Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I will make a statement on capacity in the Crown court.

When this Government took office eight months ago, we received an inheritance from the Conservative Government that was little short of disgraceful: our prisons were in crisis, on the edge of collapse, and our courts faced a record and rising backlog. While the crisis in our prisons was more obvious and visible, the harm caused by the backlog in our courts cannot be overestimated.

Today, the backlog stands at over 73,000 cases. Just five years earlier, it had been half that figure. We should stop and consider that fact, because the backlog is far more than a number. Behind each case is a victim. Many have waited years for justice and some will now not have their cases heard until 2028. With delays that long, it is little wonder that more victims are dropping out, and tragically that is true of victims of the most heinous crimes. Just five years ago, around 3% of adult rape victims whose cases were due to go to trial dropped out before their case was heard. Today, that figure has more than doubled.

An old adage has sadly come true in this country: for far too many, justice delayed is justice denied. Unlike our predecessors, who allowed this backlog to rise and rise, this Government will bear down on it. We will deliver swifter justice for the victims of crime. That starts today with a record investment in our criminal courts.

Each financial year, the Government determine the total number of days that can be sat across all our courts and tribunals, commonly referred to as sitting days. This process is called the concordat. Last year, I committed to concluding the process earlier than in previous years to give our courts greater certainty. We have now done so, several months ahead of last year’s settlement, so today I can announce that the Government will provide a total budget of £2.5 billion for our courts and tribunals in the next financial year. That represents a record level of investment, which will fund up to 110,000 sitting days in our Crown courts—4,000 more days than the previous Government funded last year. If the shadow Lord Chancellor would like to check the record books, he will find no higher allocation in recorded history.

Beyond the Crown court, investment in the family and civil courts brings those jurisdictions to, or close to, their maximum capacity, and the investment in court capacity is matched by an investment in court maintenance. Our courts have been allowed to fall into a shocking state of disrepair in recent years, so this Government will boost funding to £148.5 million, up from £128 million last year. That will be the highest figure spent on maintenance and capital works in the last 10 years, building on a consistent theme of this new Government, and it is a marked difference when compared with our predecessors.

In our first eight months in office, we have consistently invested more in the courts than the last Conservative Government. On entering office, I immediately funded 500 sitting days on top of the allocation provided by the previous Lord Chancellor. At the end of last year, when resources allowed, I added a further 2,000 sitting days. In October, this Government also increased the sentencing powers of magistrates courts; previously, they could impose only a six-month prison sentence, which we lifted to 12 months. In doing so, we freed up capacity in the Crown court to hear the most serious cases. That single change was equivalent to adding another 2,000 sitting days in our Crown courts. All those changes are necessary for the swift delivery of justice.

However, I must be honest, in a way that my predecessors never were: this investment is necessary, but it is not sufficient to reduce the Crown court backlog. Even with record levels of funding, if we do not take other, bolder measures, the backlog will grow. With a growing number of cases entering our courts and cases of increasing complexity being heard in front of our judges, we cannot simply do more of the same: we must do things differently. In December, I appointed Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct a wholesale review of our criminal courts. The review will propose long-term reform as well as reviewing the efficiency and timeliness of court processes from charge all the way through to case completion.

Crucially, I have also asked Sir Brian to address something that too many others have avoided: the question of structural reform. Today, 10% of criminal cases are heard in a Crown court, where a judge presides and a jury decides. Jury trials are a pillar of our justice system for the most serious offences, and that will never change. However, we must ask ourselves whether they are hearing cases that could be handled equally well elsewhere.

Some cases can already be heard in either a Crown court or a magistrates court, which we call “triable either way” cases. Those represent 40% of the courts backlog, but while a conviction—whether determined by a jury or a magistrate—is the same regardless of the type of courtroom, the demand that it places on our justice system is very different indeed. An either-way case is resolved by magistrates five times faster than before a judge and jury. Justice must be done and criminals must always face consequences—on that, I know this House will agree—but we must be willing to ask whether a judge and jury should be occupied, at great length and expense, with crimes that could be dealt with more swiftly elsewhere.

For that reason, I have asked Sir Brian to consider the case for reclassifying some less serious offences, whether magistrates’ sentencing powers are sufficient and the case for a new court to sit between the magistrates court and the Crown court. His recommendations will come later this spring. His goal and mine are one: to bear down on the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims. The consequences of failing to do so are all too clear—the backlog in the criminal courts will rise, cases will be listed even further into the future, and more victims of crime will decide that the wait is too painful with justice so distant, and as a result, dangerous criminals will walk free.

