Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I ask the hon. Gentleman to write to me first, as it sounds like there is some technical detail in that case. If necessary, I will then ask the relevant Minister to meet him.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Select Committee has just begun an inquiry into access to justice. The evidence we are getting suggests that civil and family legal aid in particular are in a dire position, with fees now approximately half what they were 28 years ago. There have been welcome increases in housing and immigration fees, but what wider plans does the Secretary of State have to review legal aid fees, particularly in the area of civil and family law?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will recognise that the uplift of £20 million in housing and immigration is significant; it is actually the first major uplift in his and my time here in Parliament. He is right that we should look across the piece at civil legal aid, combined with what is happening in our courts, and I will continue to do that over this next period.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, we need investment and more sitting days. We did not get that under the last Government—we are getting that now. Secondly, we need reform. We asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at this in great detail. He did that, and we must now respond and not shirk from the reform that is necessary. Thirdly, we need modernisation. That is why, for example, being able to get a transcript and a recording at magistrates is so important.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Under the Justice Secretary’s plans to slash jury trials, he is giving magistrates more serious cases. However, he also plans to scrap the automatic right to appeal—a vital safety valve in courtrooms where justice is delivered at pace by volunteers. Last year, 5,000 cases from magistrates courts were appealed, of which more than 40% were upheld. Given that very high rate of successful appeals, will the Secretary of State be honest with the public and concede that curtailing appeals will unquestionably lead to miscarriages of justice?
Sarah Sackman
We keep our court estate and the assessment of need under constant review. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me so that we can look into the provision in his area.
Mr Speaker
What is good for the Minister might be good for Chorley as well, with the reopening of the court.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Jake Richards
I had the great pleasure of hearing the right hon. Member’s contributions on Report and in Committee on the Sentencing Bill. I remind him, as I did then, that we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. The worst way to fail victims would be to have no prison places, and to be unable to keep the worst offenders behind bars, and we will not allow that to happen. I remind him again that the Sentencing Bill is informed by the independent sentencing review, led by a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, who offered sensible reforms to ensure that our prison system can cope with demands and is fit for the future. Finally, I remind him that this is not a case of being soft on crime; by the end of this Parliament, under this Labour Government, there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
This week, the Government pledged action on violence against women and girls—an issue that I know many Members across this House care deeply about, including many Labour Members—but this so-called earned progression model will see thousands of rapists, child groomers and paedophiles let out of prison earlier. Shockingly, last week a Government Minister said that the reason why they could not be excluded from the model was that it would increase the risk of inaccuracies in release calculations. Does the Minister think that a single victim of rape should expect the offender to be let out of prison earlier because the Government cannot calculate the release date properly?
Mr Lammy
I am truly grateful to my hon. Friend for once again raising the voice of victims in this House. I hope that over the coming months, as we debate our courts Bill, hon. Members will keep in mind those victims, and the voices that we often hear, via female Members of Parliament. The £550 million of multi-year funding that I have found for victims to give them certainty was essential, and we will continue to keep victims front of mind.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I commend the Justice Secretary on the Government’s decision to extend whole-life orders to those who kill prison officers. Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting the parents of Lenny Scott when they came to Parliament. It is absolutely right that we extend whole-life orders to cases in which brave prison officers are killed, either in the course of their duties, or in the exceptional circumstances that faced Lenny Scott after he had left the service. The Justice Secretary can be assured of the support of Conservative Members.
Two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary appeared on Sky News and revealed that 12 more prisoners had been mistakenly released, and that two remained on the run. I have two very simple questions: since then, how many prisoners have been mistakenly released, and how many more remain on the run?
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Workers must receive the awards to which they are entitled. The case that my hon. Friend raises demonstrates the need to strengthen enforcement. The Government will take that up by transferring responsibilities to the new fair work agency. Working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Insolvency Service, it will drive compliance and crack down on non-payments. That will help constituents like hers.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Andrew Turner has been fighting on behalf of parents of disabled children across the country who cannot access their children’s trust fund when their child turns 18, even though that money could provide support for the additional cost of living that comes from being a profoundly disabled young adult. Andrew has seen 10 Justice Ministers come and go since he started his campaign. Will the Minister assure me that the current Minister will be the last one Andrew has to meet before the situation is remedied?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a crisis in family mediation, with no confirmation of mediation vouchers going beyond next April and over half of legal aid providers having been forced to give up in the last eight years? Does he agree that this is short-sighted, as mediation saves time, money and families, and will the Government work with the Family Mediation Council to rescue the sector?
Restriction of Jury Trials
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Sackman
As I said a moment ago, not a single person who has encountered the system—not the barristers, the prosecutors, the judiciary, the court staff, the victims or the jurors; no one whom I have met—thinks it is working as it should. The shadow Justice Secretary has made a startling defence of the status quo while victims—not just women and girls but of all backgrounds—continue to watch delays creep up and up. Some 80,000 cases are currently in our Crown court backlog, and behind each and every one of those cases is an individual human story—someone waiting to clear their name.
We inherited a broken system. We did not do what the previous Government did, which was stick their head in the sand and hope that the problem would go away, with no solutions, under-investing for years while undermining our justice system. We were not prepared to do the same, which was why it was important to ask an independent review made up of Sir Brian Leveson—one of our leading judges—academics and data scientists to look at the evidence from both this country and comparators from across the world, to consult and to produce a set of proposals for reform that will fix the system. In the meantime, the Government have been gripping the crisis. We have made record investment in sitting days, increased the sentencing powers of magistrates courts, and invested in legal aid and the capacity of our legal community.
No responsible Government worthy of the name would take receipt of an independent review that is carefully considered, evidence-based and informed by experts and say, “Do you know what? We’ll just ignore that.” Responsible government shows leadership, which is why last week, we announced our proposals to increase magistrates courts’ sentencing powers and remove the right of defendants to insist on a jury trial when their case can be reasonably, proportionately and swiftly dealt with in a magistrates court. We followed Sir Brian’s recommendation to establish a Crown court bench division to deal with cases more swiftly. His report says that in his view and that of his expert team, doing so will provide time savings of at least 20%. On that basis, through investment, modernisation and systemic reform taken together, we will begin to see the backlog come down. That is Government offering evidence-based, expert-led solutions while all we hear from the Opposition is what cannot be done, letting down victims, letting down the public and ultimately undermining faith in one of the most important institutions in this country—our justice system.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
There is no reason why the Government should not consider mode of trial as part of their reform of the criminal courts, but they would find more support if they could better evidence the effects of the proposed changes to jury trial. To what extent will they reduce the backlog? What proportion and types of cases will no longer be eligible for jury trial? If courts are to be swifter and have greater sentencing powers, what effect will that have on the prison population?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats agree that under the current system victims and survivors of rape are being failed and far too few see justice served. However, for those victims who do decide to proceed through the justice system, fewer than 10% withdraw after a charge has been made, so the Deputy Prime Minister’s standing in the Chamber and using an assessment of the data to justify his reasoning for removing jury trials does not hold up to scrutiny.
