Prison Capacity

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Shabana Mahmood

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

The Secretary of State was on his feet for about 15 minutes, his statement is about 2,500 words long, he did an op-ed at the weekend in The Telegraph, and there have been endless briefings to the media over the last few days. Yet in all that verbiage there has been not one word of apology to the British public for failing in the first duty of Government, which is to keep our citizens safe. As everybody knows, the first stage of rehabilitation is to acknowledge mistakes and make a sincere apology to those affected and let down by those actions, or, in the Secretary of State’s case, inactions. His failure to do so today is utterly inexcusable. It is a damning indictment of this Government’s collective failure.

Our prisons are completely full. We have been sounding the alarm for many years now, as overcrowding has skyrocketed. As of today, the public will undoubtedly be less safe. Although the Secretary of State has said that sentencing delays will apply only to those deemed “low risk”, he knows that in 2021 more than 20,000 offences were committed by those on bail, including more than 200 sexual offences. So the public need to know: what steps will he be taking to mitigate the risk of increased offending that will arise as a result of the delayed sentencing? How many cases in total are we talking about? How many of those involve sexual and violent crimes? What is the plan to reach out to victims and assure them that the convicted offender in their case will be taken off the streets as quickly as possible?

The reason we are in this position is that the Government have consistently broken their promises to deal with the rising prison population. As far back as 2016, the Government pledged to build 10,000 new prison places by 2020—the Public Accounts Committee found that they had managed just 206. So the Government went ahead and pledged 18,000 prison places, but still with no plan. A year later, they said that they would make it 20,000 by the mid-2020s. According to the latest figures, there are no more than 8,200 places set to be built by the end of 2025, which represents a shortfall of 60%. The Government have known about this problem not only for the whole time this Secretary of State has been in Parliament, but ever since the Prime Minister was the Chancellor, and they have done nothing. It beggars belief that the funding has been allocated but the Government still cannot get these prison places built—so much so that they are looking to rent space in prisons abroad, with no indication of how much that will cost. Given this woeful record, why should anyone believe that the Government will build those 20,000 prison places that we need? What update can the Secretary of State provide on the number of new prison places that are guaranteed to be built before the end of the year?

Will the Government consult on the changes to short sentences? Will any such consultation include victims? The Secretary of State knows that the use of community sentences has halved since 2011. How will the Government persuade the courts that these sentences are the solution? How can he reassure the public that this is not just a green light to offenders? He will know that this plan will take time to go through Parliament. What will his Government do in the immediate term to address the problem? So far, it sounds as though his plan is to move some prisoners abroad and to let others out early. Is that all he has got?

On the deportation of foreign national offenders, last year the Government managed to deport only 2,958 foreign national offenders, which is less than a third of the total number in our prisons and about half the annual number before the covid pandemic. Why should the public believe the Government when they claim that they can get a grip on the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons, given that they have failed to do so until now? What difference will bringing forward the deportation of foreign national offenders by six months make to the prison population—and by when? Let us be clear: the public need to know that today an offender—including, potentially, a sex offender—can go to court and be found guilty by a jury but instead of being locked up behind bars, where they belong, the inaction of this chaotic Conservative Government means that they can walk free. Can the Secretary of State tell the House today that not one individual convicted of a serious sexual offence is out on the streets as a result of a lack of prison places?

As the Secretary of State said, to govern is— [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

[Shabana Mahmood]

As the Secretary of State acknowledged, to govern is to choose. His Government have chosen to fail victims and to fail the public. and to offer too little, too late to turn our failing criminal justice system around.

[Alex Chalk]

What a very disappointing response. I was surprised to hear that newfound interest in locking up rapists. Lest we forget, this Government are prosecuting more alleged rapists, convicting a higher proportion and imposing longer sentences than Labour, and ensuring that a higher proportion of those sentences is being spent behind bars.

It is important to aim off a little bit when looking at what is said in the Chamber by Labour Members. The hon. Lady refers to foreign national offenders, but I remember very well that back in 2020 we wanted to ensure that a plane full of rapists and murderers could leave the country, yet a letter came to the Prime Minister, saying:

“Dear Prime Minister, We, the undersigned,”—

have—

“grave concern over Home Office plans to deport 50 people”.

It went on to say:

“The flight and all future charter flights must be suspended”.

Shall we see who was on that flight, Madam Deputy Speaker? There was a man who had thrust a bottle into his victim’s face, leaving him scarred for life, in what was described as a “horrifying attack”—that is grievous bodily harm. Another person, who had been imprisoned for attacking a 17-year-old girl twice and abducting her, and who had sex with a 15-year-old, then lied about it and “vandalised” her life, according to her mother, was called “devious, callous and manipulative” by the judge. The hon. Lady signed a letter asking that he should not be deported. We will take no lessons from the Labour party in being tough on criminals. [Interruption.] She seems still to justify signing that letter. Does she not regret that decision? I think she might want to think about it again.

