly increase funding: by the final year of the spending review period, an annual £1.6 billion will rise by up to £700 million, allowing us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders. If offenders do not comply with the conditions of their release, the sentencing review has suggested that recall to prison should be capped at 56 days. We have agreed to this policy in principle, though the precise details will be placed before the House when we legislate. In the final stage of the three-part sentence, offenders could still be recalled if a new offence is committed, and I will also ensure that the most serious offenders continue to be subject to strict conditions.

The review also recommends a reduction in short prison sentences. A compelling case for doing so has been proposed in this House many times. In the most recent data, nearly 60% of those receiving a 12-month sentence reoffended within a year. With reoffending rates for community punishment consistently lower, we must ask ourselves whether alternative forms of punishment would make the public safer. It is important, however, to note that the review recommends a reduction in short sentences, not abolition. It is right that judges retain the discretion to hand them down in exceptional circumstances. In considering exceptional circumstances, we will continue to ensure that courts have access to thorough risk assessments for domestic abuse and stalking cases, and breaches of protective orders linked to violence against women and girls will be excluded.

The review also recommends an extension of suspended sentences from two to three years. In this period, the prospect of prison time hangs over an offender should they break any conditions imposed upon them, and we accept that recommendation.

The recommendations set out above will see more community punishment. For that reason, it is essential that it works. The review recommends a series of measures to make community punishment tougher and force offenders to pay back to those they have harmed. We will consider new financial penalties, which could see offenders’ assets seized, even if they are not knowingly linked to crime, and expanded use of punishments such as travel and driving bans that would curtail offenders’ liberty.

We accept a recommendation to expand intensive supervision courts. Those impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements, that tackle the root causes of prolific offending. Offenders are brought before a judge regularly to monitor compliance, and the prospect of prison hangs over them like the sword of Damocles.

However, I believe community punishment must be tougher still. Unpaid work must pay back, so I will shortly bring together business leaders to explore a model whereby offenders work for them, and the salary is paid not to the offender but towards the good of victims. I will also work with local authorities to determine how unpaid work teams could give back to their communities, whether by filling potholes or cleaning up rubbish.

I invited David Gauke to consider cohorts of offenders who this Government believe require particular focus. I welcome his recommendations on female offenders. Approximately two thirds of female offenders receive short sentences. Around the same number are victims of domestic abusers. I am pleased to say that the review’s recommendation on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison.

I asked David Gauke to consider how we tackle foreign national offenders. Today, our deportation rate is ahead of the last Government’s. I welcome the recommendations to make it quicker and easier to deport foreign criminals. Under the existing scheme, they are sent back to their country of origin after serving 50% of the custodial sentence. We will bring that down to 30%. We will also conduct further work with the Home Office on how we can deport foreign prisoners serving less than three years as soon as possible after their sentencing.

I also asked the review to consider how we manage sex offenders. The review has recommended we continue a pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal. I will go further, with a national roll-out beginning in two regions, covering 20 prisons. I am exploring whether mandating the approach is possible. Of course, it is vital that this approach is taken alongside psychological interventions that target other causes of offending, such as asserting power and control.

When discussing sentencing, it is too easy to focus on how we punish offenders when we should talk more about victims. Everything I am announcing today is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse, it is victims who pay the price. By cutting reoffending, we will have fewer victims in future, but there is more we must do to support victims today. The review recommends a number of important measures, including better identifying domestic abusers at sentencing, so that we can monitor and manage them more effectively. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned on this, particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I also welcome the recommendation to expand the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, where trained staff support victims. To improve transparency in the system, we will extend a pilot of free sentencing transcripts for victims of rape and serious sexual offences.

I want to go further than the review recommends to better support victims. Exclusion zones are an important tool, preventing offenders from entering areas their victims might be in, but these place greater limits on victims than on offenders. I want to change that, locking offenders down to specific locations so that victims know they are safe wherever else they want to go.

This review sets out major reform. I know its recommendations will not be welcomed by all. By appointing David Gauke, a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, I hoped to show that two politicians from different traditions can agree on the reforms our justice system requires. I do not expect Conservative Members to join me to solve this crisis. In fact, I can hear their soundbites already. “Just build faster,” they will say. Well, we are building faster than they did: we have already added 2,400 places, and we are now investing £4.7 billion more. “Just deport more foreign criminals,” they will say. Well, we are ahead of where they were, and today we have accepted major reform to go further and faster. “Clear the courts backlog,” they will say despite having created it themselves. Well, we are investing more in our courts than they ever did, and we are ready to embrace once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims.

While we are doing more on each of these areas than they ever did, these are not solutions that rise to the scale of the crisis that they left behind. We must build prisons on an historic scale, deport foreign national offenders faster than ever, and speed up our courts; and yet still, despite all that, we must reform sentencing too. So, more in hope than expectation, and despite, not because of, experience, by appealing to the better angels of their nature—if they have any—I end by inviting those opposite to help us fix the crisis that they left behind. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Lord Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Of course, Mr Speaker.

The Ministry of Justice’s own pilot scheme found that 71% of tagged offenders breached their curfew. When it comes to stopping reoffending, tags are about as useful as smoke alarms are at putting out bonfires. What is the Justice Secretary going to say when she meets the victims of offenders that she let off? How is she going to look them in the eye and say with a straight face, “I’m sorry—we are looking into how this criminal escaped from their digital prison cell.” Her reforms are a recipe for carnage.

I urge the Justice Secretary to change course and to make different choices—yes, choices—from the ones that we knew the Government would make from the day that the Prime Minister hand-picked Lord Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, a man who is on record as saying that

“a lot of people in prison…shouldn’t be there”—

two thirds of them in fact, he said—

“and they are there for far too long”.

The Labour party is clearly ideologically opposed to prison and that is why the Government are letting criminals off with a “get out of jail free” card, rather than deporting the 10,800 foreign national offenders in our prisons—one in every eight cells—a figure that is rising under the Justice Secretary’s watch. If she is actually serious about keeping violent criminals off our streets and finding the cells that are needed, will she bring forward legislation, tomorrow, and disapply the Human Rights Act 1998, which is stopping us from swiftly deporting foreign national offenders?

Some 17,800 prisoners are on remand awaiting trial—another figure that has risen under the Justice Secretary. In fact, her own Department’s figures forecast that it could rise to as many as 23,600. If she is serious, will she commit to taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s request for extra court sitting days to hear those cases and free up prison spaces? Will she commit, here and now, to building more than the meagre 250 rapid deployment cells her prison capacity strategy says she is planning to build this year? They have been built in seven months before, and they can be built even faster.

If the Justice Secretary were serious, she would commit to striking deals with the 14 European countries with spare prison capacity, renting their cells from them at an affordable price, as Denmark is doing with Kosovo. Between 1993 and 1996, her beloved Texas, the state on which she modelled these reforms—a state that, by the way, has an incarceration rate five times higher than that of the United Kingdom—built 75,000 extra cells. If the Government were serious, why can they not build 10,000 over a similar time period?

Labour is not serious about keeping hyper-prolific offenders behind bars. In fact, there is nothing in the Justice Secretary’s statement on locking them up or cutting crime, because the Labour party does not believe in punishing criminals and it does not really believe in prison. The radical, terrible changes made today are cloaked in necessity, but their root is Labour’s ideology. It is the public who will be paying the price for her weakness.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The shadow Secretary of State talks about serious Government—if the Government that he was a part of had ever been serious, they would have built more than 500 prison places in 14 years in office—[Interruption.] He is a new convert to the prison-building cause. He and his party have never stood up in this Chamber and apologised for adding only 500 places—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want the same respect from Members on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] Do we understand each other?

[Robert Jenrick]

indicated assent.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Mr Speaker, if I were waiting for respect from Opposition Members, I would be waiting for a long time, so it is a good job that I do not need it.

The shadow Secretary of State talks about “iron bars”, but he was part of a Government that did not build the prison places that this country needs. Unlike him, I take responsibility, and it has fallen to me to clean up the mess that he and his party left behind. In case there is any confusion, let me spell out what happens when he and his party leave our prison system on the brink of collapse, which is exactly what they did, and set out the prospect that faced me on day one, when I walked into the Justice Department. When prisons are on the verge of collapse, we basically have only two choices left at our disposal: either we shut the front door, or we have to open the back door. The right hon. Gentleman’s party knew that that was the situation it was confronted with, but did it make any decisions? No, it just decided to call an election instead and did a runner.