It seems that a number of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Back Benchers, including the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), agree with the Liberal Democrats that the delays that plague our system will not be addressed by reducing jury trials, with the Government neither diagnosing the cause of the crisis nor providing the solutions to the record backlog. How do the Government justify restricting jury trials when backlog issues are caused by court mismanagement and broken private contracts rather than the jury system, as identified and confirmed by those working in the system from all sides? Will the Minister confirm which stakeholders, including victim support organisations and legal professionals, have been consulted on the reforms? What feedback has she received?
Sarah Sackman
At the moment, the Secretary of State is giving a very important speech launching the Government’s anti-corruption strategy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. Rape victims must be paramount in all that happens. Rape and sexual assault trials are already lengthy and very emotional for victims. Juries signal a public perception of justice, and highlight the importance of the community and the average person. What assessment has been made of the impact that judge-only trials can have on the victims of rape, and what steps will be taken to ensure that judge-only trials do not feel less empowering, because this step could increase victim attrition with victims feeling that they do not have the support of the public?
Sarah Sackman
Let me make it very clear that for the offence of rape there will always be a jury trial. That was made clear in our proposals last week.
Mr Speaker
It is very helpful to get through the questions and the Minister has done very well. Justice does matter and I think all of us represent victims of crime. The more quickly we can get through, the happier we will be. As I say, Chorley magistrates court would love to be reopened in order to help.
Criminal Court Reform
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
With your permission, Mr Speaker I will make a statement on criminal court reform.
As the House is aware, the first part of the independent review of criminal courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson—one of the foremost judges of his generation—and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Shaun McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once-in-a-generation court reform. That is desperately needed, because the Government inherited an emergency in our courts: a record and rising backlog currently at 78,000 cases, and victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case.
Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six-year wait for justice. During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated; it is systemic.
We are all proud of our justice system, rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to
“deny or delay right or justice.”
When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves. Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This Government have already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose, a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown courts—5,000 more than those funded last year by the previous Government.
Today, I can announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates, to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.
However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The case load is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse. To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian’s bold blueprint for change. First, I will create new “swift courts” within the Crown court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hardwire transparency into our new approach.
Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials—a practice not found widely in other common law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up. I will limit appeals from the magistrates courts, so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further.
Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.
These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences. Among others, that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.
I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill’s time, and today magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.
Conservative Members talk about the Crown court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971—the year before I was born—to replace a patchwork of part-time courts unable to cope with a rising caseload. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. We now face an emergency in the courts, and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve.
I am also clear that we must future-proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a second report, focused on efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.
We will also continue to support victims, to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announced this week that I will provide multi-year funding for victim support services, including specialist emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increase budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million—more than half a billion. I want those victims to stay the course.
Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation, which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains. I commend this statement to the House.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I am glad to see that the Justice Secretary has finally come into work today. When 12 prisoners were mistakenly released after the introduction of his brilliant new checks, he did not bother to come to Parliament to inform the country; then, when I asked his Department whether it is paying compensation to terrorists in prison, he did not show up; and when the news of his plans to scrap jury trials mysteriously emerged in the press last week, he was nowhere to be seen. Like the prisoners under his watch, he has been a man on the run—the “Lammy dodger” of this sorry charade of a Government—but today we are blessed with his presence.
His past is catching up with him, because the best opponent of the Justice Secretary’s plans to curb jury trials is the Justice Secretary himself. In 2020, he said:
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.”
In 2017, in his report into prejudice in the criminal justice system, he found that juries
“act as a filter for prejudice”,
but now that he has become the Justice Secretary, he is scrapping the very institution he once lauded. Which is it? Will the real David Lammy please stand up?
It is not just the Justice Secretary. Who can guess which Labour MP said that taking away jury trials
“would be a wholly draconian act”?
It was his own junior Minister, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). And what about this one? Who said there should be a
“right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”?
Any ideas, Mr Speaker? Who else? It is the Prime Minister this time. Do this Government have no shame?
Yesterday, the Justice Secretary boldly claimed that if the medieval barons were around today, they would support his changes. Then again, English history has never been his specialist subject, has it? Eight hundred years on from Magna Carta, we have another unpopular leader who does not listen to his subjects and who levies eye-watering taxes, and a state that locks people up for what they say. Well, I say that the link between British citizens and the administration of justice is as important as ever. It is a link that serves as a check on an occasionally overbearing state. Our ancestors did not stop bad King John, only to be undone 800 years later by this Prime Minister and his court jester.
And all of this because the Justice Secretary cannot manage his own Department. This morning, in England alone more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty. In fact—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I wanted, quite rightly, the Justice Secretary to be heard without comment from Opposition Front Benchers, and I certainly expect the same from Government Front Benchers in return.
Robert Jenrick
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This morning, more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty in England alone. In fact, over 21,000 court days have gone unused this year. Why? Not because there are too many juries, but because the Justice Secretary will not fund the sitting days. Had he done so, the backlog would have shrunk by up to 10,000 cases, but the fact is that it has risen this year.
The truth is that scrapping juries is a choice. This Government could find the money to bear down on the backlog of asylum claims and to spend more on benefits, but not to fund the courts to sit round the clock. Last year, the entire budget for courts and legal aid was £5.5 billion, which is almost exactly the same amount of money—£5.4 billion—that we spent on illegal migrants. He defends their rights under the European convention on human rights, but not our rights under Magna Carta. And for what? He cannot even guarantee that in four years’ time these changes will have reduced the backlog. With this Justice Secretary, it is justice delayed and justice denied.
Much of the rest of the package announced today is sensible, but why has it taken 17 months? The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association have all said that jury trials are not the problem.
Mr Speaker
Order. You are facing the wrong way. It is very hard to hear you when you are looking at the doors.
Robert Jenrick
Apologies, Mr Speaker.
Why did the Justice Secretary not start by reforming the Probation Service and court listings, and by tackling delays from late prison transfers? Why has he still not taken up the Lady Chief Justice on all the sitting days that she has offered him? Lastly, why on earth does this Justice Secretary think he has a mandate to rip up centuries of jury trials without even a mention of it in his party’s manifesto?
The Justice Secretary, in his twisted logic, says he is scrapping juries to save them, but be in no doubt: if he gets away with this, it is the beginning of the end of jury trials. He is already in retreat. Let us unite to send him packing for good.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the shadow Justice Secretary, although I am a little surprised that in his tirade, he never once mentioned victims—not once. Not once in his clip did he talk about the people waiting in the backlog.
The right hon. Gentleman has boasted that he is an armchair historian. May I give him a history lesson? In 2019, Crown court sitting days were cut by almost 15%. The Conservatives oversaw a 12% reduction in Crown court trials, and many of us remember, over those 14 years of austerity, the magistrates courts and Crown courts that closed in local communities under his watch. The senior presiding judge in England and Wales said:
“It was a political decision.”