The Conservative party will get foreign national offenders out of this country. We have brought on the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era: 100 cells per week. [Interruption.]

Trade Bill

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Shabana Mahmood

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Before I call the next hon. Member, I give notice that the time limit will be reduced to four minutes after the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). We have three more colleagues on six minutes; thereafter, four minutes. I call Shabana Mahmood.

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

I wish to speak in support of Lords amendment 3, known as the genocide amendment, moved by Lord Alton in the other place, which deals with trade agreements made with states accused of committing genocide. I associate myself with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, on that amendment and on the human rights situation more generally.

I am grateful for the cross-party efforts that led to the addition of the amendment to the Bill; I hope that another cross-party effort in this House will be successful today. I note the comments the Minister made in opening the debate today. They follow the position taken by the Foreign Secretary when he made a statement to the House on forced labour supply chains last week. The approach taken by the Government is dispiriting and deeply disappointing. If the Government prevail today, I believe they will come to regret it.

The amendment will, first, send a clear signal about the absolute basic threshold that must be crossed before we strike trade deals around the world, and about the sorts of people, countries and regimes that we will do business with. Not being a genocidal state should be the absolute minimum requirement that all of us in this House should be able to sign up to. It would enable the UK courts to make what is, in effect, an advisory preliminary determination of genocide for the Government to consider when they are signing trade deals with states accused of committing genocide.

The Government say that genocide determination is a matter for judges, not politicians. That is the long-standing position of UK Governments of all political persuasions. The amendment would provide the only viable legal route to have a genocide determination made by judges.

That is why the remarks made by the former Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), just a few moments ago, are entirely wrong. When we talk about genocide, it has to be a determination made by judges in a legal context. The problem is that at the moment the international legal system—the routes provided by the United Nations and international treaties—are, frankly, a busted flush. Something is needed to break the cycle of inaction and ineffectiveness. We are awash with warm words that simply do not change the situation on the ground. All we are currently laying the ground for is an after-the-fact statement of sorrow when genocide has occurred. The world keeps saying, “Never again” in relation to genocide, yet it occurs with shocking, depressing regularity.

China is, of course, the most striking example of the failures of the international system. The Government recognise and condemn the actions of the Chinese regime against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. Mountains of evidence exist about forced sterilisation, mass detentions, slave labour and the destruction of culture and heritage. To my mind, a genocide is being perpetrated by the Chinese regime against the Uyghur people, but of course that requires a legal determination in a court to have legal force, rather than simply political and moral force.

Every international legal route is blocked by the Chinese Government—China has a veto. It has a majority on the UN Human Rights Council and is not a party to the International Criminal Court. The amendment provides a mechanism for the UK High Court to make a preliminary determination in the context of a trade agreement. If the UK High Court rules that the extremely high evidential bar for the crime of genocide is satisfied, its judgment will be available for the Government to consider.

Perpetrators of genocide should not be rewarded. They must know that actions have consequences, and an increasingly belligerent China needs to see that the British Government will not simply stand by and watch, impotent and unable to do anything whatsoever. The modest import and export restrictions linked to forced labour abuses that were made by the Government last week are welcome, but they do not deal with the specific charge of genocide, so I am afraid that that action, although it is welcome and although it was taken by the Government only last week, cannot get them off the hook on agreeing with the amendment today.

The amendment does not give the courts too much power. It is supported by eminent lawyers in the other place who have dealt with the issues around the separation of powers far better than I can in the short time available to me. In any case, if the Government agree that genocide determination is a matter for judges, the fact that at the moment their position amounts to saying that they will go along with a genocide determination made by international judges through the international system, but not one made by our own High Court, to my mind, simply does not stand up.

The amendment does not prevent the international legal system from kicking into action, although frankly that seems impossible at this point. In any case, it is a preliminary determination. It would enable the word “genocide” to be used credibly in a legal sense and I simply do not buy the idea that the courts would be swamped with vexatious claims. They can, will and regularly do dismiss claims that lack minimum standards of evidence. I say to the Minister that, if the amendment still does not work for the Government, they should have considered compromise amendments and efforts to reach compromise offered by Members from their own Benches, which I agree with and support. They say we have no trade agreement with China. We do not have an FTA with China, but we have other bilateral trade agreements with China, such as the UK-China bilateral trade and investment treaty. Others could be made.