The public put the Conservatives in their current position. If they ever want to get out of that position, I suggest that they start by reckoning with the reality of their own track record in office. In any other reality, they should have started already with an apology. Conservative Members have had many chances to apologise to the country for leaving our prisons on the point of absolute collapse, but they have never taken them. Frankly, that tells us everything that anyone needs to know about the modern Conservative party.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I welcome the report and the Government’s response. It is a comprehensive and measured response to the prisons crisis, as one would expect from David Gauke, in contrast with the hysterical nonsense that we have heard from the Opposition today. I particularly welcome the additional resources for probation and electronic monitoring to enable robust punishment and control in the community as an alternative to custody, but even the aggregate effect of the measures in the report will only stabilise the prison population over the longer term. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we also need effective rehabilitation to end the cycle of reoffending if we are to see a fall in historically high prison numbers?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me be clear: we will be adding prison places to the estate, and we will be filling them up. The prison population will rise year on year by the end of this Parliament, but my hon. Friend is right that the measures we have announced today stabilise the prison population. As a whole country, we will have to do better at ensuring that our prisons are churning out better citizens, rather than better criminals. When we know that 80% of offenders are reoffenders, there is clearly much work to be done in this area.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

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

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the hon. Member for his remarks. I would accept nothing less than holding us fully to account for these changes, and I look forward to working collaboratively where possible on these measures as we move forward. I pay tribute to him, his family and his mum for the campaigning that they have done on the identification of cases arising from domestic abuse being flagged properly within our justice system.

The new identifier will develop over time, and I am sure that it will inform future policy decisions made by Governments of all stripes, but it is an important starting point. We are very happy to accept the recommendation, and we will move at pace to ensure that we deliver it.

Cases under Clare’s law will be covered by the new measure. As for more support for victims of domestic abuse, we are very keen to take forward the review’s recommendation on the specialist courts, because we think they will have a particularly important role to play. As I said in my statement, we will ensure that the measures relating to the presumption against short sentences contain an exclusion for breaches of orders, which we know is a matter of particular concern for victims of domestic abuse. I will engage with Members across the House on where we can make further progress.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Before I put my question to my right hon. Friend, may I give the shadow Justice Secretary a reality check? Under the previous Government, 98% of reported rape cases went completely unpunished. Under the Conservative Government, rape was effectively legalised, so a little bit of humility would not go amiss.

One in five adults in this country will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. Could my right hon. Friend please explain how domestic abuse victims will be protected under these new measures?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will repeat the point I have made to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). We know that there is a particular concern about what the presumption against short sentences might have meant for breaches of protective orders, and we know that issue is of real concern for domestic abuse victims. We want to ensure that those orders are not rendered useless because those who breach them are not seeing any prison time at all. The specific circumstances surrounding this type of violence against women need a very specific response, which is why we have already said that we will make that exclusion, and I will work with Members across the House to identify where we can make further progress.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about female offenders, but I would like to know a little bit more. Hope Street in Hampshire, which offers residential alternatives to custody for women, has seen remarkable results, and of course it prevents those women from being separated from their children, which would otherwise drive the intergenerational cycle of offending behaviour, trauma and cost to society. Do these proposals include any plans to set up more such facilities across the rest of the country?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. The combination of the measures that we are accepting from the review will mean that we will see a huge reduction in the number of women going to prison. Approximately two thirds go in for sentences of less than one year and, as the hon. Lady knows, many of those women are themselves victims of domestic abuse. In future, we expect the numbers to drop very significantly, and I know we will make progress in that regard. I have set out an ambition to see fewer women prisoners and, ultimately, to have fewer women’s prisons.

Turning to residential alternatives to custody, the hon. Lady will know that I have set up the Women’s Justice Board. It is well represented, including by those who have personal experience of Hope Street, and we will work with the Women’s Justice Board as we roll out further changes to the female estate.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Despite what the shadow Justice Secretary has said about this scheme putting domestic abusers and rapists out on the streets, can the Justice Secretary cut through the rhetoric and fearmongering from the Opposition and be clear that she has put the victims of sexual and domestic abuse at the heart of these measures? Can she confirm that they will be protected, and that those abusers and perpetrators will not benefit from the early release scheme?

[Shabana Mahmood]

All dangerous offenders—those who receive an extended determinate sentence, including some of the serious offenders to which my hon. Friend has referred—will be excluded from this scheme. All other offenders receiving a standard determinate sentence will be within the earned progression model, but they will have to earn an early release. That is why we are ensuring that there is an uplift in probation funding, to ensure that all those individuals are intensively supervised in the middle stage of their sentence. The worst thing that could happen for every type of victim in this country, and in fact for every citizen, would be for us to run out of prison places altogether. We are in this position because of the mess that the previous Government left behind, and it falls to us to fix it.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Notwithstanding the predictable nonsense from the shadow Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), it is critical that we focus on the needs of the victim. I welcome the Lord Chancellor making that point in her statement, but we need more than fine words. Can she please commit to giving all victims of crime proper access to restorative justice?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Restorative justice has an important role to play in our justice system, so where it is appropriate and where it can make a difference, we will ensure that it is available. But I want to ensure that victims of crime have other confidence-inducing measures at their disposal, which is why I want to look at exclusion zones in particular, and it is why we want to do the domestic abuse identifier, so that we can track systems, learn from the cases that are going through and make better policy for victims.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I am amazed by the gall of the Conservatives, who left our prisons in utter crisis, failing victims. I thank the Lord Chancellor for her work. Five years ago, my constituent Diane had her world changed when her husband was killed by a driver who was on her phone. Not only did the driver do that, but the first call the driver made was not to 999, but to her sister. When the driver is released from prison, she will have a four-year driving ban, but Diane and her family have had their lives devastated forever. Can the Minister set out that, as we take this necessary action to fix our bursting prison system, we will make use of lengthy restrictions and lifetime driving bans for those who cause death by dangerous driving?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sorry to hear of the case of my hon. Friend’s constituent; those are truly horrible circumstances for any family to find themselves in. I can assure her that we will be rigorously pursuing the recommendations in the Gauke review relating to ancillary orders, which are other orders that we can make that curtail an offender’s liberty, including lengthier driving bans, which I am considering bringing forward.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Public confidence in the criminal justice system—and, importantly, the confidence of victims—is paramount. Since 2010, the use of community-based orders has decreased by 61%. That is in no small part because of concerns about offender engagement in the process. If the Government are going to pursue this route, what steps has the Lord Chancellor taken to model how many will reoffend and, more importantly, that they will be rigorously reinforced?

[Shabana Mahmood]

That issue is why already today I have announced measures to toughen up community punishment, and we will be going further in some areas than even the review recommends. I absolutely agree that community punishment has to maintain the confidence of the public. Like all other Members, I am a constituency Member of Parliament, and I want my constituents to be able to see community punishment as real punishment. It is on us to make sure that it is worthy of that name. That is why I am considering going further on unpaid work, working with businesses to see whether salaries could be paid into a victims fund. That might be one model. I want to see offenders filling potholes and cleaning our streets, and I will be working with local authorities to ensure that we go as far as we can, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government are committed to toughening up community punishment and making sure that it maintains the confidence of the public.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for her statement and for commissioning the sentencing review. Does she agree that this Government are now taking action, whereas this time last year, rather than sorting out the prison crisis—when we had fewer than 90 spaces, with a prison population of 90,000—the Conservatives called a general election instead? Does she also agree that the present proposals will ensure that dangerous offenders will be locked up and will enable us to rehabilitate others and stop reoffending, which costs us £22 billion a year?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right. This time last year, the Conservatives had a chance to put the country first. Instead, they called an election and tried to put themselves first. They did a runner on the job, and it falls to us to clean up their mess. This Government will clean up their mess, and we will get our prison system on to a sustainable footing so that there is always a prison place. There will be more prison places under this Government, and we will make sure that there is always a prison place for the most dangerous offenders. That is why we are taking all the other measures that we need to take to ensure that we never run out of prison places again.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Respect for justice is diminished by the fiction of the judge announcing a sentence and those in the know then calculating on the back of a fag packet the fraction that it actually represents. Has this statement not reinforced that system with bells on?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sorry to have to break it to the right hon. Gentleman, but he will be horrified to discover that he agrees with David Gauke on this one. The independent reviewer has pointed out that transparency will be paramount to maintaining confidence in the justice system, and we will make sure that we take the transparency measures forward.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