Today, we have announced a record investment in our courts: 110,000 sitting days funded, which is 4,000 more than the previous Administration funded. For many victims, their case will be heard sooner, but if we are to deliver swifter justice for all, we must embrace reform. This Government will deliver once-in-a-generation reform of our courts, and we will reverse the decline and the delays of the last Conservative Government. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I can always help by reopening Chorley court for you.

I call the shadow Lord Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The shadow Secretary of State asked, “How did we get here?” I will tell him how we got here—his Administration and the 14 years they had in power, and the absolute mess they made of the criminal justice system; a mess that this Government are clearing up. I am sorry to deprive him of what I am sure he thought was a clever attack line on my recent visit to Texas, but I can inform him that I have in fact visited HM Prison Manchester. I did so during the February recess. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As I said to Members on the Government Benches, I do need to hear.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman should welcome our seeking to learn from a tough law and order state in America, which 20 years ago had the same problems that we inherited from his Administration, and which has embarked on criminal justice reform that has seen reoffending at a level that we could only dream of in this country. He should seek to learn from other countries, as we are. If his Government had done so when they were in power, we would not have such a big mess to clear up in the criminal justice system.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to courtrooms sitting empty; one reason why is that one of his Government’s last acts on leaving office was to fund only 106,000 sitting days. I have lifted that number, and today the number of Crown court sitting days is at a record high, funded by this Labour Government. More courtrooms will be put to use. He will also know that to run the system efficiently, the normal practice is that some courtrooms will not be in use to cope with the flux in demand. However, as a result of today’s decision, more courtrooms will be in use than was ever the case under his Administration.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what I have been doing and what is the plan. When I came into office, the first thing I did was immediately to increase the number of sitting days by 500, up from 106,000 when his Government left office. I then made a further allocation and increased that again by 2,000 before Christmas—making progress on the Crown court backlog and picking up the pieces of the mess that his Government left behind. He will know that the changes that I made to magistrates court sentencing powers have also freed up capacity in the Crown courts. We have increased funding for criminal legal aid by £92 million so that we have the money to underpin the system. That is action. That is an increase in sitting days in-year and an unprecedented increase in sitting days for next year. That is what this Labour Government are delivering.

The right hon. Gentleman will also know that even if we were sitting at the maximum judicial capacity—he rightly referred to that, as did the Lady Chief Justice in Parliament—that backlog would still rise, because the demand in the system is fast outstripping the pace at which cases are being disposed of. Knowing that, it would be unconscionable if I stood before this House and behaved as if resources alone would fix the problem. That is why Sir Brian Leveson is considering once-in-a-generation reform of our Crown courts.

The combination of the steps that I have already taken, the funding that I have allocated and the review that will lead to once-in-a-generation reform—that is what a plan looks like to fix the mess that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government left behind. It is a plan that they could have had in place when they were in government, but they failed to do so, and now they carp from the sidelines when someone else is getting on with the job.

Finally, as somebody from an ethnic minority background, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law for anyone. There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch or under this Labour Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on the figures that she has announced and on starting to get to grips with her baleful inheritance. However, there is a long way to go. The Lady Chief Justice told the Lords Constitution Committee last week that she was pressing for Crown courts to sit to capacity. Does the 110,000 figure represent capacity? If not, what is capacity? Given that the backlog is 73,000 cases and rising, will the Lord Chancellor guarantee sitting days up to capacity for the whole of the coming year? In her statement, she rightly promised investment in the family and civil courts to bring those jurisdictions to, or close to, maximum capacity. Will she make the same commitment for the Crown court?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend will know that there is a difference between system capacity and maximum judicial capacity. He is right that the Lady Chief Justice has said that the maximum judicial capacity is 113,000 sitting days in the Crown court. We are funding 110,000 sitting days there, because in my role as Lord Chancellor, I must be mindful of managing the wider system capacity—the availability not just of judges to sit in the Crown court but of the lawyers, prosecutors, legal aid and defence barristers that underpin the rest of the system. I am confident that the 110,000 sitting days represent the system capacity, and that is being delivered.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Tens of thousands of victims and survivors waiting for their day in court is one of the darkest legacies of the last Conservative Government. I feel that sincerely because, under that Conservative Government, I was one of those victims. After two decades of agonising over whether to report my own victimhood as a child, I waited two years for my own opportunity to seek justice in the Crown court. That is years of your heart racing whenever you get a phone call from an unknown number. Is it the court? Is it the Crown Prosecution Service? There are years of anxiety that your perpetrator will retaliate, and years of your life excruciatingly on hold. Many victims today are being forced to sit with all this for far longer than I did. The Liberal Democrats and I personally welcome the Justice Secretary’s announcement.