I wonder if the shadow Justice Secretary will try to blame the pandemic for that decision.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about what I tweeted in 2020. We are saving and protecting jury trials. Jury trials will continue. He talks about trial by jury as if we lived in the United States, but 90% of criminal trials—1.3 million—are done by our magistracy, which has existed for 650 years. We are going to grow our magistrates, who we believe could do more.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about Magna Carta. Yes, clause 39 establishes the jury trial and a fair trial—we are proud of that—but he knows, too, that clause 40 asks us not to delay justice. That is the substance of this debate, and that is why we need reform. He knows that the Conservatives took juries away from defamation cases in 2013. Back in 1933, we had juries sitting in civil cases. Of course we reform; we do so to meet the needs of the system. He also knows that because of DNA evidence, CCTV and a whole raft of reasons, including that the police now arrest 10% more people, we have a demand issue. We must meet that challenge, and we must ensure that we put victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. That is who it is there for, and it is why he should have mentioned them.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
May I recognise the commitment of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State in grasping the issue of the Crown court backlog, which, as Sir Brian Leveson says, is a threat to our whole system of criminal justice? The criticism of these proposals from those on the Opposition Benches comes with no solution whatsoever. I also acknowledge the Lord Chancellor’s decision to stay within the limits proposed by Sir Brian for cases that will be tried without a jury in the future.
None the less, these are profound changes to the criminal justice system that not only restrict the role of juries, but substantially extend the powers of magistrates and judges sitting alone. Will the Lord Chancellor therefore evaluate the effects of these changes to see whether they, along with other measures such as increased investment, bring down the backlog and whether they do so fairly, without bias and without increasing conviction rates or sentence length? If they do not deliver on all these points, will he think again?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work in these areas. Yes, I can commit to that evaluation, which is very important indeed. In his report, Sir Brian estimated that the system would be 20% faster: it takes time for juries to deliberate, and without the conveyance of information between barristers, the judge and the jury being necessary, he expects that a judge-led or magistrate-led system will be speedier. As my hon. Friend will know, the magistrates courts do not currently have a backlog and with an increase in the number of magistrates, they can do a little more.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Government’s plan, announced today, to reduce the use of trial by jury would be an historic upheaval of our court system, with profound consequences. The Justice Secretary has not argued in favour of judge-only trials on their own terms; instead, he has argued that there is no alternative, which is simply not true. Many within the legal profession have argued that removing trial by jury is a misdirection from the multitude of problems that underlie the backlog.
Those problems, caused by years of Conservative mismanagement, have resulted in countless wasted hours of sitting time and in victims failed time and again. Perhaps the defendant does not arrive in court because of the broken private contract, there is no interpreter, the witness care unit forgets to tell witnesses to attend, key evidence is not served until the day of trial so the defence has no time to consider it, or there are not enough court staff to manage security on the door, so the trial runs late. Maybe our crumbling court infrastructure means there is no running water, a broken lift or even a flooded courtroom. We need a real solution to tackle these issues that plague our justice system, but instead the Justice Secretary intends to remove a huge number of jury trials, despite his previous opposition to that, all while the Ministry of Justice capital budget is being cut by 3% in real terms every year.
While I welcome the £500 million investment in victims and witness support over three years, the total courts maintenance backlog is estimated at £1.3 billion. Where is the investment to fix the collapsing infrastructure in the justice system? Will the Justice Secretary consider reopening many of the Crown courts closed under the Conservatives, including mine in Chichester? As he confirmed to the media today, an entire jury’s worth of prisoners have been released in error in recent weeks. Does the Secretary of State have confidence in his Department to oversee such an extreme and radical reform when it is not even getting the basics right?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady mentions a range of issues that are important in ensuring that our 80 or so courts and 500 courtrooms are working effectively. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at efficiency as part 2 of his review. We need not just our courts but the Crown Prosecution Service and our police to work together at a reasonable level to deliver that improvement.
When we think about either-way cases, I think that it is legitimate for the Government to take a view on whether, for example, a driving licence fraud, fly-tipping or the theft of a bike requires a jury trial that will last for about two days, or whether those cases can be dealt with by a magistrate or a judge. I know that the hon. Lady is committed, like us, to bearing down on violence against women and girls. It cannot be right that if someone is charged with an offence such as theft of a bicycle, theft from a vehicle or employee theft, they can opt for a trial that, by necessity, goes into the system and will delay a rape trial, a murder trial or something like that. That is the balance of the decision that I have sought to make. I think that the Government have made the right decision in implementing Sir Brian’s review.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The entire House is concerned about victims, including the victims of attacks on women and girls. However, the entire House is also concerned about the men and women who will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages of justice if the right to trial by jury is curtailed. To quote from a lawyer:
“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”
That lawyer is our current Prime Minister. He wrote that in 1992—it was as true then as it is today. How can the Lord Chancellor propose a limitation of the right to trial by jury when he knows perfectly well the category of defendant who will suffer the ill effects?
Right to Trial by Jury
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick
While this Government lurch from one outrage to another, yesterday the Chancellor shredded her promises and dropped a £26 billion tax bomb on working Britain. Meanwhile, we learned that the Justice Secretary is plotting to discard centuries of jury trials without so much as a by-your-leave—and where is the Justice Secretary to answer for this? Do we need to send out a search party to Saville Row in case he has gone suit shopping again this morning? Or perhaps he could not face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the very principles he once championed.
Jury trials are
“fundamental to the justice system…fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”
Those are not my words, but those of the Justice Secretary himself. This time, he was right: there is wisdom in 12 ordinary citizens pooling their collective experiences of the world. Yet, now that he is in government, he is doing the complete opposite. He blames the court backlog, but if the courtrooms standing empty this year were used, the backlog would be down by 5,000 to 10,000 cases. He pleads poverty on law and order, but yesterday the Chancellor came here and found £16 billion more to spend on benefits.
The truth is that the Labour party just does not think that ordinary people are up to it. It does not trust them with these decisions. Give away the Chagos islands, shackle us to the European convention on human rights, scrap jury trials—all because lawyers know best. And when the Justice Secretary is summoned here to the people’s House, what does he do? He cowers away. Well, the people who make up juries—the British people—will not wear it any more.
I have one simple question for the Minister he sent in his stead. Will she protect what is fundamental to our democracy, or will she stand by as the Justice Secretary casually casts aside centuries of English liberty?
Sarah Sackman
How extraordinary, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman claims to care about the rule of law; he claims to care about ancient legal traditions. This is the same shadow Justice Secretary who denigrates our independent judges and our legal community standing up for rights. I have already said it, and I will say it again: the right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition.
Since he is so fond of quoting our ancient principles and quoting Magna Carta, let me remind him of what is our constitutional right. Magna Carta states:
“to no one will we…delay right or justice.”
The right to a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness. When we have the crisis we inherited from the Conservative party, with a backlog now of some 80,000 cases—and behind each and every one of those cases is an actual victim and somebody accused of a crime—in the current system, we are denying a fair trial. When victims and witnesses pull out of the process, as is increasingly happening, that denies fairness.
