(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberThe Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. We are investing more than the Conservatives ever did, and funding a record allocation of Crown court sitting days—110,000 days this year, which is 4,000 more than during the last Government—but we must reform, too. Sir Brian Leveson will soon present his recommendations for delivering once-in-a-generation reform and swifter justice for victims.
In Essex, 20% of cases are stopped after a defendant has been charged because victims are dropping out and withdrawing their support. With some waiting years for their case to get through the courts, is it any wonder that they give up on justice? Does the Secretary of State agree that we need radical action now to stop the backlog from getting any bigger in places like my constituency of Harlow?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Victims on many occasions feel retraumatised by the criminal justice system because of the long delays. Defendants know that cases are taking too long to be heard; too many of them think that they can game the system, and that if they wait long enough, victims will drop out. That is why we are determined to deliver swifter justice for victims. It is why we have delivered a record number of sitting days in the Crown court this year, and it is why we will do once-in-a-generation reform of our courts after Sir Brian publishes his review.
Thanks to the massive court delays inherited from the Conservatives, as the Secretary of State said, residents in Dartford continue to face huge delays in getting cases involving them to court. What assurance can she give that the delays will reduce, and that for my constituents, it will not continue to be a case of “justice delayed is justice denied”?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the old adage, “justice delayed is justice denied”, has come true. We know that we need bold reform. We have to get the backlog down, and we have to deal with the rising and record demand coming into the system as well. That is why we have made a record allocation of Crown court sitting days, but we also need bold, once-in-a-generation reforms. His constituents and the country deserve nothing less.
The people of Newcastle-under-Lyme want thugs and criminals to be held to account and to feel the full force of the law, and victims of crime to get the justice they deserve. In the west midlands—my home region and the Lord Chancellor’s—the Crown court backlog has increased by over 3,000 cases since 2016. It is clear that we need an overhaul of the system, and to speed up justice. Will the Lord Chancellor tell us two things? When does she expect the Leveson report to be published, and what may it mean for the future of jury trials?
The publication of Sir Brian Leveson’s review is due very soon. My hon. Friend will understand why I cannot give any the exact date, but once Sir Brian has published his findings, the Government will consider them in due course, and we will come to the House first with our full response.
Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of our justice system in the most serious cases, but we have to recognise that they take five times longer than cases heard in magistrates courts, and magistrates courts already hear 90% of all criminal trials. With victims waiting so long for their day in court, we must ask whether there are cases being heard by juries today that need not be heard by juries in future.
The rise in the Crown court backlog in 2024 was 7,051 additional cases; that is 588 extra cases on the backlog every month. The figures for March 2025 show an additional rise over three months of 2,300; that is 769 additional cases on the backlog every month. Not only is the position getting worse under the Lord Chancellor’s leadership, but the rate at which it is getting worse is increasing. Can she explain to the House why the rate is getting worse, and why, when in November the Lady Chief Justice offered 6,500 additional sitting days, she did not accept every single one of those?
I am rather surprised by that question from the hon. Gentleman, because he is normally across the detail. Let me tell him two points of detail that were missing from his question. First, he knows that the demand coming into the system is rising. We have record numbers of cases coming into the system, which is a good thing, because it means that victims are seeking justice, but the system has not been able to cope with that demand. Secondly, he should know that there is a difference between judicial capacity, which is what the Lady Chief Justice has spoken about, and system capacity. Unless he and the Conservatives have suddenly discovered a system that will 3D print new judges, lawyers, prosecutors and defence barristers overnight, I think he will recognise that there comes a point at which additional money does not buy us the ability to go faster. That is what I have to reckon with as Lord Chancellor. I have set the sitting days at 110,000 because that is the max for the system, and that is fully funded. We will consider once-in-a-generation reform to get to the bottom of this problem and fix it once and for all.
Hannah contacted me for the first time in August last year after numerous stalking incidents, online abuse and violent threats from a member of her family. He is still at large almost a year on, despite four arrests. The court date keeps being put back due to the backlogs. There have been further breaches of the bail conditions and a restraining order issued, but we have heard that a fourth trial will be delayed until 2026 at the earliest. What is the Lord Chancellor able to do to help victims who are already in the system, and who continue to be abused by a perpetrator?
I will happily look at the details of the case that the hon. Lady raises. Some of that relates to charging and what the police and others are doing, but I will ensure that she gets a full response from across Government on some of the specifics. Let me observe that we make a whole range of victim support available to victims as they navigate the criminal justice system, and we will continue to do so; I recommend that she recommends some of those mechanisms to her constituent. We have made a record allocation of funding to the Crown courts, but we recognise that we need to go further, as we will after the publication of Sir Brian Leveson’s report.
The Crown court backlog stands at approximately 73,000 cases annually, and rape and sexual assault trials in Leicester Crown court face delays of up to three years. What steps is the Department taking to reduce that backlog and ensure that serious offences are brought to trial more efficiently to prevent further trauma for victims and the miscarriage of justice?
The hon. Gentleman is right that the delays in the system and the long waits for trials are causing huge amounts of trauma to victims, who regularly tell me, him and other Members from across this House that they feel retraumatised by the criminal justice system when they seek justice. I am not willing to tolerate that, which is why I have made record funding available. I recognised right at the outset that the system cannot carry on as it has done for all these years. We need to ask a bigger question about the sorts of cases in our system that get a jury trial, and those that do not. This Government will pursue once-in-a-generation reform of our Crown courts.