However, we all know that a huge backlog will remain, which means that victims and survivors will continue to be let down. At a time when victims and survivors need more support during these agonising waits, Government funding cuts and national insurance contribution increases are putting services such as Safeline and Victim Support at risk. Will the Lord Chancellor outline her year by year targets for reducing this backlog, and will she increase, not cut, support for charities to ensure that victims and survivors get the support that they need and deserve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We can reopen them together.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am listening very carefully and taking under advisement all these lobbying requests, including from the Speaker himself, about courts in Members’ areas. I thank both you, Mr Speaker, and my hon. Friend for that.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need radical reform. Without radical reform, the backlog, no matter how many Crown court sitting days we fund, will keep going up and up, which is why Sir Brian Leveson’s work is so very crucial.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee that the backlog is far too high. He will know that, no matter what we do in terms of system efficiency and capacity, that backlog is projected to rise, because the demand coming into the system is particularly high and is itself rising. That is why I have asked Sir Brian Leveson to consider once-in-a-generation policy reform, so that we can make the legislative changes necessary to bring the backlog down. That is the change that is required, alongside system-wide efficiency and productivity.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

The Secretary of State has announced two major reviews of the criminal justice system—the Leveson review and the Gauke review—and has said that, very impressively, they might report by the spring, which could be 1 March. There is a difference between reporting and taking action, so could she set out exactly when she expects the results of those two reviews to have a direct impact on case numbers?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Chair of the Justice Committee is tempting me to pre-empt what the reviews will find. Those findings will, of course, dictate the pace at which change can then occur. He will be aware of the acute pressure on our prisons system, despite the emergency levers that I have had to pull—that has only bought us some time, as I have said when regularly updating the House. The sentencing review measures have to take account of our remaining problem with prison capacity. Once the review has been published, we will move quickly to decide which recommendations to take forward. On the courts package, it is likely that any measures will also require legislative reform. Again, I will seek to move at pace on that, but that rather depends on the package of measures that Sir Brian Leveson ultimately recommends.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

The courts backlog is growing by 500 cases every month, and the Ministry of Justice has not set a date for when it will come down. Victims are being forced to put their lives on hold while they wait for a trial date, yet today at the Old Bailey half of all the courtrooms sit empty. The Lady Chief Justice has said that there are 4,000 additional sitting days available that could be used now. Who is the obstacle to resolving this? Is it the Justice Secretary, who is content for rape trials to be scheduled for as far off as 2027, or is it the Chancellor, and the Justice Secretary has just had rings run around her by the Treasury?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

As I said in my previous answer, it is clear that the fast pace of the online world has some significant challenges for our present arrangements around contempt laws. The Government’s approach, which was to do nothing that might risk collapsing the trial, was the right one. I hope that will have support across the House. It would have been in no one’s interests to take any risks with the safety of the trial. As I have said, the online space poses some challenges for our contempt law arrangements, and the Law Commission is rightly looking into that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Contempt of court laws are guardrails that ensure fair trials. Does the Justice Secretary accept that, as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said, by failing to provide basic information to the public that has been disclosed in previous cases—information that would not prejudice a trial—the authorities created a vacuum in which misinformation spread? That misinformation could itself have been prejudicial to the trial. Does she agree that in an age when most people consume their news through social media, saying nothing is not cost-free? Will she commit to reviewing this issue now, rather than waiting for the Law Commission?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member will know that I am not going to pre-empt any of the findings of the sentencing review. The point of having an independent review is to allow for a look at all the issues in the round. I have made it clear that I am particularly concerned about the people who she rightly terms career criminals, and I am particularly keen to think about the interventions that could make the biggest difference, so that we can reduce this blight on our communities. That is a clear statement of intent from the Government, showing how seriously we take prolific offending, but the measures that we choose to take forward will be clearer once the sentencing review has reported.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State mentioned, the approach to managing hyper-prolific offenders is part of David Gauke’s review, which could consider, for example, the wider use of GPS tagging and home curfew, but the Department has been undertaking its own assessment of the effectiveness of GPS tagging. Will the Government commit to publishing that review before or alongside the sentencing review, so that we can properly judge the merits of any proposed expansion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will happily look at the facts of the case. Some of those numbers do not sound like they should be possible, but that could be down to specific factors relating to that case. If my hon. Friend writes to me with the details, I will make sure he has a full response.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Confidence in the criminal justice system can be achieved only if support for victims and survivors is adequately funded, but charities such as Victim Support, whose services I have personally benefited from, have said that for them, the hike in employers’ national insurance contributions amounts to a real-terms budget cut of 7%. Victims need more support, not less. Will the Secretary of State fight to reverse that damaging cut and help restore victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Lady should know there are robust processes in place in government to manage conflict of interest, which were in place under the previous Administration as well, but this is not something that any Government Minister will be giving a running commentary on.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Andy Slaughter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The length of sentences, and how to deal with the problem of prolific offending, will be looked at specifically by the independent sentencing review panel. My hon. Friend will understand why I cannot pre-empt the findings of that review, but he will note that this Government are committed to scrapping the effective immunity for some shoplifting, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, by removing the £200 threshold. That shows that we are determined to clamp down on the sort of shoplifting he describes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