I say this while wearing this pin, which shows that we stand in 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls: a woman reporting a rape today in London will be told that her trial may not come on until 2029-30. That is not justice at all, and it is a consequence of allowing the Crown court backlog to spiral out of control while doing nothing and offering not a single answer. That is not upholding the fundamental British constitutional right to a fair trial; it is exactly the opposite.
I for one, certainly, and as part of this Government, am not prepared to sit idly by. That is why we have gripped the crisis, making record investment in sitting days, extending magistrates court sentencing powers, investing in legal aid and asking one of our finest jurists, Brian Leveson, to conduct an independent review to provide us with a blueprint for how we get out of this mess. The Conservative party likes to call itself the party of tradition and the party of law and order, yet it presided over a justice system in which the British public can no longer have confidence.
I am afraid that I am not prepared to let victims down. This Labour Government are finally putting victims first. That is why we will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations. It is why we will undertake to implement his blueprint, which takes as its fundamental premise this: the system is broken. There is no one in this House, no one in the community that represents victims and no one in the legal community—no judge, no one operating and working hard in the system to keep it going—who thinks that the system is not broken. We have to fix it.
Sir Brian Leveson tells us that investment alone will not fix it. We need investment coupled with structural reform and modernisation. That is exactly the blueprint that this Government will bring forward, because, as I said, we believe in the right to a fair trial, we believe in British justice and, unlike the Conservative party, we will deliver swifter justice for victims.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Minister is right that we cannot go on as we are with 80,000-plus cases in the backlog and growing, and four-year delays in serious cases. She is also right that there is nothing sacred about jury trial for any particular level of offence. But if the Lord Chancellor is thinking of going beyond Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals, he will need to produce some clear evidence as to why that is necessary and why that does not offend our system of justice, of which we are all still very proud. That is not only about more serious offences; if the leak is to be believed, it is also about extending magistrate courts’ powers beyond the 12 months, which they have only just gone up to, and a massive extension of judge-only trials. I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer all those questions today, but when will we hear those answers and get the response to Sir Brian’s report?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The leaked memo from the Ministry of Justice, which reveals plans to rip up our criminal justice system, is particularly surprising, given that the Deputy Prime Minister himself has stated that “Jury trials are fundamental”. In a report that he wrote, he called jury trials
“a success story of our justice system”.
Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; that was complacency from the former Government and a failure to grip the issue by this Government, totally failing the victims who are currently waiting. Will the Minister clarify whether this MOJ proposal is a suggested temporary emergency measure or a permanent erosion of our criminal justice system? Does she share my concern that the Office for Budget Responsibility is showing a real-terms cut of 3% a year to the MOJ’s capital budget after the Budget yesterday? Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s diagnosis from opposition that the Government should
“pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country”
in order to clear the backlog?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Member heard me say a moment ago, the constitutional right that we guarantee every citizen in this country who comes before our criminal courts is the right to a fair trial. When victims are waiting for years for their day in court, right now justice is not being served. When the Secretary of State made those comments, it was obviously in a very different context, not one where the Conservatives had allowed the backlogs to run out of control. As I said clearly earlier, the right to a jury trial and the jury trial will always be a cornerstone of the British justice system. That will not change. It does not change in Sir Brian’s report, in which he recommends the restriction of jury trials in certain cases, and it will not change in the plans that the Government are bringing out. She is right that we need a combination of structural reform and investment and, indeed, we are making that investment. We have increased capital investment in court maintenance and buildings to £148.5 million. We are opening new criminal courts, for example in central London, in Blackpool and in other parts of the country. We have to build system capacity, with more judges, more lawyers and more staff to man those cases, but ultimately we must be laser-focused on the need to deliver swifter justice for victims. In order to do that, we will, in due course, in response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations, bring forward very careful plans that protect people’s rights, including that right to a fair trial.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
After 14 years of the previous Government, many in Oldham feel that justice has left town. Our county court closed, our magistrates court closed, and police station after police station closed as well. Today, in a town of a quarter of a million people, not a single custody cell is in operation. We are looking to address that with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, bringing forward plans for a new police station with custody cells. But ideally we want a justice centre with courts brought back to Oldham so that magistrates can take the bench in the town and justice can be served and be seen to be served.
Sarah Sackman
What my hon. Friend described, in graphic detail—the way in which justice has visibly eroded in his town—is the result of 14 years of Conservative failure, austerity and fundamental neglect of our justice system. What we are doing in so many areas is rebuilding and restoring the confidence that the British public can have in our justice system.
We inherited two crises. First, we inherited a prison system running red hot. How irresponsible of the so-called party of law and order to allow prisons to be full so that dangerous criminals would not have a prison place. Secondly—perhaps this is less visible, but it is no less serious—we inherited a crisis in our criminal justice system and in our courts, where victims are waiting longer and longer for justice. As my hon. Friend said, our constituents deserve to see visible justice. They deserve to see that when they report a crime, it does not take years for it to come to trial, but that it happens swiftly—within months—so that people can see the consequences of their actions. That, by the way, also reduces recidivism. That is why will do whatever it takes to bring down the backlog.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I served as a young barrister in criminal courts, and I have served on a jury, and I can say that I was deeply impressed by the care that people on the jury, from all walks of life, took to consider the evidence—actually, they were better than the barristers in many ways.
I can understand where the Minister is coming from, but covid was a one-off event. I say to hon. Members that if someone of previous good character is accused of what might seem to be a minor crime such as shop- lifting, having wandered out of a shop—years ago, one of our colleagues was accused of shoplifting—their whole career and whole reputation could be destroyed. Surely the Minister must accept that a person of previous good character must have a right to jury trial. This is 1,000 years of history and the greatest defence against totalitarianism. We must never throw it away. We should consider that carefully before we proceed.
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is spot on. I met with a victim of child sexual abuse just the other day. He described to me the long wait for his very serious matter—[Interruption.] They laugh. I struggle, when I am talking about—
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her answers. However, it is confusing just why this proposed decision is being considered. She talked about solutions, and I refer to Northern Ireland. More than 99% of Crown court cases in Northern Ireland are heard by a jury, and only in exceptional cases is a jury not used or heard. That continues to take place in Northern Ireland. A jury represents normal citizens and gives them a say in the democratic process. What assessment has been made of how this decision could impact on public perception and undermine the civic duty of the normal person? It will ultimately concentrate power in the state and reduce the societal values that we all represent and wish to retain.
Mr Speaker
The Minister is quite right to be angry and frustrated at this leak. I gently say to her that, to put confidence back into the system, the answer might be a leak inquiry.
Prisoner Releases in Error
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on releases in error from prison.
On Armistice Day, let me begin by paying tribute to those we honour: Members of both Houses and parliamentary staff who gave their tomorrow for our today. Whatever divides our politics, today we remember what binds us together: our belief in service and the pursuit of the common good.