With the National Police Chiefs’ Council having declared violence against women and girls a national emergency, it is right that we explore radical methods to bring down the scale of offending in our communities. We know that most sexual offending is not about sex at all, but about power. However, for the subset of convicts whose offending is driven by sexual compulsion, chemical castration could be an option. Is there estimate data on how many future offences that could prevent? By definition, it would only be for those who have already offended. As I am not aware of a method of permanent chemical castration, is there capacity in the Probation Service to monitor ongoing compliance with treatment?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Studies show a 60% reduction in offending. My hon. Friend is right to say that, for one subset of offenders, offending relates to power. For another subset of offenders, we believe that a combination of chemical suppressants and psychological interventions can have a big and positive impact. A pilot has been trundling along for many years, and nobody has shown much interest in it, including any of my predecessors—Tory Justice Secretaries just let it carry on. I am not willing to do that, and I am not squeamish about taking further measures. We are going to have a national roll-out of this programme, and I will ensure that is what happens. I am expanding it to two further regions, including for prisoners in 20 further prisons, so that we can build the evidence base and make sure that we are using every tool at our disposal to cut reoffending.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to extending the pilot scheme to give free sentencing transcripts for rape and serious sexual offences—something for which I have long campaigned. I am sorry that the Victims Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), has just left the Chamber, because I wanted to pay tribute to her for all her work on this issue. I also pay tribute to the victims, survivors and campaigners, and particularly my own constituent Juliana Terlizzi, for their bravery and advocacy on this issue. I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister on this issue. Can the Lord Chancellor tell us what measures will be taken to ensure that victims know about the scheme, and that they understand their right to request a transcript of the sentencing remarks? I know that the pilot has shown how much that contributes to their recovery and their welfare after sentencing.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work in this area, and I will pass on her remarks to the Victims Minister. I also pay tribute to her constituent. It is very difficult to raise these issues and talk about them openly, and her constituent has shown real bravery in coming forward and explaining why the scheme would have made a difference to her own recovery.

I am very pleased to extend the pilot scheme. We will learn the lessons about how the first pilot scheme worked in the first year, and if we need to do more on publicising what the scheme can do and its availability, we will do so. The hon. Lady will know that I want to make further progress on using AI technology to make transcripts more widely available, because I believe in a transparent justice system. I do not believe that we are very far away from having tech that is accurate enough to be a matter of court record, but we are not quite there yet. It is something we continue to work on.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

In my 21 years as a Crown prosecutor, I prosecuted many, many cases, but I prosecuted far fewer individuals. That is because 80% of offenders are reoffenders, so I saw the same defendants time and again. The current system does not work. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the new approach will reduce reoffending, cut crime and lead to fewer victims?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind the House that 80% of offenders in our country are reoffenders, which tells us that our system is broken. It tells us that our prisons are creating better criminals, not better citizens, and this is something we absolutely have to turn around if we are to protect victims and cut crime.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor will know that for a very long time in this country, the prejudices of the establishment, poisoned by liberal thinking, have been at odds with the preoccupations of the vast majority of law-abiding people. Will she acknowledge now that the principal purpose of prison is retributive? It has other purposes, too, but its principal purpose is punishment. In that spirit, will she confirm when she will bring forward the further legislation on sentencing that she promised? Given what she has announced today, will she also confirm that violent sexual offenders will be excluded from early release?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have no truck with anyone else’s prejudices and they certainly do not decide what I do in office. I believe in prison. This Government are going to build more prison places, and we will fill them. I believe in prison for the reasons of punishment, primarily; I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that. I will not let this country run out of prison places, because I know what will happen if we do. I am not willing to put anyone through the breakdown of law and order in our country—I am not willing to take that risk. It means that harder choices are in front of me and this House as we get ourselves out of this crisis, and I am making those choices today.

I will work at pace to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity, so that the House can consider the proposals in full. Those on extended determinate sentences —the most dangerous offenders, as judged by a judge in a court—will be excluded from these measures. For all other offenders, earlier release will have to be earned, and there will be intensive supervision afterwards. That is the earned progression model, and I am sure we will debate it at length in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

There is no place in our country for foreign offenders who pose a serious risk to the public. This Government are already returning more foreign national offenders than the Conservatives did when they were in power. Does the Minister agree that the Tories are clearly all talk and no action?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend puts it very well, and he is absolutely right. We have made more progress on the deportation of foreign national offenders than the previous Government and we will go further. We accept the review’s recommendations on reducing the threshold for early removal from 50% to 30%. For offenders who get less than three years in prison, we will work with the Home Office on proposals to move to immediate deportation.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

The national average reoffending rate for people who have done a short-term sentence is 54%. Among those who graduate from a prisoner rehabilitation programme in my constituency, the average reoffending rate is just 6%—and the programme is still in touch with every single graduate, after operating for 10 years. In the spirit of trying to reduce the prison population, does the Lord Chancellor agree that such rehabilitation programmes are absolutely crucial and that investing in rehabilitation not only keeps people safe in the community because it reduces the reoffending rate, but helps the mission to free up prison places for the dangerous criminals who absolutely need to be there?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I pay tribute to the work that is going on in her constituency. As I have said before, 80% of offenders in this country are reoffenders. That tells us how broken our system is, and how imperative it is that we sort it out.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Reoffending is costing us £22 billion a year, and 80% of offenders are reoffenders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to bring that figure down? What is she intending to do to prevent people from reoffending at such high rates?

[Shabana Mahmood]

One of the problems of running a prison system at absolutely boiling hot—where it is permanently on the point of collapse, as has been the case in our prison system for far too long now—is that we are not able to make much progress in the prison estate on the programmes that offenders need to access to begin a rehabilitation journey. Part of our proposals, which are designed to relieve the stress in our prison system, will help with rehabilitation within the prison estate.

We are also absolutely determined to make more progress on rehabilitation outside the prison estate, which is why we are toughening up community punishment. We know that that works, and we know that the country can have confidence in such punishment. We will be working with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to think about the availability of drug and alcohol treatment. We will expand the use of sobriety tags, which are already helping offenders to come off the drink that often fuels their offending. I have asked some tech companies to look at further technological innovation that can help us in this space. The holy grail would be a drugs tag, which could make a huge difference in reducing reoffending in our country. We will continue to press ahead and work as quickly as we can to find further technological solutions.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Crimes against children are among the worst crimes humanity can commit. There is relatively little, if anything at all, about offences against children in this review. Could the Lord Chancellor confirm that those who have abused children will not be allowed out early?

[Shabana Mahmood]

All those who have received an extended determinate sentence—and that includes many of the offenders mentioned by the hon. Lady—are excluded from these measures. All other offenders would have to earn an earlier release by proving that they have behaved properly in prison and not broken prison rules; the minimum for them is set at one third of the sentence, but it can be higher. As I have said, for those who egregiously offend, we will set no upper limit.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

We heard this morning that probation services in Nottinghamshire have been rated inadequate following visits by inspectors. They have been judged as understaffed, with urgent improvements needed. I therefore welcome the £700 million increase for probation services, but can I ask the Lord Chancellor what other steps can be taken to drive up probation standards in constituencies like mine?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising issues relating to the Probation Service. We have already expanded the number of staff. Last year, we recruited 1,000 extra, and this year we are on track to hit our target of 1,300 extra staff. Increasing resource—first and foremost with more staff—is a clear priority for us. We are investing in technology to help the Probation Service to be more productive. We have already funded programmes and pilots on AI tech designed to decrease the amount of file work that probation officers have to do to allow them to have more time to do the things that only a human can do: to spend time with the offender in front of them, to come up with a proper plan to reduce their reoffending and therefore to keep the public safe.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I very much welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement, and I know that victims and survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence in my constituency will do so as well. I thank her and her ministerial colleagues for their cross-party working, including with my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

On the domestic abuse recommendations and the application of domestic abuse at sentencing, will the Lord Chancellor consider whether it is possible to tag those offences retrospectively, as well as at sentencing? Also, I welcome her remarks about transcripts and transparency. In the light of the pilot on transcripts for sexual violence and rape cases, will she consider including in that pilot the entire transcript, not just the transcript of sentencing?