We know that one of the key ways in which we manage prolific offenders is through tagging—both GPS tagging and home detention tagging. The Secretary of State has assured us that the problems with early release tagging have now been resolved, but I understand that problems persist for thousands of other prisoners who are due to be tagged. Can she assure the public that everyone who is being released, and who should be getting a tag, is being tagged on time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that the past is relevant in so far as it sets the context for the crisis that we have inherited, which needs resolving. Given that we all but ran out of prison places—numbers had fallen to fewer than 100 in the summer—it is important that we recognise that the prison system is and has been on the point of collapse. That is why we had to take emergency measures. We have made exclusions to the SDS40 scheme that should take account of his concerns. It is of course important that offenders are monitored and supervised effectively when they are not in prison, and that is what we are trying to do now. Tech can play a bigger role there, and I have asked the independent review into sentencing to look into that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend will know that this Government have launched a pilot of domestic abuse protection orders in a number of areas, which will bring together the strongest possible protections for victims in other existing protective orders into a single order. Breaching such orders will be a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison, and unlike other orders, there will be no maximum duration.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

In London, there is a phone theft epidemic, and this time it is not the former Transport Secretary on the loose. Last year, more than 64,000 mobile phones were reported to the police as stolen in the capital alone. The small number of individuals responsible should be locked up for a long time, yet last month, a criminal who used a motorbike to steal 24 phones an hour was jailed for just two years. Enough is enough, so will the Justice Secretary commit to dramatically increasing sentences for career criminals, get them off our streets and slash crime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

Anybody who breaches their licence conditions can be recalled immediately to prison. If somebody removes their tag, they can and will be recalled. We have not seen higher than normal rates of recall under the SDS40 scheme, and we have not changed our projections on prison capacity.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is clear that we have to do better on reducing reoffending, given that 80% of offenders are reoffenders. Cutting reoffending is a strategy for cutting crime, keeping the public safe and helping ex-prisoners to turn their lives around. I am sure that the sentencing review will look carefully at short sentences.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Wanting to see justice delivered more consistently for victims is the key reason I sought election to this place, so it is an enormous privilege to take up this role today.

In response to concerns raised last month about offenders who have been released early not being promptly tagged, the Secretary of State assured the House that she will monitor performance daily. Can the Government now provide concrete assurance to the House and the public that all offenders are being tagged as they should on release?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

As the right hon. Member is now the shadow Lord Chancellor, may I remind him that we do not comment on cases that are sub judice? That includes commentary that everyone is aware relates to cases currently going through our legal processes. What I will say is that those are independent decisions for the Crown Prosecution Service, which ultimately decides what charges to bring. In live police investigations into complex cases, it is appropriate that those investigations, the charging decisions and, ultimately, the cases are done by the independent parts of the process and that there is no interference from Government.

[Mr Speaker]

May I also say that we will be returning to this matter straight after the case, as Members right around the House, including me, have great concerns? I assure the House that we will come back to this subject, but, in the meantime, the trial must go ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

With respect to the shadow Lord Chancellor, what will ring hollow to members of the public is the Tory party’s new-found commitment to exclusions for domestic abuse, and the sheer hypocrisy of talking about exclusions to this policy when he was a Minister in the previous Government who brought in the end of custody supervised licence scheme, which had no exclusions relating to domestic abuse whatsoever—[Interruption.] He talks about the governor lock from a sedentary position, but he knows full well that that was an attempt to shift the blame away from ministerial decision making and to place it on governors—something I am not sure was much appreciated by those who run our prisons. We have taken every step and every mechanism available to us to exclude offences connected to domestic abuse and, crucially, to give the probation service time to prepare—something the previous Government never did.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is clear that our prisons are at breaking point. The Conservatives’ failure to tackle the courts backlog has directly contributed to prison overcrowding. Thanks to their neglect and mismanagement, the Government have been left with no choice but to take these measures. However, the Lord Chancellor said in her statement in July that these measures would be reviewed

“within 18 months of implementation—at the very latest, in March 2026.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 833.]