Last year, 839 magistrates court trials and 186 Crown court trials had to be cancelled because the defendant was not brought to court on time by prisoner escort contractors. We expect Sir Brian’s report very shortly, which will have a range of proposals on how to reduce the unprecedented backlog in the Crown courts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that however effective those reforms prove to be, they will be undermined from the start unless the performance of contractors such as Serco improves?
My hon. Friend is right that the performance of contractors needs to improve. He and I have discussed that, and the issue regularly comes up in oral questions in relation to the contract for electronic monitoring. We monitor those contracts regularly. We are determined to pursue once-in-a-generation reform, but my hon. Friend will know that the whole system needs to become more productive and efficient. That is why there will be a second part to Sir Brian Leveson’s work, which will report later in the year, and which will look at productivity and efficiency across the criminal justice system. I regularly discuss these matters with the Criminal Justice Board as well.
One of the most important things we can do, as the Lord Chancellor seems to indicate, is reduce the number of cases going into the system by reducing reoffending where possible, including intergenerational reoffending. Given that 65% of boys with a parent in prison will go on to offend, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the children of prisoners are properly identified and supported, so that they do not become the next generation of people in prison?
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and I am grateful to him for doing so. Focusing on the children of prisoners was a manifesto commitment of our party, because—exactly as he says—there is a cycle there that society needs to break, particularly for the children of male prisoners, and especially their sons. We are leading work on joining up information sharing across Government to make sure that those children are identified, properly supported, and able to break the cycle of offending in their family. We must do so in a way that does not stigmatise those children and push them away from those who want to help them. Sensitivity and delicacy are required, but the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to recognise the problem, which we are working on with colleagues in other bits of Government.
The Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone was right when he said,
“Justice delayed is justice denied”.
He would look on the inheritance that this Government received from the Conservative Government as a matter for great shame. While creative solutions are required to tackle the backlog, the jury trial—which we hear may be at risk for some—is a critical safeguard on state power, and is key to a liberal and free society. Ahead of the Leveson report, which is coming out very soon, can the Government tell us how they will increase the overall capacity of the courts system to dispense justice, as opposed to potentially undermining justice altogether?
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for that question, but I would challenge him on two points. I do not think we are undermining justice in this country, when he himself recognises that justice delayed is justice denied. We are trying to properly think through, “What is a good system for us to proceed with in this country?” As he knows, 90% of all criminal cases already go to the magistrates court. That is why we will pursue the reforms that we have set out.
We inherited a set of contracts from the previous Government, some of which are not performing as we would like, particularly in the areas of maintenance and electronic tagging. The Prisons Minister in the other place is gripping this situation and driving progress, with regular meetings to review performance.
In 2013, Serco was fined £68.5 million for overcharging the Government for electronic tagging, but it was still awarded the new £200 million contract in 2023. Given the Secretary of State’s comments in March that the performance of Serco was “not good enough”, can the Minister explain what a private company actually needs to do for the Government to see it as unfit to hold a contract such as this one?
While the performance of Serco has been unacceptable, as the hon. Gentleman says, we have made progress, and performance is improving. We have imposed fines for poor performance, and will not hesitate to employ further contractual remedies or other measures should they be required, but this is a contract that we inherited from the Conservative party, and we are doing our best to make it work.
I thank the Minister for that response, and this Government are doing their best to make things work, but Channel 4 has revealed that the contract with Serco was fundamentally failing. In the answer to my written question in June, Serco’s performance was still deemed to be unacceptable, so where are we with bringing Serco around to perform properly? If it does not do so, will the Government consider cancelling that contract and bringing those services back in-house?
All options are always under review, but as I have said, performance under that contract is improving. The Prisons Minister in the other place is gripping this issue, and we will get to where we need to get to.
People must be able to access legal aid, regardless of where in the country they live, and this Government have made substantial new investments. On the civil side, in housing and immigration, we have announced uplifts worth £20 million; in respect of criminal law, criminal legal aid solicitors will receive an additional £92 million a year. The Legal Aid Agency works hard to ensure that the supply of, and access to, legal aid is secured across the whole of England and Wales.
From the lack of a rural crime strategy to reduced access to legal aid, our rural communities are being left behind. In Harpenden, one farm alone has reported 56 fly-tipping incidents in five years, with the injustice that the most recent incident is costing the farmer around £40,000. Proper legal support for victims of rural crime could make a world of difference, so how are the Government ensuring fair access for our rural communities, including face-to-face legal aid support?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to ensure access to legal aid for those who live in rural areas. The Legal Aid Agency was satisfied that legal aid services across all categories are adequate in her constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted. Digital technology is transforming access to justice through remote consultations and Government-funded websites, such as Advicenow. I encourage her constituents to access legal aid through those means, as well as through local providers.
I pay tribute to the essential work that our prison officers do, day in, day out. This year’s pay award delivered another real-terms pay rise for our frontline prison staff. We are committed to effective training and development of existing staff, as delivered through the Enable programme, alongside the provision of extensive wellbeing services.
I was in correspondence with the Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending last October, but he sits in the other place. In January, I was advised by the Minister in this place that the Secretary of State was awaiting advice about the range of terms and conditions issues for prison officers. I was also advised later in the spring, again from the Dispatch Box, that it was right that the situation was being “kept under review”. I thank the Minister for the thoughtful and sincere way in which he has engaged with me in recent months, but given that I have been asking about this issue for nine months, can he provide an update today on progress with the advice, and on exactly what is being reviewed?