[Shabana Mahmood]

On tagging retrospectively, I will certainly go away and have a look at that point. I suspect, although I do not want to mislead the hon. Member or the House, that a retrospective trawl of all cases—including common assault, which is where we see most domestic abuse cases land for a charge and a criminal case—may be beyond where we can get with the data available to us and the time it would take. However, going forward we will try to capture exactly those cases—not only domestic abuse-connected offences, but other offences such as common assault, which we know have taken place in a domestic abuse context—so that they are all flagged and proper data is kept.

On transcripts, sentencing remarks are currently available for other victims, such as in murder cases and so on, and that will be extended to victims of rape and serious sexual violence. To repeat a point I made earlier, I believe in a transparent justice system. I would like to be in the position of using AI technology to make not just sentencing remarks available. We are thinking about making broadly what happens in courts and such transcripts more widely available. What inhibits us is cost, and we are trying to take out that cost by looking at AI models, but we cannot proceed with anything unless we are absolutely certain about its accuracy because, as I am sure the hon. Member appreciates, a document purporting to be a record of what was said in court needs to be bang on.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that this Government are getting on with building the largest prison expansion programme since the Victorians. That is a Labour Government in action, fixing the Tory prison crisis once and for all. Can I ask the Secretary of State to learn from the SNP Scottish Government’s abject failure with the new Barlinnie prison project in Glasgow? It has been delayed again, and now will not be ready until 2028, which is nine years late. The cost has soared from £100 million to a staggering £1 billion for one prison. Will we learn lessons from the SNP failure?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Let me tell him that we have already learned the lessons of the Tory party’s failure, and I am very sorry to hear about the situation he describes in Scotland. The Conservatives’ failure on prison building stemmed from two things: they could not get it past their own Back Benchers, so the planning delays added billions to the cost of prison place expansion; and they did not make certain and available the amount needed to stimulate funding at the rate required. We have reversed both those things: we have made £4.7 billion available and we have made it very clear that planning will not get in the way of prison building.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Several years ago, when I was a magistrate in Westminster and my father was a magistrate in north Wiltshire, we lamented a great deal about the fact that when we put people in prison, we found that there was a whole list of antecedents every time and that this recurred all the time. Could the Secretary of State tell the House what assurances she can give us about prison education, rehabilitation programmes and regular work programmes so that we avoid the pattern of prescribing—with good intentions—solutions that do not work, cost a lot of money and leave the public pretty dissatisfied with the justice system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member, his father and magistrates all over our country. They do an incredibly valuable job of keeping our justice system going. In fact, magistrates deal with 90% of all criminal cases.

The right hon. Member is referring to prolific offending: the people who keep coming back, cycling in and out of the system. The review recommends that we switch to a model of intensive supervision courts, where a judge is in charge of making sure that a treatment programme is adhered to. We will take that forward, and I will set out more proposals when we bring forward the legislation. The early pilots—which, in fairness, were started under the previous Government—have shown very positive progress in helping those offenders to turn their lives around and break the cycle of addiction or mental health problems that often leads to prolific offending. We will build on that work.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

What does the Secretary of State make of the extraordinary admission by the former Lord Chancellor last year that the previous Government chose not to take action on the prison crisis because

“you have to win votes”?

Fortunately, the Conservatives did not win any votes in Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate, which is why I stand here today to say that neighbourhoods in East Thanet are blighted by drug dealing, theft, burglary, sex trafficking and antisocial behaviour, which ebbs and flows according to whether the main criminals, organisers, pimps, co-ordinators and dealers are in or out of prison, causing mayhem. Does she agree with me that the shortage of prison cells, because of the Conservative party, and the lack of alternative punishments, because of the Conservative party, have contributed to that situation, which blights the lives of those in our communities?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point and she is absolutely right. When we have a prison system on the point of collapse, it is not as if the criminals do not know that that is happening. That is why it is imperative that we get our system under control and ensure there is always a prison place available for those who have to be locked up to keep the public safe. Her point about winning votes shows the approach taken by the previous Government: they put themselves first, not the country first.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

On behalf of the justice unions parliamentary group, I welcome the independent review’s recognition of probation officers and join the call from the National Association of Probation Officers for extra direct investment in staff now. Stable accommodation on release is also key to offender rehabilitation. There are presently no approved premises for women in Wales and women centres struggle for funding, so how will the Justice Secretary improve rehabilitation and life chances for Welsh women in the criminal justice system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I very much hope that the position for Welsh women will be the same as for women in England, which is that we see a huge reduction in the number of women in Wales and England entering the female prison estate. That is because the combination of the measures David Gauke recommends, in particular on short sentences, will mean that fewer women go to prison. I will, of course, work with colleagues across Wales to look at what more we can do on accommodation provision. I know that there is no specific centre in Wales—the right hon. Lady and I have discussed that previously. It was a promise made by the previous Government without any funding attached to it, so I was not able to make decisions when I first came into office that could reverse that, but we will work with the Women’s Justice Board and others to ensure that the offer for women who are now no longer going to prison is still strong and helps them on their rehabilitation journey.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

This is a day of shame for the Conservative party. One of their own has laid bare the scale of its failure, leaving us with nowhere to put the prisoners. Conservatives used to call themselves the party of law and order. Take it from this former police inspector: they lost that label long ago and they are never getting it back. Moving forward, the criminal justice system is just that—a system. Decisions taken on policing, courts, probation and prisons all affect one another, so will the Lord Chancellor assure me that the implications for policing and the enforcement of sentences are being taken into account when we roll out the changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a day of shame for the Conservative party. I am sorry to see that the attitude of Conservative Members today is shameless. He makes a very important point on policing. I have had a good conversation with police leaders. I am determined to use the national Criminal Justice Board to ensure that every part of the criminal justice system is aligned and that we take into account all the interactions—based on this review, and on the upcoming criminal courts review—and think about the impact they have not just on the bit of the justice system I am directly responsible for, but on the wider criminal justice system, including policing as a whole.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I first say to the Lord Chancellor that I have huge personal respect for her? I may disagree with some—some, by the way, not all—of what she has announced today, but I would like to put that on the record. She mentions female offending. She will know that there are six mother and baby units in female prisons in England. There were 90 applications for the last period we know about, up to March 2024, with 64 places for mothers and 70 places for babies, allowing for twins. Clearly, there are not enough places. Has she considered as part of this review, when there is not serious and violent offending by female prisoners, getting more of those mothers and babies into the community, rather than having them in prison?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks of personal respect, which are shared across this House. I thank him for that and for the important issue he raises. I hope to move to a position where the combined impact of the changes in the review and the work we are doing with the Women’s Justice Board mean that we see a huge drop in the number of female prisoners. I am particularly keen to ensure that pregnant women and mothers of young children are not anywhere near our female prison estate in future. Of course, for serious offenders we will always need to make sure that prison is an option, but the vast majority of women go to prison on short sentences for much less serious offences and we need to turn that around.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Under the last Conservative Government, the number of foreign criminals in our prisons rose to the tens of thousands, shamefully. Will the Lord Chancellor outline for my constituents what we are doing to deport those foreign criminals from our prisons as quickly as possible to free up vital prison spaces?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are deporting at a faster rate than the previous Government. We have accepted the review’s recommendation to drop the threshold for early removal from this country from 50% of the custodial sentence to 30%. We will urgently work up a plan, with the Home Office, for those who are sentenced to less than three years to be deported as quickly as possible after sentencing.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