That is a long time away, particularly given the various stories we are hearing about certain individuals being released. Will the Secretary of State once again confirm that no dangerous criminals will be released early?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We have taken every measure available to us to exclude offences from this measure. Serious violence, sexual violence and offences connected to domestic abuse have all been excluded, as have terror offences and so on—the hon. Gentleman will know the list of exclusions. We will work with our probation service, which has done a heroic amount of work over the summer to deliver this policy, in the coming months. We will also work very closely with criminal justice system partners to make sure that the roll-out of the scheme is as safe as possible. We have taken every measure, we will continue to keep matters under review and I will keep the House updated in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

We need to speed up a little. We are only now getting to Question 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is a significant departure from the approach of the previous Government, who introduced an early release scheme—the end of custody supervised licence scheme—that operated under a veil of secrecy, with no data ever published on the numbers released. It took our Government to publish the data showing that more than 10,000 offenders were released under that scheme. I am pleased to say today that we have ended that scheme.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her previous answers on substantive questions about accommodation for prisoners released early. Further to that, have the Government contracted any specific hotels for potential use by early release prisoners?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

Yes, I will.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Prison Capacity

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about prison capacity in England and Wales.

As you know, Mr Speaker, I wanted to make this announcement first in this House. However, given the scale of the emergency facing our prisons, I was forced to set out these measures before Parliament returned.

Since this Government took office two weeks ago, it has become clear that our prisons are in crisis and are at the point of collapse. The male prison estate has been running at over 99% capacity for the last 18 months. We now know that my predecessor warned No. 10 Downing Street but, rather than address this crisis, the former Prime Minister called an election, leaving a ticking time bomb. If that bomb were to go off—if our prisons were to run out of space—the courts would grind to a halt, suspects could not be held in custody and police officers would be unable to make arrests, leaving criminals free to act without consequence. In short, if we fail to act now, we face the prospect of a total breakdown of law and order.

Rather than act, the last Prime Minister allowed us to edge ever closer to catastrophe. Last week, there were around 700 spaces remaining in the male prison estate. With 300 places left, we reach critical capacity. At that point, the smallest change could trigger the chain of events I just set out. With the prison population rising, it is now clear that by September this year, our prisons will overflow. That means there is now only one way to avert disaster.

As the House knows, most of those serving standard determinate sentences leave prison at the halfway point, serving the rest of their sentence in the community. The Government now have no option but to introduce a temporary change in the law. Yesterday, we laid a statutory instrument in draft. Subject to the agreement of both Houses, those serving eligible standard determinate sentences will leave prison after serving 40%, rather than 50%, of their sentence in custody, and will serve the rest on licence. Our impact assessment estimates that around 5,500 offenders will be released in September and October. From that time until we are able to reverse this emergency measure, 40% will be the new point of automatic release for eligible standard determinate

sentences.

The Government do not take this decision lightly, but to disguise reality and delay any further, as the last Government did, is unconscionable. We are clear that this is the safest way forward. In the words of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, these steps are “the least worst option”. He went on to say that

“the worst possible thing would be for the system to block”,

and that any alternative to these measures would be “dangerous for the public”.

I understand that some may feel worried by this decision, but I can assure the House that we are taking every precaution available to us. There will be important exclusions. Sentences for the most dangerous crimes—for sexual and serious violent offences—will not change. That will also be the case for a series of offences linked to domestic violence, including stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour and non-fatal strangulation, as well as those related to national security.

We will also implement stringent protections. First, this change will not take effect until early September, giving the probation service time to prepare. Secondly, all offenders released will be subject to strict licence conditions, to ensure they can be managed safely in the community. Thirdly, offenders can be ordered to wear electronic tags, and curfews will be imposed where appropriate. Finally, if offenders breach the conditions of their licence, they can be returned to prison immediately.

Let me be clear: this is an emergency measure, not a permanent change. This Government are clear that criminals must be punished. We do not intend to allow the 40% release point to stand in perpetuity. That is why I will review these measures again, in 18 months’ time, when the situation in our prisons will have stabilised. Throughout, this Government will be transparent. We will publish data on the number of offenders released on a quarterly basis, and we will publish an annual prison capacity statement, legislating to make this a statutory requirement.