Genocide is described as the crime above all crimes. Surely we can all agree in this House today that it must be the minimum starting point for the conditions we will place on whom we will trade with. I urge the Government to change course and accept the amendment today.

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Shabana Mahmood

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

With respect to the hon. Lady, the whole scope of the Northern Ireland regime under the Bill relates to trading profits. Credit unions do not pay corporation tax on their trading profits, so this Bill does not impact on them. I am not sure how many ways there are of saying that; I feel that the different formulations of the point have probably been covered. If the credit unions did pay corporation tax on their trading profits, we would be having a different discussion. If Members wish to see a devolution regime for Northern Ireland that includes activities other than trading profits, so that corporation tax would be paid on investments, income and so forth, that is a big call to make. If provisions were to be applied but limited to credit unions alone, it would mean carving out an exception to the regime. Let me say that that goes beyond the context of the agreement struck between this Government and the Northern Ireland Executive—the agreement that we have supported and the agreement that is the subject matter of the Bill. I would have a huge amount of sympathy if credit unions found themselves caught because they did pay corporation tax on their trading profits, but that is not the case, so—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The amendment has been discussed and withdrawn. We had a lengthy debate on it and we do not have a lot of time for this part of the debate, so we must stick to what exactly is in the Bill—and nothing more.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on to the rest of my remarks.

Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Shabana Mahmood

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sorry, I will not because of time.

The Government have failed to provide answers on HSBC in a way that would inspire confidence and they have wasted money challenging the EU bank bonus cap. What can we do to turn this situation around? It is clear that we need to reconnect the level of pay and bonuses of some highly paid bankers with the wider performance of the banks and their wider economic contribution.

A Labour Government would repeat the tax on bankers’ bonuses, which we introduced in 2009, to raise £1.5 billion to £2 billion. This tax—[Interruption.] I will come to that point in a moment for Government Members. This tax, alongside a restriction on—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady must be allowed to finish her speech.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This tax, alongside a restriction on pension tax relief, would fund a compulsory jobs guarantee. Let me deal with the point made by hon. Members chuntering from a sedentary position. The tax would be spent only once and only for one measure—that is, our compulsory jobs guarantee. That has been the case for as long as we have had our compulsory jobs guarantee policy. I find it interesting that the only line of attack that Government Members have on the compulsory jobs guarantee is to imply, incorrectly, that the bank bonus tax is being spent more than once. It is a weak line of attack from Government Members who do not want to engage with the substance of the policy—a compulsory jobs guarantee for the long-term youth unemployed.

Only one point was made about the substance of our policy, which was about the potential scope for tax avoidance. The first outing of the bank bonus tax introduced by the Labour Government had stringent anti-avoidance measures attached to it, and we would repeat those measures to make sure that the tax was not aggressively avoided and that all the revenue that we expect to be raised will be realised in order to fund our proposals for a compulsory jobs guarantee.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Shabana Mahmood

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I shall deal with precisely what has happened to the personal allowance later in my speech, but let me make this point to the right hon. Gentleman now. It is true that the personal allowance has risen, and the Opposition have supported those changes, including yesterday when we debated clause 2 of the Finance Bill in Committee. However, it is also true that ordinary working people continue to be worse off despite the changes, and will still be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010. This is a classic case of the Government’s giving with one hand and taking away much more with the other, and it goes to the heart of the “fairness” charge that I am laying at their door.

I was very struck by the suggestion made by a welfare Minister, Lord Freud, that the reason for the massive increase in the number of people who are using food banks and having to rely on food parcels from them was that

“there is an almost infinite demand for a free good.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2013; Vol. 746, c. 1072.]

I had to read that comment several times, because I could not quite believe that such words could emerge from anyone’s mouth during a discussion about food poverty and the fact that people are going hungry in our country. When the story about the huge increase in the number of people using food banks hit the news a couple of weeks ago, I was also struck by the main attack line from those on the Government Benches: the claim that the increase had a lot to do with advertising and the fact that many more people are now aware of food banks.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady will be aware that this is a very narrow motion. I am sure that she is using the matter to which she is referring as an example, which is in order, but I expect that she will be very careful not to stray too far from the very narrow terms of the motion.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will, of course, be careful, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, the point that I am making relates directly to what is in the Red Book, to the nature of the motion that we are being asked to support, and to whether we are being presented with a true and accurate reflection of what is happening in the United Kingdom economy. My view, and that of other Opposition Members, is that the Red Book implies that the “commitment to fairness” is being met. I do not believe that a situation in the United Kingdom economy in which more and more people are being forced to use food banks while the Government see fit to give a tax cut to the wealthiest in our country indicates a genuine commitment to fairness, and it is for that reason that I have rejected the thrust of the motion—which asks us to approve the Red Book as such an accurate reflection—and supported the amendment.