The hon. Member and I had a useful meeting a short time ago to explore all these issues, and I can reaffirm that the Lord Chancellor and the Department are fully engaged with the Prison Officers Association on this and other issues.
There has been a spate of attacks on prison officers in recent months by Islamist terrorists. One study even revealed that terrorists inside prisons are teaching organised criminals how to make bombs. It has got so bad that former governors believe that the threat posed to frontline staff by radicalised Islamists is now intolerable. Can the Minister tell us what his assessment is of the threat from Islamist gangs, and what on earth he is doing about it?
We are working hard to enhance security and ease crowding in order to curb violence, including through a new £40 million investment to stop contraband, which puts our hard-working staff at risk. Assaults on staff and the other issues that the right hon. Gentleman mentions are unacceptable. That is why we are firmly and securely taking action. We are mandating the use of protective body armour in the highest-risk units and on the long-term high-security estate, which hold some of the most dangerous prisoners. We are taking action, while the previous Government failed.
Prison officers benefit from the civil service pension scheme, which offers excellent public sector terms, low employee contributions and a 28.97% employer contribution, but we recognise that pension age is an important issue for prison officers. That is why we are fully engaged with the unions on this issue.
The last Government hiked up prison officers’ pension age to 68, and then walked away from negotiations that were set up to partially reverse that unfair and unrealistic policy. This devastated morale, which is now worse than ever, especially with violence against staff at record highs. Are this Government prepared to do what it takes and clean up yet another Tory prisons mess? Will Ministers finally get back around the table with the Prison Officers Association to negotiate a fair pensions deal for its members?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the fact that this is yet another Tory mess that we have inherited. As I have said, we value the work of the POA, and we recognise the significant work of prison officers and the strength of feeling on this issue. We will continue to engage with the POA and others to try to find the best way forward.
There is a problem in our prisons across the United Kingdom. It is a two-spectrum problem, in that there is an increase in turnover, with prison officers leaving early, while the problem of the pension continues. Can the Minister increase the intensity of discussions with the POA to try to reach a more satisfactory outcome to which the Department and the prison officers concerned are amenable?
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We need to make progress on this issue, and we are determined to do so.
We are funding police support services such as independent sexual advisers and domestic abuse advisers. We have launched domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas, and, as recommended by the sentencing review, we are exploring the possibility of expanding the use of domestic abuse specialist courts. We have asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review of our criminal courts with the ambition of reducing the time for which victims wait for justice.
A woman from Winchester wrote to me saying:
“It feels as though every department that should have protected us has instead failed us”.
After years of high-risk domestic abuse, she went through a CID investigation to prove that she needed financial separation, but the police missed the Crown Prosecution Service investigation deadline and no charges were brought. She is now unable to secure child maintenance. Her abuser remains in financial control, which is effectively enabled by Government systems. What discussions is the Minister having with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that perpetrators of domestic abuse can no longer use financial systems to maintain power and control over their victims?
The hon. Member has made the important point that this is not just a criminal justice problem to be solved, but a problem for every single Department. That is why we have a cross-Government strategy on tackling violence against women and girls, which includes economic abuse. Along with the Safeguarding Minister, I regularly meet Treasury and DWP colleagues in order to get to grips with the problem, and we will publish our strategy in the coming months.
I welcome all the work that the Secretary of State and her team are doing in this important area, for instance through the Women’s Justice Board. At least 57% of women in prison and on probation are victim-survivors of domestic abuse, and in many cases their alleged offending is directly linked with their experiences of that abuse. What consideration has the Minister given to the introduction of an effective defence for domestic abuse victims who use force against their abusers, and for those who are coerced into offending?
I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about this issue. She will be aware of the work that the Women’s Justice Board is doing with the Department, some of the reviews by David Gauke including, specifically, the sentencing review, and Baroness Casey’s recent rapid review of grooming gangs; all that work is connected with defences for victims. We are actively considering this matter, and I will happily work with my hon. Friend and the Centre for Women’s Justice to develop further policies.
The whole House will remember the murder of Sarah Everard and the national debate about violence against women and girls that it provoked. Sarah’s parents, Susan and Jeremy, had many positive experiences of the criminal justice system, but they were deeply upset by the restrictions that were placed on what they could say in their victim impact statements. I think that is wrong, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner thinks it is wrong, and the Victims’ Commissioner thinks it is wrong. Does the Minister think it is wrong?
I have been proud and privileged to meet the Everards, as well as other families who are members of Justice for Victims, to discuss how we can improve the criminal justice system for victims by putting them back at the heart of the system. As the shadow Minister will know, we debated this issue heavily in Committee during the Victims and Courts Bill, and the Department is considering it actively to ensure that the voices of victims are represented in court and at sentencing. I will happily update him on our discussions about how exactly we can do that and what is the best way of doing it.
I welcome that commitment, but the Minister failed to mention that we tabled an amendment in Committee which she voted against, along with a number of other Labour Members. Given what she has just said, will she commit herself now to ensuring that an amendment is tabled during future stages of the Bill to prevent restrictions on what victims and their relatives can say in their impact statements?