When we implement this change, we will stop the end of custody supervised licence scheme introduced by the last Government, which operated under a veil of secrecy. From the Opposition Benches, I was forced to demand more information about who was being released and what crimes they had committed. This Government have now released that data, showing that over 10,000 offenders were released early, often with very little warning to probation officers, placing them under enormous strain. This was only ever a short-term fix. It was one of a series of decisions this Government believe must be examined more fully, which is why we are announcing a review into how this capacity crisis was allowed to happen and why the necessary decisions were not taken at critical moments.

The measures I have set out today are not a silver bullet. The capacity crisis will not disappear immediately, and these measures will take time to take effect. But when they do, they will give us the time to address the prisons crisis, not just today but for years to come. This includes accelerating the prison building programme to ensure we have the cells we need. Later this year, we will publish a ten-year capacity strategy. That strategy will outline the steps that the Government will take to acquire land for new prison sites, and will classify prisons as being of national importance, placing decision making in Ministers’ hands. The Government are also committed to longer-term reform and cutting reoffending.

Too often, our prisons create better criminals, not better citizens, and nearly 80% of offending is reoffending, all at immense cost to communities and the taxpayer. As Lord Chancellor, my priority is to drive down that number. To do that, the Government will strengthen probation, starting with the recruitment of at least 1,000 new trainee probation officers by the end of March 2025. We will work with prisons to improve offenders’ access to learning and other training, as well as bringing together prison governors, local employers and the voluntary sector to get ex-offenders into work. We know that if an offender has a job within a year of release, they are less likely to reoffend. It is only by driving down reoffending that we will find a sustainable solution to the prisons crisis.

In a speech last week, I called the previous occupants of Downing Street “the guilty men”. I did not use that analogy flippantly. I believe that they placed the country in grave danger. Their legacy is a prison system in crisis, moments from catastrophic disaster. It was only by pure luck, and the heroic efforts of prison and probation staff, that disaster did not strike while they were in office. The legacy of this Government will be different. We will see a prison system brought under control; a probation service that keeps the public safe; enough prison places to meet our needs; and prisons, probation and other services working together to break the cycle of reoffending and so cut crime.

I never thought that I would have to announce the measures that I have set out today, but the scale of this emergency has forced this Government to act now, rather than delay any longer. This Government will always put the country and its safety first. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The situation with IPP prisoners is of great concern, and I know that huge numbers of Members on both sides of this House care about it deeply. I share that concern. IPP prisoners are not caught in the changes that we are putting forward; those are indeterminate sentences, not standard determinate sentences. We supported the previous Government in what we thought were sensible changes to the licence period and the action plan, and we will continue that work. However, any changes made have to account for public protection risks, first and foremost. We want to make progress with that cohort of prisoners, but not in a way that impacts public protection.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I also welcome the Lord Chancellor to her new position, and thank her for advance sight of her statement.

It has been apparent for months that measures of this sort would be necessary. These are described as temporary measures, but 18 months is a very long time for temporary measures. There would be a real danger of damaging public confidence in our criminal system if the measures were to be extended beyond that point.

The answer surely has to be more than just building more prison capacity. The problem is not that our prison estate is too small; it is that we send too many people to prison, and that the time they spend there does nothing to tackle the problems of drug and alcohol dependency, poor literacy and numeracy skills, and poor mental health, which led to their incarceration. Can we hope to hear in the very near future the Government’s comprehensive plan to tackle the issue of the time that people spend in prison?

Finally, may I bring to the Lord Chancellor’s attention the report published this morning by His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation on the failings of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough probation delivery unit? That report outlined that our duty of care to those whom we lock up should not end the day they leave custody. When will we have a response to that report?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

This week the chief inspector of prisons found that, at HMP Lewes, the Government’s early release scheme is undermining safety and risk management. In one case, a high-risk prisoner was released early despite being a risk to children, having a history of stalking and domestic abuse, and being subject to a restraining order. Is this the Secretary of State’s idea of putting public safety first?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

This Conservative Government promised 20,000 prison places by 2025, but so far they have only delivered under 6,000. The Justice Secretary is letting violent offenders out up to two months early because, as we found out from press briefings about dire warnings to No. 10, he has literally nowhere to put them. Instead of focusing on what happened 14 years ago under the last Labour Government, will he level with the public about the true scale of the prisons capacity crisis that is unfolding on his watch?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

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

Prisoners are spending up to 23 hours a day locked up in their cells as a direct result of overcrowding and the prisons capacity crisis caused by this Government. However, I hear congratulations are in order following an announcement last month, not on the Government actually delivering any of the new prisons they have promised or on even getting spades in the ground, but on their submitting yet another planning application for the Leicestershire prison that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has already ruled on once. Is not about time that the Minister renamed the new prisons programme the no prisons programme?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Many, many more offenders will be serving their sentences in the community as a result of the measures in the upcoming Sentencing Bill. We all know that the Government have had to rush these measures out to deal with the prisons capacity crisis that they have created, but it is essential to recognise that these measures will rely heavily on a functioning probation service. With only one of the 33 probation delivery units inspected being rated as “good”, and all others being rated as “requiring improvement” or “inadequate,” what additional resources have been put in place to ensure that potentially dangerous criminals are being properly monitored?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State to her post.