On Wednesday 5 November I answered Prime Minister’s questions. As someone who has served in this House for 25 years, I take my responsibilities to Parliament incredibly seriously. The House will recall that I was asked repeatedly whether any asylum-seeking offender had been released in error. At that time, I had been alerted of the release of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif from His Majesty’s Prison Wandsworth. Details about the case were still emerging throughout Wednesday. Importantly, my officials had not had confirmation about whether or not he was an asylum seeker. Indeed, it was not until later that afternoon that the Home Office confirmed to the Ministry of Justice that he was not.
Given the nature of the Opposition’s questions, I made a judgment that I would wait until I had all the detail, rather than risk giving an inaccurate, incomplete or misleading picture to the House about a sensitive case. Conservative Members may argue that they would have handled the situation differently. All I can do is to be open about the factors I was weighing at the time and that the data in the system we inherited is painfully slow. I thank Mr Speaker for the opportunity to update the House in full today.
Members will recall that, following the release of Hadush Kebatu on 24 October, I put in place stronger release checks. I can confirm that the error leading to Mr Kaddour-Cherif’s release happened in September, before those checks came in. He was charged with burglary at Snaresbrook Crown court and a warrant was issued to HMP Pentonville for his remand. Contrary to the set down process, it was then forwarded by email to HMP Wandsworth when Mr Kaddour-Cherif was transferred. However, staff did not pick it up and he was released on 29 October. Mr Kaddour-Cherif was taken back into custody on 7 November by Haringey police. I am grateful to officers from my part of north London again, after they also re-arrested Mr Kebatu. I am grateful too to the wider Metropolitan police and to the public who assisted them.
I can tell the House that there were around 57,000 routine releases from prison in the year to March 2025. In that same time, there were 262 releases in error from prison. New data my Department published today shows that from April to the end of October this year, there were 91 releases in error from prison. Further data on the breakdown of offences are official statistics that need to be combed through in detail before being put into the public domain. That data is not due for publication today, but we recognise the public interest in being transparent about the overall number. It is important to note that this number may be revised as additional cases are subsequently recorded, but this is the very latest that I have been provided.
We understand that three mistakenly released prisoners are currently unlawfully at large. Their prison records show that none of them are convicted sex offenders. I have been informed this afternoon that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is investigating a further case of a potential release in error on 3 November of a person who may still be at large. It is symptomatic of the data issues that we inherited that this is all the information that I have been given, while police and HMPPS investigate.
On the confirmed cases, case one was in prison for failing to surrender to the police and was released in error in December 2024. Case two was in prison for a class B drug offence, and was released in error in August 2024. Case three was in prison for aggravated burglary, and was released in error in June 2025. Two are British nationals, and one is a foreign national offender. I will not provide any further details on individual cases. In each case, we have to consider the welfare of victims and the judgment of our law enforcement agencies.
Of the 262 releases in error from prison in the year to March 2025, 87 were of offenders whose main offence was one of violence against the person, and three were of offenders whose main offence was a sexual offence. I am clear that we must bear down on these numbers, which are symptomatic of a prison system under horrendous strain. As the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), admitted last week,
“the state of the prison service has been unacceptable for a very long time…including under the Conservative government.”
Prisons are still struggling with violence. The safety in custody statistics show an 8% rise in the rate of assaults in the year to June 2025. Systems are archaic; every prisoner’s sentence is worked out on paper. Consideration is given to the type of offence and the legislation that covers it, and there are more than 500 pages of sentence management guidance.
I pay tribute to prison officers, who are doing an incredibly important job, but as the Prison Officers Association has said,
“Prisons throughout the country are underfunded, understaffed and operating under relentless strain.”
Frontline prison officers were cut by a quarter between 2010 and 2017. That is around 6,000 fewer people, and it means that there are fewer experienced staff, which places more pressure on the system. Unsurprisingly, mistakes happen in those circumstances. Indeed, from 2010-11 to the end of 2023-24, under the previous Government, there were 860 known releases in error from prisons.
We must recognise the distress that is caused to victims who learn that the person who harmed them is free when they should be behind bars. In the worst cases, such as that of William Fernandez back in 2021, prisoners have committed further horrific offences. I give an unequivocal apology to all who have faced worry or worse as a result of releases in error, especially Hadush Kebatu’s victims, whom I have offered to meet. I hope that the right hon. Member for Newark will join me in that apology to all who have suffered because of releases in error under this Government and previous Governments.
Human error will always exist, and no Justice Secretary could prevent every mistake, but we must reduce the risk and reverse the trend over the course of this Parliament. We must be honest: the release process requires a radical overhaul, and establishing the facts in individual cases is complex. Decisions about public statements rightly rest with the police. Issuing details too early could frustrate covert inquiries, or put police officers or the public at risk. These are judgments for experienced operational leaders to make, and parliamentarians must give them the space in which to make them.
This is a complex issue—we must be straight with the public about that—and I am clear that we have a mountain to climb in response. First, I am chairing a new justice performance board, which will give a comprehensive view of prisons and criminal court performance, including releases in error, to drive a step change in how we respond. The first monthly meeting took place yesterday. Secondly, I am making sure that we understand the issues. Following the release of Kebatu, I asked Dame Lynne Owens to carry out a review, which will conclude by the end of February next year. That review will now include the adequacy of data collected and published on releases in error, and we fully expect to uncover additional incidents. I can also announce that we will set up a team of data scientists to review historical releases in error in order to understand what is going wrong.
Thirdly, I am improving processes. Because some of these errors originated not in the prison process, but in the court process, I will implement an urgent warrant query unit, supported by court experts, so that prisons can escalate queries and get rapid clarifications to reduce the risk of releases in error that emanate from the court system. We are also issuing instructions to court staff to reinforce mandatory requirements for imprisonment orders to be confirmed verbally with judges before they are finalised. This measure has been shared with the judiciary. The court and prison services are also scoping a joint exercise on live warrants. It will initially take place in the London region. That exercise will identify errors and ensure that prisoners are subject to the correct warrants.
Fourthly, I am accelerating upgrades. I stood up a digital rapid response team last week to reduce human error with cutting-edge technology. Over the next six months, we will provide up to £10 million to deliver artificial intelligence and technology solutions, which will help frontline staff avoid mistakes and support them in calculating sentences accurately. Finally, I am simplifying the release policy. One of the aims of the Sentencing Bill is to standardise how cases are treated, and following Dame Lynne Owens’ review, we will consider whether amendments to operational policy are required. These are the initial steps to address this issue, but I will update the House where further changes are necessary. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Can I just clear something up, which does not have to happen? First of all, I was told that the Justice Secretary needed 13 minutes. [Interruption.] Bear with me. I said, “You will need to ask,” and in the end, the Department came back and said, “Oh no, it’s 10 minutes.” That statement was not 10 minutes; it was almost 12 minutes. I will work with Ministers and Secretaries of State, but the limit is 10 minutes. If there needs to be an extension, please ask; do not keep changing the length of time, because it is unfair to shadow Ministers when a statement runs over. The shadow Justice Secretary now has an extra minute, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has an extra half-minute, but in future, please stick to the rule of 10 minutes. If you do need longer, I am always sympathetic, as long as I know in advance, but it makes your Department look foolish if you run over, having said to me that an extension was no longer needed. It is certainly not going to make me look foolish in the future. I call the shadow Justice Secretary.