Let me say yet again that, as the shadow Minister will know, we voted against that amendment because victim impact statements are currently classed as evidence in a court of law, and they have to be quite specific. We are aware of the concerns of victims; what we need to do is put forward workable, realistic possibilities for how we can best represent their voice in the courtroom. We are getting on with action, whereas the Conservatives dithered and delayed for 14 years. We are making sure that victims are represented in our criminal justice system.
I have a constituent who is a survivor of violent economic abuse, which has involved her abuser occupying one of her properties without consent and vandalising it with mounds of human excrement, rendering it unrentable at huge financial costs. The photographs are disgusting. Delays in civil court proceedings have forced my constituent to live with this for nearly three years. What steps can the Government take both to support survivors who are living in this kind of hell and to speed up the legal proceedings that are currently preventing my constituent from being free once again?
Will the hon. Gentleman please pass on my sincere thoughts to his constituent? That is a horrific situation that no one should have to face. The hon. Member will be aware of our manifesto commitment to look at co-habiting couples’ rights to ensure that victims, survivors and every party have equal access to these rights. We are currently developing that policy work, as well as working across Government with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Treasury and DWP to look at how we can tackle all elements of violence against women and girls, including economic abuse, and I will happily update him on those discussions in due course.
The sexual exploitation and rape of children by grooming gangs is one of the darkest moments in this country’s recent history. In the Crime and Policing Bill, we have made grooming a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences, and we have accepted all of Baroness Casey’s recommendations, including changing the criminal law to ensure that adults who penetrate children under 16 are charged with rape.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her response. Thousands of children across the UK have been abused by grooming gangs, yet charities still warn of victim blaming by police and those in authority. We should be clear that the problem is not children; it is those who prey on them. What are the Government doing to ensure that victims are properly supported and receive the justice they deserve?
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point that was picked up by the Casey report, all the recommendations of which the Government have accepted, and I have no doubt that the national inquiry will be very cognisant of the issues that he raises. Through the Criminal Justice Board, we will ensure that every part of the criminal justice system, from policing right through to prisons, probation and courts, is aware of how we deal with victims: with fairness and justice.
Sohail Zaffer raped a child. He received 42 months. Manzoor Akhtar raped a child. He was sentenced to four and a half years. Ramin Bari was convicted of four rapes. He got just nine years—just two years per rape. These men were sentenced, but not punished. Does the Justice Secretary think these sentences represent justice? If she does not, like most people in this country, will she change the law so that rape gang perpetrators receive full life sentences?
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot and will not comment on individual sentences. I urge him to live up to the responsibility of being the shadow Lord Chancellor, because commenting in the way that he regularly does on individual sentencing decisions, stripped of context and without all the information, is wrong. Those are independent decisions made by the independent judiciary in individual cases.
We took immediate action to prevent the collapse of our prison system. The last Government added just 500 places to our prison estate over 14 years, whereas the previous Labour Government added around 28,000 places over 13 years. We intend to match the ambition of the last Labour Government, not the last Conservative Government, which is why we are committed to building 14,000 new prison places. By the end of this Parliament, we will have more people in prison than at any time in our history.
Every week brings new concerns about crime in Bournemouth, and I will pick up this issue with the police and crime commissioner for my area in my Boscombe office on Friday. Increasing prison spaces keeps dangerous people away from the public, and punishes serious crime. Increasing prison spaces stops reoffending, and I thank Tim from Athelstan Road for his creative suggestions to achieve that, which I have forwarded to the relevant Minister. Can the Minister outline the steps that he is taking to stop reoffending, especially where it applies to violent crime?
My hon. Friend is right. Public protection is our No. 1 priority, but we are also tackling reoffending, with proper programmes in place in prison. We also need to support people when they come out of prison, and probation is part of that solution.
In the light of the pressure on prison places, what assessment has the Minister made of the Government’s early release scheme, under which nearly a quarter of those released reoffended again within just one year? Does he believe that the criteria used to determine eligibility were fit for purpose, and will he share them with the House?
Due to the circumstances that this Government found when we came into office, we had no option but to introduce a temporary change to the law to allow prisoners serving an eligible standard determinate sentence to be released on licence. This had many more constraints to it than the early release scheme operated by the previous Government, which was rushed out just before the election. Actually, the data has not yet been published, so the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that.
Me again, Mr Speaker. We are determined to back our hard-working probation staff by investing up to £700 million, which is a 45% increase in funding. We have already exceeded this year’s target by recruiting over 1,000 trainees. We will recruit another 1,300 more probation officers in 2025-26.
An effective Probation Service is crucial for the rehabilitation and resettlement of prisoners to reduce reoffending. Although I welcome the number of new probation officers to be recruited, Napo reports that probation workloads are unmanageable, staff turnover and sickness are high, and probation officers are often managing cases belonging to colleagues, when evidence suggests that prisoners on licence are less likely to be recalled if they have had the same supervising officer from the day of their release. Can the Minister please outline the steps being taken to address these issues, so that morale is improved and probation officers have sufficient time for and attention to give to individual cases?
My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that prison officers have the time to do the job they came in to do, which is to spend time with offenders and turn their lives around. In addition, we have invested an initial £8 million in technology and launched a new programme to develop a sustainable work process that will allow probation staff to focus on the work they joined the service to deliver.