In her statement, the Lord Chancellor said that under her earned progression plans, if offenders follow prison rules they will win earlier release. The review says that thousands of offenders will benefit from that. Can she explain to my constituents why simply following the rules means that serious offenders will serve only a third of their sentence? Where is the punishment and where are victims’ interests in that approach?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the track record of his party in government was to run prisons boiling hot, with violence off the charts. The shadow Justice Secretary has been showing a huge amount of concern for prison officers and the violence they face in our prisons. I would have hoped that the Conservative party might welcome some incentivisation in our prison system to make sure we can run safer prisons and keep our prison officers safe. Making sure that people follow the rules, and that that is how they can earn an earlier release, means that those who break the rules will serve longer in prison.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and her razor-like focus on fixing the broken justice and prison system this Government inherited. May I welcome the £700 million to help rebuild probation services and ask a question on rehabilitation and making community punishment pay? I think many people in my constituency will welcome a focus on community punishment being used to do jobs such as fixing potholes and rebuilding services that are needed locally. Equally, I want community punishment to pay by breaking the cycle of reoffending. Can she tell us more about how this programme will get businesses and apprenticeships into prisons, and give young offenders a way out of that cycle, so that we stop them being in prison for a second and third time?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. This is why the Government have already rolled out employment work councils, where prisons link up with employers in their region and try to make sure that there are jobs and training available for offenders on leaving prison. We know that the ability to work is a really important part of driving down reoffending. That is a priority for this Government. Of course, unpaid work is a very visible way for offenders to make reparations to the communities they have harmed. In our eyes, that is the primary focus of it, but the discipline of doing that work can help offenders who are far away from the world of work to get closer to it.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The Government’s plans lay out an expectation that they will be able to manage ex-offenders in the community under intensive supervision. A probation officer in my constituency recently told me that she was told off by her bosses for spending too long with offenders when she was booking just 15-minute appointments. Can the Lord Chancellor tell me when the promised investment will actually reach frontline probation services, and can she guarantee it will be enough to ensure public safety and reduce reoffending?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me reassure the hon. Lady that this is a huge uplift in funding for probation. It is a £1.6 billion budget as it stands, and it will increase by up to £700 million by the end of the spending review period. We have already invested in piloting AI and other technology designed to improve productivity, where AI can complete much of the paperwork that a lot of probation officers spend far too much of their time on, often repeating the same information in different documents. That shows huge promise. We will roll that out at pace to give probation officers more time with the offenders in front of them, doing the thing that only a human can do, which is to get to grips with what is driving that offender’s behaviour and have a plan to tackle it, including by accessing treatment programmes and other things in the community. We are determined to make sure that the Probation Service can rise to the scale of the challenge. The funding will help with that, as will our investment in that technology.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Location and curfew restrictions using electronic tagging to stop hyper-prolific offenders going anywhere near a place where they could reoffend; a requirement to engage in mental health, drug and alcohol treatment, including the use of sobriety tags to address the cause of criminality; putting offenders back to work cleaning up the communities they have harmed; chemical castration for sex offenders; the speeding up of foreign deportations; and the largest prison expansion ever—does the Lord Chancellor agree that this is about putting victims and the public first?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government are determined to clean up the mess left by the previous Conservative Government and to put victims first, cut crime and make our communities safer.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Under the yoke of the SNP, Scotland already has a presumption against short sentences, and now the new Scottish commission looking at sentencing and penal policy has been accused of being packed with activists determined to keep criminals out of jail. Why is the Lord Chancellor in Westminster following this lead and failing to put victims at the heart of the justice system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

What absolute rubbish, I am sorry to say. I am not taking any lessons from the hon. Gentleman or the SNP. This is a programme for England and Wales, for which I am directly responsible, and we are going to make it work.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

When a previous Government fail to take responsibility for the crisis they have caused, they deserve a life sentence on the Opposition Benches. I welcome the construction of a new wing at Ranby prison in my constituency by Worksop-based Laing O’Rourke, a specialist in modern methods of construction that is involved in many other construction projects across the country. If the Minister is seeking more sites for new prisons, could I propose the Crown-owned land across the road from HMP Ranby? We would very much welcome a new prison there.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I shall take my hon. Friend’s early bid for further building in her constituency under advisement immediately.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Under these proposals, foreign criminals will be deported after serving 30% of their sentence, which I appreciate is an improvement. The public want them to be deported right away—does the Lord Chancellor?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The review recommends immediate deportation—meaning “as quickly as possible”, because we still have to detain people before we can get them on a plane and back to their country of origin—for sentences of under three years. We are going to work up proposals on that with the Home Office. For more serious offenders with sentences of over three years, we are going to bring the threshold down from 50% to 30%.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement today, which is a sensible response to the overincarceration and prison places crisis. Can she assure my constituents that notwithstanding these changes, under-reported and under-prosecuted crimes, such as violence against women and girls, will continue to be prioritised by this Government?

[Shabana Mahmood]

This Government will make sure we are running a prison system that is sustainable and not on the point of collapse, so that we can ensure that dangerous offenders in this country are still locked up. We will make progress on our broader mission to halve the level of violence against women and girls over 10 years.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement and the work that David Gauke has done to inform everything that is happening today. As a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to seeing him before us shortly. I seek clarity on what the Lord Chancellor referred to as the

“so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal”.

Will she place the available research and conclusions in the Library so that we all have access to the information and can understand the data on which she and David Gauke have relied?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am happy to ensure that the evidence is available. I would say to the hon. Lady that the very small-scale pilot that I inherited had been running for some time without anybody paying a huge amount of attention to it, and the evidence from other jurisdictions where it has been rolled out a bit more widely is stronger. Our roll-out—I want to get to a national roll-out—will start with two extra regions and 20 more prisons, and we will build the evidence base there. We want measures that work, and I do believe that the combination of chemical suppressants and psychological interventions can help with a cohort of particularly difficult sex offenders.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

In the last four years of the previous Conservative Government, the number of foreign national offenders increased. Now, call me old-fashioned, but I believe that non-UK citizens who commit crimes within the UK should not serve their sentences here. Today’s report makes good progress, and I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s tackling this issue urgently; it is what South Norfolk wants to see, and it will get capacity back in our prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we are already deporting more foreign national offenders than the previous Government. We are taking forward the measures from the Gauke review to speed up and get more foreign offenders out of our system and back to their countries of origin.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) in his call for the immediate deportation of foreign criminals. What is the Lord Chancellor doing to ensure that the courts are not holding up those deportations, and that once deported, those criminals are never allowed back on these shores?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman may have seen that just last week, when the Home Secretary set out the immigration White Paper, we announced that we are reviewing the use of article 8 in relation to immigration cases, and we will bring forward our proposals on that in due course. We will not allow the misuse of our courts and the use of article 8 to enable people who have no right to be in this country to stay in this country. That will require changes to the immigration rules, which the Home Secretary is working on.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the voluntary and community sector can play a vital role in supporting offenders to rehabilitate and gain vital employment and housing? Organisations such as Pathways Care Farm and Access Community Trust in my constituency have helped to prevent t reoffending.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to the organisations in my hon. Friend’s constituency; such voluntary organisations play a hugely important role in helping the justice system to succeed in rehabilitating offenders. We will continue to work closely and build on the review’s recommendations in this area.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Having sat on the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into prison overcrowding, I know full well the issue at hand and who to blame. Can the Lord Chancellor assure me and my constituents that they will not be placed in more danger by the Government not jailing criminals? When those individuals are in the community, the local community must have a voice in the effectiveness and planning of these new sentences, lest we end up with community concerns similar to those about bail hostels in Tiverton and Minehead.

[Shabana Mahmood]

What puts the whole country at risk, including current, future and potential victims of crime, is letting our prison system collapse, and I will never let that happen. The measures we are taking forward from the review today are designed to make sure that this country never runs out of prison places ever again. I will ensure that there is ample time for debate and discussion across this House as we bring our legislation forward.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Is the Lord Chancellor as astounded as I am by the hypocrisy of the Conservatives? They really are the arsonists attacking the firefighters. We are having to clean up their mess, because, in the words of the National Audit Office, this crisis is the result of their failure

“to ensure that the number of prison places was aligned with criminal justice”

priorities.