Mr Lammy
This is a crisis that we inherited in our prison system. [Interruption.] That is worthy of sober reflection, because the shadow Justice Secretary knows that when the Conservatives were in government, 17 prisoners were released in error every month. He knows that. A former Conservative Justice Secretary said in respect of this issue last Friday: “We essentially run our prisons regime very hot. We are very close to capacity. We have seen a big increase in the prison population over the last 20 years, and resources have not necessarily matched that. That is the first problem.” Another former Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, said:
“Part of the issue is we can’t hold on to prison officers…Without that expertise, errors creep in.”
The shadow Justice Secretary himself challenged the Conservatives’ record in office, so he knows that this is a cross-party issue—one which, of course, we have to grip. I said that I had put in place those checks, and I stand by the checks that I put in. I also said in my statement that many of the cases that we are uncovering occurred before those checks were in place, and another case involved an error in the court system. That is why the new query process is very important indeed.
We had to introduce SDS40, and the right hon. Member knows why that is the case: because his Government, just in their last few months in office, made three different changes to their early release scheme, so worried were they about prison capacity—a prison capacity issue that we inherited. In their 14 years in office, they built only 500 extra places in the prison system, while we have pledged 14,000 by 2031.
The right hon. Member also knows that, as night follows day, if Governments cut officers by almost 50%, as the Conservatives did in office, and then recruit new officers, as we have attempted to do, those are then very junior people. They are working hard, and I thank them for all that they are doing, but in those circumstances mistakes will be made.
I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this—that is really important. I have put in place the digital team, because, as the right hon. Member also knows, this is a system based on human beings and there will therefore be errors; only technology will fix this issue over time. I have also now put in place that double check between the court and prison systems.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the initiatives that the Lord Chancellor has announced to deal with wrongful releases, but does he accept that the level and circumstances of such releases are symptomatic of a deeper malaise? Will he look at the Justice Committee’s current reports on drug culture, organised crime and the lack of education and work in prisons? Will he commit to tackling the underlying breakdown of order and discipline in the prison system, which, over years of decline, has made many prisons unsafe, chaotic and unfit for purpose?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he has been doing on these issues for many years. His words echo those of the prison inspector. My hon. Friend of course knows that this is a system that is incredibly hot, frankly, because violence is up, self-harm is an issue, and there is the issue of things arriving in prison by drone, particularly drugs. We have staff doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend knows that no Government, in just 16 months in office, could turn around the austerity that this public service saw.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
If the situation was not so serious, it would be laughable. It seems like people currently have tougher checks to speak to an adviser at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or to get a GP appointment than offenders have to be released from prison.
Since the mistaken releases of recent weeks, I have heard horrendous reports from prison officers inside prisons of prisoners being identified by low-quality black-and-white photographs printed on paper and a few basic questions on personal information—information that could be readily shared between inmates—before being cleared for release. That is not good enough, especially when we now have biometric technology that is used for visitors to prisons but not for inmates. We cannot be reliant on an honour-based system that depends on the good will of convicts to hand themselves in, and police forces certainly do not have the spare capacity to conduct regular manhunts for people who should still be locked up.
After the release of Hadush Kebatu, the Deputy Prime Minister promised enhanced security checks, yet some of society’s most dangerous individuals have still ended up on our streets. Will he now spell out what those enhanced checks actually involve and whether biometric testing is used routinely to confirm a prisoner’s identity before release? Can he confirm what training prison officers receive before managing prisoner releases?
Like most of the justice system, our prison system was mismanaged and underfunded by the previous complacent Conservative Government, so we appreciate that the Labour Government inherited this mess. However, the number of mistaken prisoner releases has risen sharply on their watch and they cannot continue to risk public safety, particularly given that it took them a whole seven days to realise that a prisoner had been mistakenly released and that they are seemingly blaming an email being unread for the most recent error.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm how long the Ministry of Justice has known about the three prisoners at large and how long the police have been trying to find them? The Deputy Prime Minister has promised the public an investigation, but they cannot wait months for answers while their safety continues to be put at risk, so what immediate action can he take today to ensure that dangerous criminals stay behind bars and that these mistakes stop once and for all?
Robert Jenrick
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to questions, the Justice Secretary said at one point that 17 prisoners a day were released in error under the last Conservative Government. He then repeatedly said that 17 prisoners a month were released in error by the last Conservative Government. Neither of those things is correct. The actual figure was five a month—and five a month is five too many. I know that he would not want to appear as if he did not know what he was talking about, so might you be able to get him to correct the record, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
I do not want to continue the debate, and that is what we are in danger of doing. I recognise and accept that a mistake was made. I think you have corrected the record, and we will leave it at that—unless the Justice Secretary wishes to come back.
Mr Lammy
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I said that 17 prisoners a month were released in error in 2024. If I misspoke at any point, then of course I am happy to correct the record, as I just have done, but I am pretty sure that I said that. [Official Report, 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 36.]