I thank the Minister very much for that answer. I had the opportunity a few months ago to visit the probation office in Newtownards to get an idea of what it does. I was very impressed, first, by the quality of the staff; secondly, by the fact that they are involved in restorative justice issues relating to perpetrators and victims; and, thirdly, by the importance they give to ensuring that young people have opportunities. Can the Minister tell us, from his discussions with the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, what has been done to ensure that what happens here also happens back home and that what happens back home also happens here?
I thank the hon. Member for his question. As he knows, we have regular discussions in the five nations group to ensure that good practice is shared, issues are addressed together and we learn from each other.
This year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons, which includes anti-drone measures to prevent drugs and other illicit items from entering prisons. Starting this month, we will trial the use of tasers by specialist staff, and we are increasing tactical staffing resource to strengthen prison security.
There has been a spate of attacks at Swinfen Hall Prison, which holds young offenders, in my constituency. Drugs, phones and weapons are often dropped in by drone. The families of prisoners are concerned for their safety, and prison officers are at risk. What steps are the Government taking to prevent drones and to tackle the high levels of violence in our prisons?
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Under the last Government, between 2019 and 2023, drone sightings around prisons increased by over 770%. As I have said, we are investing £40 million in bolstering security measures in our prisons, and we are currently trialling new anti-drone netting on the long-term, high-security estate to tackle drone incursions.
Prison staff are facing record levels of violence and working in such a toxic environment that, according to the Rademaker review, workers are too afraid to raise complaints about bullying and harassment. Does the Lord Chancellor therefore welcome today’s relaunch of the updated “Safe Inside” prisons charter by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance, a coalition of 10 trade unions representing the vast majority of prison staff? If so, will she join us this evening to hear more about safer systems of working in prisons?
I believe the Prisons Minister may well be attending the event that the right hon. Member mentioned. I will happily pick that up in my regular conversations with trade union officials. She is right to highlight the scale of violence across our prison system. We are already taking measures, and I hope that the combination of sentencing reform and investment in our prisons will bring down the level of violence we are currently seeing.
This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog from the previous Tory Government across every jurisdiction. Whether for a victim of crime, a parent, a business or an employee, backlogs mean waiting years for their day in court. We have taken swift action to invest in our courts, and courts in every jurisdiction are sitting at or close to maximum judicial capacity. We have announced record investment this year of £2.5 billion across all courts and tribunals, which will make a real difference to clear up the Tories’ mess.
In my constituency of Horsham, I have been asked to support a woman left in limbo regarding the trial of her ex-partner on a domestic abuse charge. When she was finally given a date, the trial was pulled as a result of an administrative error as she sat waiting in the courtroom. A new date was set for a whole year later. She suffered emotional distress and had to take time off work, which cost her £500. She installed CCTV at her own expense and endured months of further intimidation. Will the Minister undertake to set clear guidelines about maximum waiting times for trials to solve the problem now and in the future?
I am terribly sorry to hear about the case of the hon. Member’s constituent, which exemplifies exactly why we are so determined to grip the backlog in our Crown courts. That is also why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to recommend a once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims such as the hon. Member’s constituent. Ultimately, getting the backlog down so that we can look her in the eyes and say, “We can deliver swifter justice,” will make the real difference.
I work closely with fantastic local businesses across Leeds North West, and I know they already have a lot to contend with, so I am concerned to see a pattern of crime on our high streets, from burglaries to other forms of vandalism, that leaves owners in Horsforth and Adel feeling unsafe. At the same time, like most hon. Members, I am very aware that the Government have inherited a significant backlog that undermines the sense that justice will be served. How does the Minister plan to address that so the individuals responsible are dealt with and small business owners know that we are on their side?
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The impact of the Crown courts backlog is being felt by domestic abuse victims and small businesses, so we have a real job to do to restore confidence in our criminal justice system. That is why we gripped the crisis by putting in place an extra 110,000 Crown court sitting days—a record number. We understand, however, that we will need fundamental reform to address the backlog, and that is what we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at.
Halving knife crime is a moral mission for the Government. Every young person caught with a knife is referred to a youth offending team, and Turnaround is very successful in diverting youngsters on the cusp of crime away from offending. Alongside that, the Government will roll out prevention partnerships and Young Futures hubs.
I welcome the Minister’s answer. Knife crime ruins lives and devastates communities; rightly, those responsible must be held accountable. If we are serious about preventing reoffending, however, we also need structured, credible rehabilitation, the focus of which must be on prevention and diversionary activities. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on boxing, I have seen how grassroots boxing clubs offer something different—structure, community and hope—that is of particular benefit to young people. I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss how boxing can be a key part of successfully rehabilitating offenders.
My hon. Friend is right to point to the range of diversions that can help the rehabilitation of young offenders, including boxing clubs. I am happy to meet him.
As the House will be aware, the Legal Aid Agency suffered a criminal cyber-attack across its systems. It has worked tirelessly to ensure that those who rely on legal aid have not seen that legal aid stop and that providers are not left out of pocket. In short, it has kept the show on the road with a series of emergency contingency measures. Let us be in no doubt, however, that it suffered that attack because its IT systems had been left in a fragile state by the lack of investment from the Conservatives. We will learn from the crisis and build back better with additional investment.
Two of my local firms—MJC Law and Nottingham Law Centre—have contacted me about this issue. MJC Law said:
“This has left legal aid law firms, often small businesses, to decide whether to take on the risk of cases and hope they will be approved and paid retrospectively”.