[Shabana Mahmood]

After some months in this job facing the shadow Ministers, I am afraid that nothing about their behaviour surprises me any more. I will take notice—as, I think, will the country—when the Conservatives finally offer an apology for the absolute abject mess they left behind.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

Police officers, magistrates and judges all report that some offenders would rather go to prison to be back with their mates, watching Sky TV and having three square meals a day. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that those who go to prison should be treated more harshly and robustly than was the case under the 14 years of the previous Conservative Government?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We want to make sure that our prisons are used to punish offenders, that those offenders are made to abide by strict prison rules, that they engage with programmes in prison to bring down their propensity to reoffend, and that, ultimately, we succeed in keeping my hon. Friend’s constituents safe by turning out better citizens rather than better criminals.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

There are thousands of decent, moderate Conservatives all across the country who will have seen the ridiculous spectacle today of the Opposition denigrating David Gauke—of all people—on the prison system. The review was absolutely clear that short sentences are driving reoffending—60% reoffend within the year. Will the Minister set out the steps that she will take to cut crime and create fewer victims?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right. We have to cut crime, have fewer victims and make sure that our streets are safe. That is why we have to make sure that we never run out of prison places, that we never see the breakdown in law and order that would ensue were that to happen, and that we take forward a package of measures that I have announced today. We work on the legislation in the coming weeks and months, which will be designed to make sure that we do not run out of prison places, that we put victims first, and that we cut crime in this country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Tristan Osborne for the last question on this statement.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Leaving the best until last, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As a former police officer, I can say that community payback works. Does the Lord Chancellor agree with me and many of my colleagues in the criminal justice system that rehabilitation of offenders, including filling potholes and clearing fly tipping, is popular, not only in Chatham and Aylesford but in Newark and across the country?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I am determined that we toughen community punishment and make sure that unpaid work truly pays back to the communities that have been harmed by crime. That is why I work with businesses and local authorities, so we can all have a system that drives down reoffending—a system where reparations are made to the communities that have been harmed by crime, whether they are in Newark, Birmingham Ladywood or indeed anywhere else.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That concludes the statement.

Victims and Courts Bill

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[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 the Government took office just 10 months ago, we inherited a justice system in crisis—our prisons were on the point of collapse, and the backlog in our courts was at record levels and rising fast—and victims were all too often paying the price. The Government are beginning the long and hard work of rebuilding our justice system so that it serves victims once more. In my eyes, that means meeting three principles.

The first is that justice must be swift. It is all too easily said that justice delayed means justice denied, but few have had the bravery to wrestle with the implications of that. This Government are investing more in court sitting days than any before them, but we know that that is not enough, so we will pursue reform—even if it courts opposition—in the pursuit of swifter justice for victims. That is why I have asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose once-in-a-generation reform of our courts. Jury trials will always be a cornerstone of our legal system for the most serious cases, but it is clear that we must consider whether there are cases heard before a jury today that could be heard in a different way, such as in front of a magistrate or a new intermediate court, in order to deliver the swifter justice that victims deserve.

The second principle of a justice system that serves victims is that punishment must be certain. This Government inherited the grotesque position of having more prisoners than prison cells. If prisons run out of space, victims pay the price. If courts hold trials and the police are forced to stop making arrests, crime goes unpunished and victims see no justice done. This Government will ensure that criminals face punishment. We are building 14,000 prison places in the largest expansion since the Victorian era, after 14 years in which the Conservatives added just 500 cells to our prison estate. We are also reforming sentencing so that our prisons never run out of space again and there is always space inside for dangerous offenders.

The third and final principle of a justice system that serves victims is that they are not retraumatised by their engagement with it. That third principle is what unites the specific measures set out in the Bill, and I will start by speaking about those which will force criminals to attend their sentencing in court.

In recent years, too many offenders have been allowed to cower in their cells rather than face the consequences of their actions. That is a final insult to victims and their families because it robs them of the chance to tell offenders, through victim impact statements, the pain they have caused. It robs victims and their families of the opportunity to look the offender in the eye and see them face the consequences of their crime and the full reality of their punishment. The Bill will change that.

The Bill gives judges the power to order criminals to attend sentencing hearings, it makes it clear that reasonable force can be used to ensure that happens and it hands out punishments to those who still defy that order. Adult offenders could face up to an additional two years in prison and an unlimited fine. I know, however, that that is little punishment for those who are serving long sentences or perhaps whole life orders, because they did not expect to see the light of day at all. For that reason, we will also give judges the power to impose prison sanctions on offenders, including confining criminals to their cells, the loss of privileges and, going further, limits on social visits.

If offenders appear in the dock but behave in a disruptive or disrespectful way, as has all too often been the case in recent months, judges must have the ability to remove them from the courtroom so that the hearing can continue and justice can be served. The Bill will give a judge the ability to impose the same penalties both on those who refuse to attend their sentencing and on those who attend but attempt to disrupt proceedings. While the previous Government brought forward similar measures, we are going further by expanding the range of punishment available through amending prison rules, which will expand the sanctions available to judges, and by extending the length of time for which such sanctions can be applied.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome this section of the Bill. My constituent, Sabina Nessa, was brutally murdered when she was on her way out to meet a friend. Her murderer refused to attend court and participate in his sentencing, and that caused a great deal of distress to her family. I therefore welcome the move not just to force these characters to turn up in court, but to apply sanctions when they do not comply; my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend speaks of one of the tragic cases that has led to these changes in the law and on which, in fairness, the previous Government were also seeking to act before the election was called. We are pleased to go further on sanctions. I know that some of the families we are talking about are here and I will pay tribute to them in a few moments’ time.

We will take a delegated power to allow the Secretary of State to specify sanctions in regulations. Those regulations will provide discretion to prison governors, who hold a legal responsibility and accountability for what happens inside prisons. Judges will retain discretion over when to order offenders to attend. This means that, in cases where a victim’s family does not want to see the offender forced to attend, judges can decide differently. As this is a delegated power, the list of sanctions is not presented on the face of the Bill, but it will be rooted in the Prison Rules 1999, which will be amended and extended. The Secretary of State will have the ability to add more sanctions quickly and easily, should that be necessary. This approach offers much more flexibility than a rigid list, which would require the lengthy process of primary legislation to amend it.

I know that, for many, this day has been a long time coming. I am sure the House will therefore join me in paying tribute to the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, and I would like to welcome to this place Cheryl Korbel, Antonia Elverson, Jebina Islam, and Ayse Hussein and her daughter Angel, who are in the Public Gallery today. They have suffered unimaginable pain and then faced the indescribable trauma of an offender who would not face them. They have fought tirelessly to bring about this law, and we owe them a debt of thanks for their courage and fortitude. Today is their day, and it will have a lasting impact for others yet to come, who should never have to face what they have endured. While nothing will ever lessen the pain of such immense loss suffered by these families, this measure in the Bill is brought forward in the name and memories of Olivia, Zara, Sabina and Jan.

The Bill will also address the trauma that reverberates years after a parent has sexually abused their child. Today, a parent convicted of sexually abusing their child can continue to exercise parental responsibility for them. From behind bars, these vile abusers have been able to continue interfering in the lives of their children. Today a mother has to request that parental responsibility is restricted in a case where a father has committed a sexual offence against their child; now, we will automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility by anyone sentenced to four years or more for serious child sexual abuse against their children. This will restrict those rights from the moment of sentencing, so that children are immediately protected. It sends a clear message that abusers no longer have the power to exercise control. Making this step automatic will spare families the trauma of having to go through proceedings in the family courts, giving them the space they need to begin healing and move on with their lives.

The previous Government brought forward proposals in their Criminal Justice Bill to apply this measure to offences committed against all children, but that measure was restricted to child rape. Under their proposals, a parent could commit a wide range of heinous sexual offences against their child, including sexual assault and sexual exploitation, and not be covered. We believe that was too narrowly drawn; it overlooked the devastating impact of a parent committing other serious sexual offences against their own child—so although we supported the measures in opposition, we are now strengthening them in government.

Our measure will cover all serious sexual offences committed by a parent against a child they have parental responsibility for, such as sexual assault and sexual exploitation, causing a child to watch a sexual act and sexual activity without consent. There is no denying that we are in novel territory with this measure and, as such, we have a duty to take a balanced approach. This automatic restriction can, and likely will, be challenged. We do not yet know how many challenges the courts will receive. We have a responsibility to ensure that the courts are not overwhelmed, and that vulnerable children going through the family court do not suffer. For that reason, we have chosen to expand the offences beyond child rape, but to begin by restricting our measures to serious sexual offences where a perpetrator holds parental responsibility for their victim.

I have heard the strength of feeling from survivors and campaigners who want to see our measure extended to all offences against any child, not just where a perpetrator has parental responsibility. I understand the calls on us to be as ambitious as possible, and to expand this to a wider cohort of offenders, but we believe that our measure is stronger than what came before and is the right starting point for this novel change. We will work collaboratively and constructively with Members from across the House, and with those in the sector. I say to them that this is the beginning of legal change in this area, not the end.