Mr Speaker
Just for the record, you mistakenly said 17 a day, but I knew exactly what you meant: 17 a month. We will leave it at that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that legal services, the rule of law and the importance of this jurisdiction for companies and individuals seeking recourse brings £47 billion a year into our economy. It is right for us to seek common cause with countries such as Denmark and Italy, which are, like us, exercised about how the European convention on human rights is being thwarted; but we do that in a steady, progressive way, and we certainly recognise the importance of the ECHR.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I serve on the Council of Europe, which is a perfectly worthwhile assembly. The convention was framed shortly after the second world war and was designed to counter Nazism—it was not designed to protect illegal migrants entering a country. We all know that this crisis is sapping belief in government. Why does the very reasonable Justice Secretary not work with the even more reasonable shadow Justice Secretary, come before the House and say that we will get a temporary derogation from the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, and that we will detain and deport anyone who enters this country illegally? That would solve the crisis.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman, who is hugely experienced, will know that it is important that we do not do anything that might, for example, undermine the Good Friday agreement, in respect of which the ECHR is fundamentally important. He rightly mentioned the refugee convention, which sits with the United Nations. I will be going to Strasbourg shortly, where I will be taking up many of these issues.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. There are perhaps other unforeseen consequences of leaving the ECHR, including for the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that either the Opposition parties wishing to leave the ECHR have not considered the impact of leaving on Cornish national minority status, or they have but they just do not care about the Cornish?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will know that, in relation to the debate that we had on exiting the European Union, all sorts of things were promised by many colleagues now on the Opposition Benches, but they were not delivered. It feels a little bit like we are on repeat in relation to this. There are areas of immigration where we have to do things domestically, and there are areas where we want to work with European colleagues—who are also concerned at the way that laws are being thwarted—but please let us not undermine a fundamental that was instituted by one of the heroes of this Parliament, Winston Churchill.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Fuad Awale is an extremist and double murderer who later took a prison officer hostage and demanded the release of the radical cleric Abu Qatada. He is the definition of evil. Yet the Justice Secretary’s Department is now set to pay him compensation as his ECHR rights have apparently been infringed, because he could not associate with monsters like those who killed Lee Rigby. Will the Justice Secretary ensure that not a single penny of taxpayers’ money is handed over to this man? If he will not, and he puts our membership of the ECHR above the interests of the British people, will he put his money where his mouth is and pay any so-called compensation himself?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The decisions that were made under the last Government by the then Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, were catastrophic for a wonderful service, and we are now in the business of rebuilding the Probation Service. I have been very pleased to visit probation workers in Chatham, Kent, and in Islington recently, and one of the things they raise is their caseload. In Kent they were trialling our transformation fund money, which is introducing artificial intelligence that can help them do what they want to do: provide face-to-face contact and reduce their caseloads. I want to see that rolled out across the country.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Currently, if a child sex offender is released from prison, the police and the Probation Service can track them on the sex offenders register, but if a child abuser is released from prison, the authorities have no register to track them with. There is a glaring gap in the system. Paula Hudgell has been fighting to fix the law after her adopted son Tony was abused so badly that he lost his legs. She has been diagnosed with terminal cancer, and she says this campaign is the fire in her belly. Paula is truly inspirational, and we are backing her campaign. Will the Secretary of State take our amendment or bring forward his own, and get this change over the line for Paula, for Tony and to protect children now and into the future?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I can tell him that the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), met Paula today and we are keen to support her campaign.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Like much of the justice system, the Probation Service is buckling under the strain after a decade of being undervalued by the previous Government. The injection of £700 million by 2028 was welcomed last year, but it has yet to be felt on the frontline of probation, which is estimated to be 10,000 staff members short. Given that the Sentencing Bill and a presumption against short sentences are bound to put additional pressure on the Probation Service, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the service can work efficiently to properly manage offenders in the community?
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are committed to improving timeliness not just in criminal courts but in family courts too, and to providing better support to victims of domestic abuse, who we know make up many of the participants in that litigation. The Pathfinder model is working. It resolves cases faster and offers specialist domestic abuse support. We have expanded the Pathfinder model to five additional court areas and we are continuing that expansion into 2026. He will be happy to know that that includes Hampshire, where I understand his constituency is based.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the question and the way in which he asked it. As he will know, the Government are doing all we can to bear down on the backlog in our Crown courts. That is why we have tasked Sir Brian Leveson with looking at how we can best get to grips with it. The right hon. Gentleman is right, however. I have sadly spoken to far too many rape and sexual violence victims who are waiting far too long for their day in court, which has an impact on them. We are straining every sinew, working with the judiciary and colleagues in the Crown Prosecution Service, to better support these victims and ensure that when they do get that day in court, they can access justice appropriately and have the best support available to them. I will happily work with him and anyone else in the House to ensure that any victim of crime has the support they need.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Last week, when told by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) that the Sentencing Bill would cut prison time for rapists and child groomers, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said she that would have to “go away and check” whether that was true—the time to check was before she voted for the Bill. Surely the victims Minister knows and can tell the House what proportion of rapists and child groomers will have their prison time cut by Labour’s Sentencing Bill.
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have a mountain to climb, and we cannot fix the foundations overnight. This Government are committed to restoring the public’s confidence in the justice system. That is why, through the spending review, we have committed an additional £450 million to the courts system. That means, as I said, investing in our buildings and in our people to restore the public’s confidence in our system.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Mr Lammy
This issue does require more neighbourhood policing and bobbies on the beat—as the hon. Gentleman knows, numbers were cut under the last Government. I also think that the intensive supervision courts, provided for in the Sentencing Bill, will be able to make a huge difference. A lot of shoplifters need a judge checking in with them regularly, and sometimes dealing with their addiction issue, to get them to change course.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Last week, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that there was “no doubt” that the Government’s early release scheme would lead to an increase in crime. This followed the news that a man who had been released from prison early had been charged with murder. So this is a simple question: will the Justice Secretary rule out any more early release schemes for prisoners?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
That is a characteristically important question from my hon. Friend. Education has a vital role in our prisons, helping to clamp down on reoffending and with rehabilitation. We are working at pace to look at how we can improve education within the prison system, including through the third sector as well as through the formal contracts we already have. Indeed, I am going to a prison in just the next few weeks to look at literacy rates with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies). There is work to do on this—it is not good enough at the moment—and we will get on with that in the weeks ahead.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Reports by charities and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner show that the family court system, which is plagued by delays, continues to provide the perfect environment for perpetrators of domestic abuse to continue to coerce and control. Training in identifying the signs of domestic abuse is not currently mandatory, so when will the Government bring forward legislation to reform the family court system, and when will they make domestic abuse training mandatory for all in the family courts?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Phillips
The hon. Lady makes a very important point about how women’s health can be used in coercion, especially their fertility—on both sides of the coin: about having an abortion or not having one. She will know that, unlike her, I am positively pro-choice. However, she is absolutely right that, when we look at any changes to abortion legislation in our country, those conversations will absolutely be going on, and all safeguards will be put in place.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
This Government talk about better protection for women and girls while actively passing changes to our sentencing laws that disgracefully mean that more than 90% of grooming offenders and 60% of rapists sent to prison will get their prison time cut. Was there an assessment of the impact of those changes on women and girls specifically? Can the Minister point to a single organisation representing women and girls that supports cutting prison time for sexual assault or grooming to one third of the sentence?
Jess Phillips
I will have to go away and check exactly what the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) has said regarding the people who the hon. Lady says will be released, because there are, of course, exceptions—and more exceptions than there were under her Government’s prison release scheme, because people like me and my hon. Friend had oversight of this process and cared about the women involved.
It is absolutely shocking that someone from a Government who oversaw the total collapse of our prison system, where we would not have been able to arrest rapists because there were no places for them in prison, can dare to stand there and suggest that that is something that we should—it is unbelievable that she cannot recognise her own role in this.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I recently met the Centre for Action on Rape and Abuse, also known as CARA, which supports thousands of victims and survivors of sexual violence across Essex, including in my constituency. CARA is concerned about future funding and the need for a stronger focus on tackling sexual violence. Will the Minister confirm that funding for the rape and sexual abuse support fund and independent sexual violence adviser services will continue beyond March 2026, and outline how the Government will prioritise addressing sexual violence?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her great campaigning work. I agree with her that we must do absolutely everything possible to break down all barriers to opportunity in our country.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Labour’s previous definition of “Islamophobia” was adopted by councils that had grooming gang scandals, and it said that even talking about grooming gangs was an example of “anti-Muslim racism”. We know from Louise Casey that public servants did not speak up because they were scared of being called racist. The Government are now bringing in a new definition, but they are refusing to tell the public what is in it. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft definition, before it is adopted, for full public scrutiny?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all her campaigning on this issue. She is right that too many women suffer trauma and pain, their symptoms and concerns not taken seriously. We are committed to prioritising women’s health. We have commissioned a number of studies focused on endometriosis diagnosis, treatment and patient experience, alongside six research trials, totalling an investment of approximately £5.8 million. This will be an essential part of our 10-year health plan.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
In January, the Supreme Court ruled that sex means biological sex. This was a huge victory for women’s rights, but now we hear that the Minister is kicking the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s much-needed guidance into the long grass. The law is not changing—the law is as it has always been—so will she release the guidance and make sure that women’s rights are protected?