Cash flow could become a genuinely serious issue for such firms, so what steps are being taken to support them? For how long does the Minister envisage firms dealing with this situation? Finally, on GDPR notices, is it sufficient that the LAA has simply provided a notice on its webpage?
I pay tribute to the legal aid providers across the country who have kept going through this difficult time and who do vital work in the sector. As part of the package of contingency business measures, we have delegated more decision making to providers and we have committed to backdating criminal legal aid applications. I must assure the House that we will turn the systems back on only when we can be sure that they are secure and we can guarantee that we are protecting people’s data.
Work to implement the power to refer cases to the High Court is well advanced, and we expect to be able to fully update the House later this year.
The Secretary of State is declining to take the power to refer to the High Court on unduly lenient Parole Board decisions in cases of manslaughter, like that of Robert Brown, who killed the best friend of my constituent, Hetti Barkworth-Nanton. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this decision and explore how we can ensure that the Secretary of State has all the powers necessary to ensure that violent killers like Brown are not released early?
That was a horrific case. My thoughts remain with Joanna’s family and friends, specifically Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, who I met last year, and who the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), met this week. The previous Parliament carefully scrutinised the referral power and the offences that should be in scope. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman on this matter.
With the case of one of the killers of James Bulger, Jon Venables, coming to the Parole Board again, the need for the voices of victims’ families to be heard in the justice system is coming right to the fore. My constituent Sue, who is in the Gallery today, is being supported by the James Bulger foundation. Her son died needlessly; he was not supported by the people with him, who could have offered him aid and got him medical help. Will the Minister meet me and Sue to hear the tragic details of this case and discuss the options for changing the law to ensure that victims’ families are properly represented in the justice system?
My hon. Friend draws attention to another horrific case. I think the best way of proceeding is to take up his offer of a meeting.
Removals under this Government have been higher over the past 12 months than under the Conservatives. We are going further by expanding the early removal scheme so that prisoners with no right to be in this country will be deported and banned from ever returning to the UK after serving 30% of their custodial sentence.
UK prisons are at full capacity and 12% of prison places are occupied by foreign nationals. Will the Secretary of State look to deport all foreign nationals who commit offences in our country to free up that space?
As I say, we have already deported more people in the first year of this Government than was the case under the previous Government, so we are going faster on foreign national offender removals from our prison estate. The legal changes we are making will bring more offenders into scope earlier in their sentence, making them eligible for deportation.
Will the Lord Chancellor update the House on the conversation she had with international partners on the European convention on human rights during her recent visit to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg?
I had very positive discussions with partner countries across Europe when I visited Strasbourg, where I made a speech about how the European convention on human rights is a living instrument and therefore must keep up with the times. That is a positive conversation, and one that this Government will be continuing in the coming months.
Ensuring that prisoners have access to education is essential for rehabilitation in order to ensure that prison produces better citizens, not better criminals. New prison education service contracts will be launched later this year, which aim to strengthen the quality of delivery and provide consistent assessment of prisoners. Last week, I held a roundtable bringing together experts to drive improvement and strengthen current education provision in young offenders institutions.
I thank my hon. Friend for his response. However, 82% of prisons and young offenders institutions have been rated as “requires improvement” or “inadequate” by Ofsted on education, skills and work provision. Despite that, the prison education service still outsources the same poorly performing contracts to poorly performing providers, and prison educators are paid less than educators in further education settings, causing a crisis in recruitment and retention, according to the Education Committee. When we will see the greatest insourcing in a generation, and will the Minister consider insourcing prison education with proper pay, terms and conditions for prison educators?
All options are on the table. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service introduced a head of education, skills and work into every prison to ensure that, across the estate, a senior member of prison staff is responsible for improving the quality of education provision. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to Ofsted reports, but there has been an increase in the overall number of “good” ratings achieved through the inspections. This is work in progress. We need to do better, as she says, and that is what we are determined to do.
It is a little over a year since this Government were elected, and ever since I have been clearing up the mess created by the previous Government, who left our prisons days from collapse. I am ensuring that we can never run out of space again. We have already opened around 2,500 new prison places, with the aim of creating 14,000 by 2031. We have accepted most of David Gauke’s sentencing review, and I will increase funding for the Probation Service by up to £700 million. In our courts, we are reversing 14 years of under-investment that left us with a record and rising courts backlog. I have funded a record number of Crown court sitting days—4,000 higher than the Conservatives managed—and Sir Brian Leveson will soon propose once-in-a-generation reform. Make no mistake: unlike those on the Conservative Benches, I will do what it takes to bring down the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Under the SNP, the number of suspected criminals in Scotland being let off with a slap on the wrist has increased by 28% in a year, according to the latest data. Now the Labour Government here seem to want to copy the SNP. Why will the Labour Government not put victims first, instead of doing what they are doing now—letting dangerous criminals off with short and weak sentences?
What absolute nonsense. Let me tell the House the definition of soft justice: it is what the Tory party did, building only 500 prison places in 14 years in office. That is why we are in this mess and that is the mess that I am cleaning up.
The killings of Jack and Paul were horrendous crimes and I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to her constituent, Claire, for their tireless campaigning on these issues. I am sure that she would agree that the guiding principle for any reform must be children’s welfare. That is why we have requested a review of the presumption of contact. We will be publishing findings and next steps very shortly.