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

I thank the Minister for the update about Daniel Khalife, but the fact remains that HMP Wandsworth has been a known problem for the best part of a decade, with a litany of failures including overcrowding, staffing and security issues. Khalife is not even the first escape from Wandsworth; there was an incident in 2019, which the chief inspector of prisons said was the result of a “serious security breach”. Why, after so many warnings about Wandsworth, have the Government failed to act?

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Financial Secretary’s remarks simply do not go far enough. We need much more detail from him as to what the Government have been up to since they were made aware of this information and why they have apparently failed to act over such serious allegations.

First, when the French authorities passed this information to HMRC, who saw it and what was done with it? Were Ministers informed and what communications did HMRC have with the Treasury and No. 10? If there was no communication, why not, given the seriousness of the issue?

Secondly, what information did the Government seek from Lord Green about the allegations of malpractice at HSBC and his involvement in them prior to his appointment as a trade Minister? The Financial Secretary said this morning that the information was in the public domain before 2010. What information was sought and received? Any failure by this Government to question Stephen Green before his appointment would be an inexplicable and inexcusable abdication of responsibility, and the Government must address that point.

Does the Financial Secretary agree that the minimum to be expected now must be an immediate statement by Lord Green, with a full explanation of his role in these allegations while at HSBC; his knowledge of them while he was a Government Minister; and all communication he has had on these issues with Government Ministers?

Thirdly, at any point during Lord Green’s stint in government, did the Financial Secretary or any other member of the Government discuss allegations of tax avoidance and evasion at HSBC with Lord Green? In 2011, HMRC was open about conducting investigations into the UK individuals on the so-called Falciani list. Can the Financial Secretary give a categorical statement about what discussions have been had between May 2010 and now between HMRC and members of the Government about such investigations?

This Government have failed to back Labour in our calls to crack down on tax avoidance, whether on stopping hedge funds avoiding hundreds of millions—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I want to hear the end of this and I want the shadow Minister to be given the same courtesy as the Financial Secretary.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

This Government have failed to back Labour in our calls to crack down on tax avoidance, whether on stopping hedge funds avoiding hundreds of millions in tax on shares or on closing the eurobonds loophole, and now it seems that wrongdoing may have been overlooked on their watch. As Richard Brooks, a former HMRC tax inspector, has said, the Treasury and HMRC

“knew that there was a mass of evidence of tax evasion at the heart of HSBC”

in 2011, but they

“simply washed their hands of it.”

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I should like to ask the hon. Lady a practical question about her policy of excluding from the mansion tax those with an income below £42,000. She will be aware that some of the richest people in this country live off their capital rather than their income. Does she acknowledge that such people could conceivably fall within the proposed exemption?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to be a bit careful here. We should not really be discussing the policies of the Opposition. The debate is about stamp duty. We have already had a difficult start, and I do not want things to get any more difficult.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would be happy to discuss those technical details with the Minister on another occasion when we would not fall out of order.

I reiterate that we expect our policy to raise the £1.2 billion that, according to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, internal Treasury modelling has shown it could raise. We have seen nothing to change our assessment of those figures. As I was saying, the NHS is in dire straits. There is a crisis in accident and emergency, and it is getting harder to see a GP. This Government have made things worse with their £3 billion top-down reorganisation of the NHS. If that money was available at the beginning of this Parliament, it should have gone into front-line services. We therefore need an annual source of revenue to help to deal with those issues, and a tax on the highest-value homes—the so-called mansion tax—will help the next Labour Government to do that. As I said at the outset, we believe that the proposed changes to stamp duty represent a sensible measure, and they will have our support today and next week when the proposed legislation is formally brought forward.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 2, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

‘( ) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall undertake a review, within six months of the passing of this Act, on the impact of an additional cut of one per cent to the main rate of Corporation Tax for financial year 2015-16, with particular reference to—

(a) the impact on businesses with fewer than 50 employees;

(b) the impact on investment by businesses with fewer than 50 employees; and

(c) alternative tax measures, including non-domestic rates, which would have a greater benefit for businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

( ) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish the report of the review and lay the report before the House.’.