The Bill will also strengthen the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, so that victims are not forced to fight every fight themselves, but have the commissioner—both the individual and the office—to fight for them. That will ensure that there is proper accountability when victims are let down by the justice system, and that victims are not retraumatised by having to fight for every improvement to the system.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making an excellent presentation to the House. My constituent Kevin Curran has campaigned all his life in memory of his brother Declan, who tragically took his own life. He was a victim of child sexual abuse. The ability to access therapeutic services is one issue, but another is that many providers are reluctant to give their services because evidence from medical records could be used to try to break a case. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure not only that people can access therapeutic services, but that their records will not be used in evidence to destroy a case?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I am sorry about the case of her constituent. She will know that her request is one of the leading recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and the Department of Health and Social Care has committed to taking it forward. I know that we will see more progress made in this area.

Under the Bill, for the first time, the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to act on individual cases that expose systemic failure. They will have the power to request information from agencies on why a failing has happened, what will be done to address it, and how we can drive change across the system.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I welcome the inclusion of this measure in the Bill. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the extension of the measure to local authorities and social housing providers is essential if the Victims’ Commissioner is to fully represent victims of antisocial behaviour?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point, and I will say later why the Government and I reject the idea that antisocial behaviour is low level and therefore outside the purview of the Victims’ Commissioner; that is why we are extending the commissioner’s powers. I welcome the support that the measure has received from the hon. Gentleman and others across the House. I hope we can all work collaboratively on the measure to ensure that it takes proper effect.

The Bill will also require the commissioner to produce a new independent assessment each year, providing much-needed scrutiny of how public agencies meet their duties under the victims code. It will ensure that victims’ rights are being upheld and, where they are not, that action is taken.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill; what she has outlined is exactly what we wanted to hear. My constituent has asked me this question. During the restoration of justice, the victim often feels isolated from the process. Does the Minister believe that if the Bill is to be effective, communication is key? Does the Bill go far enough in ensuring an obligation to communicate? I know she wants that communication, but I ask for my constituent, and to satisfy my conscience.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member makes an important point about communication with victims, and I will come a little later to the measures in that area that will enhance the system and provide a good foundation for us to build on, so that victims have the information that they need to get through criminal justice system processes, and are kept updated once an offender has served their sentence and is on licence in the community.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Just once more—it is hard to say no to the hon. Gentleman!

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister ensure that the legislation also applies to Northern Ireland? I understand that it does, but I meant to ask that question before; apologies for not doing so.

[Shabana Mahmood]

These matters are devolved in Northern Ireland—the Bill applies to England and Wales—but we are in regular contact with our counterparts in Northern Ireland. I know that the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), will engage with counterparts to ensure that, where possible, arrangements reflect each other. We all have an interest in ensuring that the whole system, across the UK, is as strong as it can be.

The Bill will also ensure greater accountability for how agencies respond to victims of antisocial behaviour. As the House will know, that is an area in which many victims are not heard and not supported. Incidents are too often dismissed as minor or low-level crimes, when they have a devastating effect on local communities and on people’s lives. The Bill will empower the Victims’ Commissioner to request information from local authorities, and from social housing providers, which sit outside the criminal justice system, so that the commissioner can better understand how victims of antisocial behaviour are being supported. Those measures are an important first step towards rebuilding victims’ confidence in the system, ensuring that their voices are heard, and leaving public bodies in no doubt that they will be held to account when they fall short.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent and compelling speech. I warmly welcome what she is saying, which closely resonates with the feelings of many of my constituents in Reading town centre and elsewhere who have unfortunately suffered from antisocial behaviour in many different forms. I am sure that colleagues from around the country have experienced the same. I commend her approach and thank her for her work.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that this part of the Bill will get lots of support from across the House. By strengthening the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, so that they can take more action on antisocial behaviour, it is important that we send the clear message that we will not tolerate antisocial behaviour ruining the lives of constituents up and down the country.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

Antisocial behaviour is a huge issue in my constituency. I have seen its impact on many of my constituents; it blights the community and makes people fearful in their own home. I have felt my constituents’ real disappointment when it has been labelled low-level crime; that has affected how supported they feel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must absolutely ensure that antisocial behaviour is not dismissed as low-level crime, and that its victims are put at the forefront of our justice system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is an assiduous champion for the people of Clwyd East. Let me assure her that I approach this as a constituency MP just as much as I do as a Cabinet Minister. Far too many of my constituents have, like hers, suffered antisocial behaviour and been unable to move on in their life because of the trauma that they suffered, day in, day out. They feel like nobody takes it seriously. Under the Bill, the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to hold local authorities and social housing providers to account to ensure that they deliver for the victims of antisocial behaviour.

Let me move on to other measures in the Bill. The victim contact scheme plays a critical role in ensuring that information is communicated to those who are eligible to receive it. The legislation that governs it is over 20 years old, and there are issues with the scope and operation of the scheme. Victims repeatedly say that the criminal justice system is too complex, disjointed and difficult to navigate, including when they try to access support. Where we can simplify and rationalise the system, we should. That is why the Bill will streamline the system. It will bring victims who are currently served by different operational schemes into the victim contact scheme, and will provide all victims with one clear route for requesting information, through a new dedicated helpline. Taken together, the measures will better support victims and ensure that they receive the right information about offenders at the right time.

I move on to measures that will improve efficiency and deliver swifter justice for the victims of crime. Timely access to justice is a cornerstone of public confidence in our legal system, yet we face a shortage of prosecutors—an issue that directly contributes to delays in our courts. Legislation prevents the appointment of qualified legal professionals—such as Chartered Institute of Legal Executives practitioners—as Crown prosecutors, even when those individuals are eminently capable, have experience in criminal litigation, and hold the necessary rights of audience.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Only this weekend, I was discussing with a district Crown prosecutor and another Crown prosecutor the backlog in our court system, and they expressed strong concern about the recruitment and retention problem in the Crown Prosecution Service. I welcome this new measure, which will go a long way to ensuring that we have enough Crown prosecutors, so that the backlog in the court system can be eased.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

We hope that the Bill will provide some immediate relief when it comes to the recruitment of prosecutors, because it will address an outdated constraint, remove unnecessary legislative barriers, and allow the CPS to recruit Crown prosecutors from a broader, more diverse pool of talent. Estimates suggest that there may be more than 800 CILEX specialist criminal practitioners who have expressed an interest in becoming a Crown prosecutor. The measure will support greater flexibility in resourcing, and may help to shorten waiting times for cases to be prosecuted. It supports our manifesto pledge to ensure that more prosecutors are available and, above all, may help reduce the long, painful wait that many victims face for their case to come to court.

We are committed to reforming the private prosecution system, so that it is fairer and has the right safeguards. Through the Bill, we are taking the first steps towards longer-term change. Although private prosecutions play an important role in our justice system, the way private prosecutors’ costs are awarded can provide perverse incentives for firms to bring private prosecutions. Costs in private prosecutions can be more than five times higher than in cases where both defence and prosecution are funded via fees that are set out in regulations. That is why the Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations to set rates at which prosecutors can recover their costs from central funds in private prosecutions. That will ensure the best use of public funds and reduce the incentive for private prosecutors to prioritise profit when considering bringing criminal proceedings.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is about to mention that this comes from a proposal made by the Justice Committee as long ago as 2020, under my distinguished predecessor, Sir Bob Neill KC. I am glad to see that the measure is finally reaching the statute book.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I was just about to pay tribute to the Justice Committee for its work, to Sir Bob Neill, and to my hon. Friend, the current esteemed Chair of that Committee. I thank him and Members past and present for pushing for Government action on this matter, and I am glad that we have been able to include this measure in the Bill.

Let me turn to measures on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As the House will know, the scheme is a safeguard that allows the Attorney General to refer certain cases to the Court of Appeal. That action is taken if it is believed that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. However, in practice, the 28-day statutory time limit for referral has proven problematic when cases have been brought to the Attorney General’s attention late in that period.

The Bill will ensure that every eligible case is properly scrutinised, and will guarantee that the Attorney General has 14 full days to assess any request received in the final fortnight of that 28-day window. This change will ensure that enough time is allowed for cases to be fully considered and referred to the Court of Appeal as necessary, and will provide greater clarity to victims, families and the public.

Finally, the Bill will create greater consistency in the courts through a targeted and technical amendment to magistrates court sentencing powers for six offences. We are tidying up an anomaly that we inherited. These six offences were not included in legislative changes made by the previous Government. By ensuring that everything is aligned, this change will ultimately help to avoid confusion and errors in sentencing.