In the year since Labour took office, can the Justice Secretary tell us how many individuals have been prosecuted for smuggling people in on small boats?
I do not have those figures directly to hand, but I am sure that if they are available, I can write to him with the details.
I asked the Justice Secretary a very simple question about one of the biggest challenges facing our country right now, and the whole House can see that she did not have a clue. This is about not just the pathetically low levels of prosecutions under her watch, but the fact that she has waved through guidelines to shorten sentences for immigration offences. Under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the most serious offence for facilitation carries a life sentence, but she is watering that down to between 10 and 16 years. Instead of smashing the gangs, she is slashing the sentences. Why will she not do something for once and stop this?
Honestly, the shadow Justice Secretary really ought to pay more attention to his day job—rather than to the job he is looking for, which the Conservative party might give him. First, had he paid any attention, he would know that prosecutions do not fall to the Ministry of Justice; they are dealt with independently through the Crown Prosecution Service. We will of course publish the statistics when we get them, and I will happily write to him with the details. We are making sure that, across Government, we are taking all the action necessary to protect our borders. He is misrepresenting what the immigration guidelines do; I have picked him up on that before. I will happily write to him again, but maybe he could actually read them and learn something.
My hon. Friend asks a good question. In England, prison education contracts are awarded following a rigorous commercial process that awards providers on merit. I understand that PeoplePlus has been awarded education contracts for Scottish prisons, but that would be a matter for the Scottish Government.
I am very sorry to hear about the case of the hon. Member’s constituent. We need to put this into some context. As of March 2024, over 8 million lasting powers of attorney were registered in England and Wales. They are a really useful instrument. Although concerns about misuse do exist, the sort of abuse that the hon. Member highlights is, in context, rare. The Office of the Public Guardian investigated around 2,500 cases last year. We are looking to strengthen safeguards and add more identify checks as part of a modernised service. Lasting power of attorney is a really important tool, and we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
My hon. Friend outlines exactly why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review into the criminal courts; the ambition is to reduce the length of time victims have to wait for justice. We are expecting the recommendations of that review shortly. We are supporting victims by funding key support services to make sure that victims continue to be engaged with our criminal justice system, and we are expanding the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, where trained staff can support victims directly.
I am sorry to hear of the case that the hon. Member outlines, and I would be very happy to meet her to explore the issue further.
My hon. Friend is right that we are seeing an increase in the number of victims pulling out of the process because they no longer have confidence in it because it is taking so long. We have funded an additional 4,000 sitting days this year and have asked Sir Brian Leveson to recommend once-in-a-generation reform precisely so that we can deliver swifter justice for victims.
The hon. Member will know that a staggering 60% of cases that go through our family courts involve some form of domestic abuse or allegation thereof. That is why consideration of the operation of the presumption of contact and wider consideration of domestic abuse allegations in our family courts are so important. It is why officials and Ministers are taking the process really seriously.
Derbyshire Victim Services does really important work supporting victims, including those who have experienced sexual assault and domestic violence, but given the court backlog inherited from the Conservative Government, the service has told me that many of the victims are in need of support for longer, with many having complex needs that public services can struggle to meet. What steps is the Department taking to help support services to provide support to victims with complex needs that are exacerbated when justice is delayed?
I place on record my thanks to all the brilliant victim support services that do tremendous work in incredibly difficult circumstances to ensure that victims get the support they need to stay engaged with the criminal justice system. We have protected dedicated Ministry of Justice spending on victims of violence against women and girls by maintaining the 2024-25 funding levels, ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support for this year, and commissioned a 24/7 rape and sexual abuse support line, providing victims and survivors with access to vital help and information whenever they need it. We are carefully considering how best to allocate the current budget from the spending review to look specifically at VAWG alongside other departmental priorities.
The hon. Lady is right: it is important that parent carers get the information they need that helps with rehabilitation and getting things to the right place. If she wants to write to me about that particular case, I will look into it and write back to her.
Survive is a York-based charity providing specialist services and trauma-specific interventions to survivors of sexual violence and abuse. However, it has had to close its waiting list because it does not have the capacity to meet the demand. Will the Minister look at providing additional funding, so that we can get those vital services to survivors and victims now and they do not have to wait?
My hon. Friend has contacted me and written to me on this issue. She will know that we in the Department are looking at the spending allocations following the spending review. However, we have protected and ringfenced special support for sexual violence victims, because we know that there is huge demand coming through the system and we need to keep those victims engaged in the criminal justice system to ensure they get their day in court and justice is served.
I read a recent BBC article about an asylum seeker who had violently raped a teenage girl. He has been convicted and given a sentence of nine years in prison, followed by three years on licence, after which he will need to be deported. I am concerned that such individuals, during their period on licence, pose a risk to British women and girls. Does the Lord Chancellor agree, and will she ensure that people go straight from prison to deportation where appropriate?
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. It is why we are reducing the threshold for the early removal scheme and looking carefully with the Home Office at the Gauke review’s recommendation of effectively sentencing to deportation, to deal with the very types of cases that she has raised.
I welcome the Government’s efforts to reform sentencing following the sentencing review. I am confident that those steps will end the chaos left behind by the previous Government. I am particularly interested in rehabilitation as a priority in sentencing. A troubling statistic remains: studies have shown that 30% of prisoners in the UK are diagnosed as dyslexic, and there are probably many more who are undiagnosed, meaning that the numbers are much higher. Will the Minister tell me what steps are being taken to support dyslexic people in prison and to prevent reoffending following release?