The Red Book paints a rosy picture of the goals that have been met and the targets that have been delivered, but, although I looked very carefully, I could not find any reference to the Government’s failure to meet the terms that they had set themselves for their so-called long-term economic plan. The Minister said earlier that the Government were “on track”, which is fair enough, but the track to which she referred is not the track that the right hon. Member for Tatton said that we would be on when he became Chancellor. At the beginning of this Parliament, the Government said that the deficit would be eliminated by 2015, but we now know that that is not the track they are on. The deficit will not be eliminated by 2015; indeed, the current forecast is that it will not be eliminated until 2017-18, when we shall be well into the next Parliament. That is not the test that the Government set themselves for their economic plan, which has failed on its own terms.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will not for the moment. I will make some more progress—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Too many conversations are going on around the Chamber that have nothing to do with the speech being made by the shadow Minister. Members ought to have the courtesy to listen to the hon. Lady.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not surprised that Government Members do not want to hear about their secret £145 million tax cut for investment managers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. His experience as a constituency MP is exactly the same as mine. Almost every business that comes to see me at my surgery is struggling with its business rates and energy costs.

What does the Bill say about the top rate of income tax? Well, it remains at 45p. This Government have given an average tax cut of more than £107,000 to the 8,000 millionaires in our country. They seem to think that if they keep talking about the increase in the personal allowance, they will make people forget that the combined impact of the tax and benefit changes is that a typical household is £900 a year worse off, and that the richest in our country are getting an absolutely huge tax cut. The Government are desperate to be able to claim that the 50p rate raised as little money as possible because they want to make it easier for themselves to justify their decision to give a tax cut to the wealthiest at a time when ordinary families are really struggling.

The Government’s own assessment claims that the cost of cutting the rate to 45p, excluding all behavioural changes, was over £3 billion. To justify the tax cut, they argued that most of the potential revenue would be lost as a result of tax avoidance. Government Members were very excitable about the Government’s record on tax avoidance, which I will come to in a moment. But surely a Government as proud as they are of that record would have taken some targeted anti-avoidance measures to stop people avoiding the 50p rate. Instead, they ducked the opportunity.

The Government also claim that tax revenues rose after they cut the top rate of tax, but both the Office for National Statistics and the OBR have said that many of the highest earners moved their income and delayed their bonuses by a year after the 2012 Budget to benefit from the lower top rate of tax. That shifting of income will have cost the Treasury millions of pounds in lost revenue. When the deficit is high it cannot be right to cut the top rate of tax. The next Labour Government will put that rate back to 50p while we get the deficit down.

There was some excitement on the Government Benches about the Government’s record on tax avoidance. Although they like to pretend that that record is strong, it is nothing to write home about. The DOTAS—disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—measures were introduced by a Labour Government in 2004. Every time Government Members stand up and take credit for those measures, I shall pass on their thanks to the previous Labour Administration, who introduced them.

The Government have made a number of assumptions in their calculations of the value to the Exchequer of extending the accelerated payment scheme to both DOTAS and the general anti-abuse rule. Although HMRC is successful in about 80% of the cases it litigates, I find it hard to see why the same 80% success rate has been applied to potential cases under the GAAR when a case on the GAAR has yet to go to court. We will scrutinise the Government’s numbers in Committee: they have a history of overestimating the impact of their avoidance measures. We have spoken a lot today about the Swiss deal, which raised £2.3 billion less than expected. I am sure that the Exchequer Secretary will not—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The House is too noisy. If hon. Members listen quietly, perhaps the hon. Lady will be able to come swiftly to the end of her speech.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, but I want to give the Exchequer Secretary an opportunity to intervene and explain to the House why he got the numbers so wrong on the Swiss tax deal. He is shaking his head, which implies to me that he is not prepared to stand up for his own record or admit that he has a history of overestimating his numbers. We will look at the numbers closely in Committee.

The Government had an opportunity with the Bill to provide help in the here and now. That is an opportunity they have failed to take. We will be voting against the Bill and in favour of our reasoned amendment, which lists the measures that we believe are necessary to tackle the cost of living crisis and make sure that people on lower and middle incomes start to see the benefits of recovery. We will seek to improve the Bill in Committee and try to persuade the Government to change course, but from what we have heard today and what we are no doubt about to hear from the Exchequer Secretary, I fear that the Government are so blind to the lives of ordinary working people that they will refuse to take the opportunity to do so.