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish a report on the impact of a cut of one per cent to main rate Corporation Tax on businesses, including small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Clauses 5 to 7 stand part.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Our amendment would require the Chancellor to publish a review of the impact of an additional cut of 1% to the main rate of corporation tax for 2015-16 with reference to the impact on businesses with fewer than 50 employees, their levels of investment and the impact of alternative tax measures such as a reduction in non-domestic rates—business rates—which we believe would have a greater impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, which tend to be businesses that have fewer employees and in the main occupy premises with a rateable value of less than £50,000.

Our amendment and our approach highlight the difference between us and the Government when it comes to business taxation. The Government have made a number of significant cuts to corporation tax. The main rate has been cut a number of times, and is due to be cut again from 21% to 20% next year. The main rate is paid by companies with profits of more than £1.5 million—about 40,000 or so businesses. The small profits rate is paid by companies with profits of under £300,000, and there is a marginal rate, which applies to companies with profits between £300,000 and £1.5 million.

The Government have announced cuts to the corporation tax rate in almost every fiscal event that we have had since 2010, with the rate falling from 28% in 2010 to 20% in 2015-16. This has brought the UK rate lower than most developed economies. As I said, the Government are planning another cut for April 2015 from 21% to 20%, at a cost of £400 million in 2015-16, rising to £785 million the following year, and £865 million the year after that. The cumulative corporation tax cut over this Parliament has been in the region of £10 billion. The Government’s central argument for cutting corporation tax is that a lower rate makes the UK more attractive as a destination for businesses to locate. They claim that a reduction in the main rate of corporation tax will reduce capital costs for businesses and promote higher levels of business investment.

Higher and Further Education

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is speaking fluently from the Dispatch Box, but she is doing our young people a disservice. She is scaremongering and sending them the message that they cannot afford university when the monthly payments are lower than they were before, the threshold before they start paying is higher than it ever was before and anyone who suffers illness, who is pregnant and stops working or has—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to catch my eye and make a speech later rather than waste time now.

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the hon. Gentleman had not decided to patronise me at the beginning of his intervention, he might have had enough time to complete his mini-speech. I will move on later to the record drops we have seen in the number of applications, including from mature students, and the increase in the withdrawal rate for students who have been offered university places but decided not to take them, which stands in direct contrast to the rather more rosy picture he is trying to paint.

As I was saying, the Liberal Democrats went into the 2010 general election promising to scrap tuition fees altogether—we all remember that famous pledge—but they broke their promise, and the trust of those who voted for them, and betrayed the students whose votes they courted so assiduously ahead of the election. I wonder how many of them will rediscover their pre-election principles in the Lobbies tonight. Although the Conservatives are no doubt pleased that most of the anger surrounding the betrayal on tuition fees has focused on the Liberal Democrats, they too have form, having previously voted against a rise in tuition fees to £3,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

No, I will not, because I must wrap up. Under our alternative package, the top 10% of earners—those with average incomes of £65,000 or more over their working lives—would pay more, but research from the House of Commons Library has shown that all other income groups would be better off under this package. Universities would receive funding to compensate them for the loss of income from lower fees and the package would be revenue-neutral. The important point is that the headline level of debt carried by students would be significantly lower and would avoid the harm to families and graduates that would be caused by the Government’s plans.

Tonight’s vote is the last opportunity before the new academic term begins for this House to force the Government to change course on their trebling of tuition fees and to give hope to future generations of students that we as a House are prepared to prioritise them and their future; that we will not abandon them; that we understand that we need to provide them with ladders of opportunity, not kick them away; and that we will do whatever we can to help them fulfil their aspirations. If they are allowed to succeed, we as a country will succeed, and I commend this motion to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I warn Members that I will have to introduce a seven-minute limit on speeches, and that that will have to go down later on, due to the amount of time that we have.

Points of Order

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The point has been made and is certainly on the record. If the hon. Lady is unhappy, perhaps it would be an idea for her to write to the Speaker with her views.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announced the Government’s plans for student number controls to be applied to higher education institutions for the academic year 2013-14. The announcement was made in a press release on the Department’s website. This is the second time that the Government have not brought an announcement on student number controls to the House first. In addition, the Department has not yet provided a response to the consultation on student number controls following the publication of the White Paper last summer. Will you advise me, Mr Deputy Speaker, on how we can ensure that such important decisions, which have far-reaching consequences for higher education institutions and students alike, are made in the House first, and subject to full parliamentary scrutiny?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Speaker has a strong view and opinion on the subject. He believes that this House should hear announcements through oral or written statements. Of course, the point is now on the record.