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of rehabilitation in the panoply of things that we do in the criminal justice system. She is also right to highlight the number of prisoners and people in the criminal justice system who have dyslexia, which is one of the many neurodiverse conditions in the prison service. Every prison has a neurodiversity officer who co-ordinates activity to address that in each prison, but if she wants to write to me about the issue, I would be happy to respond in more detail.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the deeply troubling revelations over the weekend of the so-called Halal bride website. Does she agree that such practices have absolutely no place in Britain?
The regulation of websites and content falls either within Home Office responsibilities for criminal law or with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and I will happily pick up with them the detail around the regulatory issues that are raised by that case.
When I visited HMP Onley, the nearest prison to my constituency, I had the great privilege to be given a tour by the governor, Mark Allen and to see the excellent work of the staff. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would comment on the importance of offerings by organisations and companies such as Greene King which provide cafés and restaurants so that prisoners can be rehabilitated while they are in prison.
Greene King does outstanding work, as do other organisations in our prison service. They are important partners in delivering better justice.
The Lord Chancellor rightly rejected murderer Alan Jermey’s Parole Board request for open conditions, for which his daughters and I are extremely grateful. I understand that Mr Jermey is now legally challenging the decision, so will the Lord Chancellor revisit my request for a meeting with her about this issue?
The hon. Member will know that, with a judicial challenge, there will be some constraints as to what I can say publicly, and indeed even privately in a meeting. I will take advice to ensure that nothing compromises the legal process.
The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 has now received Royal Assent and I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on her swift action, but it would never have been necessary if sentencing guidelines were not the preserve of an unelected, undemocratic quango in the form of the Sentencing Council. Does she agree that we need a democratic lock, or even a vote in this place, to approve new sentencing guidelines?
I have said many times at this Dispatch Box that that whole episode revealed a democratic deficit. I am reviewing the roles and powers and we will come forward with legislative changes in due course.
In the light of the tragic loss of young mother Sarah Montgomery, who was seven months pregnant, due to violence, which has left two young girls without a mother and impacted the entire community of Donaghadee in my constituency, do the Government agree that early interventions, particularly through early education, are essential? Furthermore, can we look at intensifying our efforts to prevent domestic violence against women and young girls and at increasing sentences to deter that type of crime?
I thank the hon. Member for raising this case, which will have hit all of us incredibly hard. It is horrific and just goes to show that violence against women and girls is at epidemic levels in every corner of the United Kingdom, not just in England and Wales. I am due to meet my counterparts across the devolved nations shortly to figure out exactly how we can best join up to tackle this issue as a whole, because it will take a societal response. If the hon. Member wants to meet me to discuss this further, I would be happy to do so.
The Minister will be aware that the recent pathfinder family court pilots have been seen as largely successful. This is an opportunity to put children at the centre of these cases and to end the presumption of contact which puts partners and children of abusers at risk. Will she please advise me as to the next steps in this process?
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question and I am grateful to him for raising the pathfinder court. These pilots are proving incredibly successful. They front-load a lot of the evidence gathering, they put the safety of children and family arrangements right at their heart, and they are proving a really successful model, which is why we plan to roll them out further. As part of that, as he has heard, we will be publishing our response to the presumption review very shortly.
The backlog of cases in the Isle of Wight coroner service is the worst in the country, causing pain and distress to too many families, some of whom are waiting 800 days to find out what is happening to their loved ones. Will the Minister offer any comment or support to those families, and will she agree to meet me to discuss how we deal with the problem of the Isle of Wight coroner?
I thank the hon. Member for his engagement on this issue. He has written to me and we have had quite productive conversations about it. I recently met the chief coroner to discuss the specific issue on the Isle of Wight, because we know that the delays are causing untold turmoil to families in an already awful, traumatic process. I will happily meet the hon. Member to discuss a way forward, but I am reassured by the action being taken by the chief coroner to address the issue in the Isle of Wight directly.
A constituent of mine who recently fled France because of domestic violence and abuse, after being a habitual resident for just 21 days, has been ordered to return to France next week under protective measures. What more can the Government do to protect women fleeing domestic violence in relation to the Hague convention and the Child Abduction Act 1984?
The hon. Member will know that I cannot comment on specific cases, but if he wants to write to me, I will happily look at that. I recently had productive conversations about the Hague convention and others, and we will happily develop those conversations further.
May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, at the outset of these proceedings about the passing of Lord Tebbit? Lord Tebbit was a great friend of Northern Ireland, particularly of the many fellow victims of IRA terrorism.
May I return the Lord Chancellor to the subject of the backlogs in our Crown courts? In Northern Ireland, we have the worst of all records; it takes an average of 551 days to conclude a Crown court case. Murder trials have been stalled since last September with no new start date. We have a Minister of Justice locally who talks the talk but never walks the walk, and particularly does not walk the walk in settling the ongoing remuneration issue that is holding things up. Would the Lord Chancellor bring some pressure to bear on the local Justice Minister to sort this matter out?
The hon. and learned Member will know that for devolved matters it would of course be deeply inappropriate for me to try to influence or put pressure on the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland. On a cross-UK basis, we regularly meet our fellow Justice Ministers in the devolved Administrations, and I will happily pick up those conversations in a constructive way.