The Bill marks an important step forward in our mission to rebuild our justice system, so that it serves the victims who, in recent years, it has all too often failed. It brings forward long-overdue reforms that will strengthen victims’ rights, force offenders to attend their sentencing hearings, restrict the parental responsibility of convicted child sex offenders, and further empower the Victims’ Commissioner.

The criminal justice system in this country suffered terribly at the hands of the Conservative party: the backlog in our courts is long and growing longer; our prisons are trapped in a cycle of crisis; and victims have paid the price. This Government are beginning the work of reversing that damage. We will deliver swifter justice for victims, and ensure that criminals face certain punishment and that our justice system serves victims, rather than subjects them to trauma on top of what they have already suffered. I know this is just the beginning and that there is much more that we must do, but the work is under way and I look forward to a constructive debate ahead. I commend the Bill to the House.

Prison Capacity

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Written Statements

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

This Government inherited a prison system at the point of crisis. We took swift and decisive action to stabilise it, but we knew that was a first step. This is why, in October, I appointed the right hon. David Gauke to lead an independent review of sentencing. I expect the sentencing review to provide recommendations to place the system on a sustainable footing and ensure there is always space in prison for dangerous offenders.

Last December we published a long-term prison capacity strategy, setting out plans to build 14,000 prison places by 2031. This is the largest expansion of the prison estate since the Victorians. We have already committed £2.3 billion to prison expansion. Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 new prison places. While the spending review is ongoing, I can announce today that the Treasury will fund our prison expansion plans, in full, across the spending review period.

I have been clear that it was likely that further measures would be required before the sentencing review’s long-term recommendations could be implemented. Under central demand projections, the adult male estate will have capacity of just 200 prison places remaining by the end of September 2025 and will hit zero capacity—entirely run out of prison places—by November 2025.

It is therefore essential that we act now to avert a further crisis in prison capacity and manage the system over the shorter term while long-term reforms are delivered. The alternative would be the total breakdown of law and order, and the end to our ambitions of meeting our safer streets mission.

The recall population has more than doubled since 2018 from 6,000 to 13,600 prisoners in March this year. Last year I was clear that sustained action on recall was needed. The Government will bring forward legislation in the coming weeks to make more use of fixed-term recall, mandating it for sentences of less than four years. We will exclude offenders recalled for committing a serious further offence and offenders who are subject to higher levels of risk management by multi-agency public protection arrangements. This measure builds on previous legislation that mandated 14-day recalls for those serving sentences of less than a year. The proposals will ensure we do not run out of prison places before we introduce the sentencing reforms that—alongside our record prison building plans—will end the crisis in our prisons for good.

[HCWS634]

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office Annual Report 2023–2024

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Written Statements

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

With the concurrence of the Lady Chief Justice, I will today publish the 17th annual report of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

The JCIO supports the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor in our joint statutory responsibility for judicial discipline.

The judiciary comprises approximately 20,000 individuals serving across a range of jurisdictions. Over the past year, the JCIO received 2,394 complaints against judicial office holders. A total of 58 investigations resulted in disciplinary action.

I have placed copies of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. Copies are also available online at: https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/reportsandpublications

[HCWS621]

Young Offender Institutions in England: Use of PAVA

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Written Statements

[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 Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Lord Chancellor.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

2. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Sentencing Council.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Today, the Justice Secretary is belatedly introducing a Bill to restore fairness in who receives a pre-sentence report, but it will not correct what the pre-sentence report says. Under brand-new guidance that the Justice Secretary’s Department issued in January, pre-sentence reports must consider the “culture” of an offender and take into account whether they have suffered “intergenerational trauma” from “important historical events”. Evidently, the Labour party does not believe in individual responsibility and agency. Instead of treating people equally, it believes in cultural relativism. This time the Justice Secretary has nobody else to blame but herself. Will she change that or is there two-tier justice? Is that the Labour party’s policy now?

[Shabana Mahmood]

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

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle hyper-prolific offending.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

21. What steps she is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle hyper-prolific offending.

[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 (Hitchin) (Lab)]

rose—

[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)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to support young offenders in Staffordshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

14. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the standard determinate sentences 40% early release scheme.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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)]

15. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle intimate image abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

16. If she will have discussions with the HM Prison and Probation Service on the potential merits of reviewing its guidelines on bail.

[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)]

17. What steps her Department is taking to reform the prison system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

T2. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[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)]

T4. The Conservatives presided over 14 years of total failure in our justice system. [Interruption.] Let me be topical. To restore justice in this country and keep my constituents safe, we cannot just do more of the same; we need more transparency about the time criminals spend in jail, and common-sense sentencing must mean exactly that. How does the Secretary of State think technology can help to make that possible?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I support the Lord Chancellor’s decision to commission a full statutory inquiry into the terrible attack in Nottingham. I know it will be welcomed by the families and everyone in the city and across my home county of Nottinghamshire. I fully support her welcome decision.

Greg Ó Ceallaigh is a serving immigration judge who decides asylum and deportation appeals. It took nothing more than a basic Google search to uncover his past comments that the Conservative party should be treated the same way as Nazis and cancer. As a sitting judge, he has publicly supported Labour’s plans to scrap the Rwanda scheme and for illegal entry into the United Kingdom to be decriminalised. Does the Lord Chancellor believe this is compatible with judicial impartiality? If not, what does she intend to do about it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks on the new Nottingham inquiry—I am very grateful for his support. I am sure the whole House will want to see the inquiry come to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that when people have a complaint to make about judges, they can do so via the well-placed mechanism of the judicial complaints office. If he wishes to make a complaint, he can do so, but what I will not do is indulge in, effectively, the doxing of judges, especially not when they are simply doing their job of applying the law in the cases that appear before them. If there are complaints to be made about judicial conduct, I am sure the shadow Lord Chancellor knows how to go about it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say that we must be careful about what we do here? We are not meant to criticise judges, and I know that this House would not do so. I am sure that we will now change the topic.

[Robert Jenrick]

Mr Speaker, it is important that judges and the manner in which they are appointed are properly scrutinised in this House, and I will not shy away from doing so. Helen Pitcher was forced to resign in disgrace as the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission after a formal panel found that she had failed in her duties during one of the worst miscarriages of justice in recent memory. But she is still in charge of judicial appointments, despite judges appearing in the media every week for their activism. Her commission has failed to conduct the most basic checks on potential judges, either out of sheer incompetence, or out of sympathy with their hard-left views on open borders. The commission is broken and is bringing the independence of the judiciary into disrepute. How much longer will it take for the Justice Secretary to act and remove the chair of this commission from her position and defend the independence and reputation of the judiciary?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am afraid that the shadow Chancellor cannot elide the process for the appointment of judges with a wider attack on the independence of the judiciary. I hope that he will take the admonishment from you, Mr Speaker, and the clear disapprobation of this House to reflect on the way that he is approaching his role. If there are complaints to be made about judicial conduct, there is already a robust process in place for doing so. If the shadow Lord Chancellor wishes to avail himself of that, I am sure that, given how active he is, he will be happy to do so. What is completely improper is to take his position in this House to indulge in a wider attack of the judiciary at a time when we know that judicial security has been compromised—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

T3. In a single week in Bradford, we have seen council leaders once again reject my calls for a full rape gangs inquiry. An ex-police officer has been threatened with arrest for investigating these horrific crimes, and now a judge is blocking the release of official transcripts from a major rape gang trial in Bradford. Can the Lord Chancellor explain why our justice system is being used to block the truth about these trials?

[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)]

T8. Restricted patients are mentally disordered offenders who are detained in hospital for treatment and are subject to special controls by the Justice Secretary. What additional support is my right hon. Friend’s Department providing to help mental health trusts to treat and rehabilitate these patients, so that they can be released from this secure environment in a timely manner?

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

T5. Release on temporary licence is denied when people say nasty stuff on Twitter but granted for much more serious crimes. Can the Secretary of State tell me when I can expect a satisfactory reply to an urgent ROTL case that I have already raised with the Prisons Minister and senior civil servants and that affects a grieving family in my constituency?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

T7. We should all be really concerned that the Government have quietly abandoned their pledge to hold five local inquiries into grooming gangs. The victims still need justice, the public still need answers, and we still need a full inquiry. In the meantime, can the Minister tell us what specific actions—not just references to AI—her Department is taking to ensure full transparency and public confidence in the cases that do come to court?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?