Mr Speaker
Before we begin, may I extend a warm welcome to the President of the Portuguese Parliament and his delegation, who are in the Gallery today?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is very kind of my hon. Friend to say those opening remarks. I am conscious that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and indeed the Leader of the Opposition, are both trailblazers who have stood at the Dispatch Box. It is important to recognise the progress that has been made, particularly in the wake of Black History Month.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is heartening to see a community rally around someone as brave as Phoebe, and I wish Phoebe, her twin brother Eric and her parents, Lindsey and Matt, the very best in their fight against cancer.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
May I begin by associating myself and the Opposition with the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks about the terrible, horrific attack in Huntingdon? We wish a speedy recovery to those still in hospital and pay tribute to the brave actions of the public and the police.
Overnight, the father of the girl assaulted in Epping by Hadush Kebatu, the illegal immigrant released by accident, said that the Government had failed them “relentlessly”. I confess, I am surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister has not already apologised. I am going to give him an opportunity now: will he apologise to the family concerned?
James Cartlidge
The purpose of government is to take—[Interruption.]
James Cartlidge
It is getting noisy in here, so I say this again, just in case the Deputy Prime Minister did not hear me. He is the Justice Secretary. Can he reassure the House that since—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I will have no gestures from Members in the balcony. Do not gesture to me; it is not a wise decision. This is important. It is Prime Minister’s questions, and all our constituents are listening.
James Cartlidge
People in Epping and right across the country want to know the answer, so I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question again. He is the Justice Secretary. Can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison? Can he answer the question?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have got to tell the hon. Gentleman: I spent 14 years in opposition and I did a hell of a lot better than he has just done. I have answered the question. Under the Conservatives’ watch, prisons were in a mess. Suicides went up, prison officers were cut, and 20,000 neighbourhood police officers were lost. We have deported more people in the last year than they deported in the last five years. Please, I am not going to take any lecturing from the hon. Gentleman—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Dewhirst and Mr Stafford, you test my patience each week. Today is not the day to do so; we have a long weekend coming.
James Cartlidge
The public are extremely concerned about what happened in the Kebatu case; they want to know that there will not be a repeat, so I am putting to the Deputy Prime Minister a very clear question about his responsibilities. I repeat: can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidently let out of prison? Can he answer the question?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am looking forward to being up against the right hon. Member for Newark next time. In 25 years in this House, I have not witnessed a more shameful spectacle, frankly, than what the Conservatives left in our justice system—their criminal negligence, on the hon. Gentleman’s watch as a Justice Minister. They left our prisons on the brink of collapse entirely, threatening to allow offenders to run wild on our streets—he knows that! Rape victims waited years for their day in court—he knows that! Neighbourhood policing was decimated, leaving our people feeling unsafe in their communities. The Conservatives have not learned a thing. We are tackling knife crime. That is why it is falling. We are putting 13,000 more bobbies on the streets and kicking out 5,000 foreign national offenders. I have got to say to the hon. Gentleman: he should do better.
Mr Speaker
Order. I thought we had had six. I call James Cartlidge—[Interruption.] You have had your six questions—I was correct! I call Jonathan Brash.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
It seems that, like the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) cannot count, let alone stand up on behalf of the public.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) for his question. Our NHS has a strong record in delivering new medicines for rare diseases. The evaluation process is rightly led by NICE. As I understand it, the manufacturer of the new treatment for Friedreich’s ataxia has withdrawn from the process. However, the door remains open for the company to re-engage. I am happy to arrange the meeting that my hon. Friend seeks to help ensure more broadly that everyone gets the care they deserve while we are investing an additional £29 billion in the national health service.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On behalf of my party, may I join the Deputy Prime Minister in expressing our horror at the terrifying knife attack at the weekend and pay tribute to all those, including the emergency services, who put themselves in harm’s way to protect others? As we approach Remembrance Sunday, may I also join him in remembering all those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our rights and our freedoms?
Those rights and freedoms are now under threat in a way that we have not seen since the second world war. Putin is waging war on our continent and interfering in democracies across Europe, the Chinese Government are waging espionage against this House and Elon Musk is inciting violence on our streets. To date, the Government have failed to heed our calls for a new inquiry into Russian meddling, failed to place China on the enhanced tier of country threats and failed to launch an MI5 investigation into the threat posed by Elon Musk. What will it take for the Government to act and protect our democracy?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising the issue. Sadly, too many of us will know someone affected by prostate cancer; too many members of my family are currently living with prostate cancer. I was proud to co-chair the Prostate Cancer Research event last year and this year with him, and I share his determination to boost research, speed up treatment and deliver better care. He knows that I am biased, but these are rightly decisions for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The UK National Screening Committee is reviewing the latest evidence for prostate screening and considering whether any changes should be made to save lives, and we have invested £42 million jointly with Prostate Cancer UK—
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
In the past 15 years, there have been 170 cases of matricide. In 2022, more women were killed by their sons than by strangers. Child-to-parent abuse is often linked to complex mental health issues, and earlier this year I met Laura and Ian who are doing all they can to support their son in his rehabilitation after serving time in prison. They are living in constant fear of physical harm from their son, who they love and adore. Will the Deputy Prime Minister support my request to meet the relevant Minister to discuss the effects of child-to-parent abuse?
Mr Speaker
Is it to correct the number of questions, and to say that I was right and you were wrong? I hope that you are not going for a job at the Treasury. Come on then.
James Cartlidge
To be clear, Mr Speaker, my point of order is about a serious issue. The Telegraph is reporting that a police manhunt has been launched for a second asylum seeker who was mistakenly freed from prison. Can you advise me on how I can ask the Justice Secretary whether he was aware of that when I asked him about it repeatedly in Prime Minister’s questions?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Savage
Crown courtrooms are sitting empty for up to 75% of the time. Judges used to be booking in trials three to six months into the future, but now they are booking well into 2027 or even into 2028, which is to save the cost of bringing in a recorder at £830 a day. However, these cases still need to be tried at some point, so that is not actually saving costs, just deferring them. In the meantime, there is a terrible impact on complainants, and in fact on justice itself. What will the Secretary of State do to clear this backlog and ensure that cases come to trial?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady is completely right. Victims must see justice being done in real time. That is why we asked Brian Leveson to do the second part of his review, on efficiencies, which goes to the heart of her question.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question—no doubt she will be contributing to the debate a little later on our Sentencing Bill. That issue was raised with me by probation workers last week. It remains a big issue in our system, made worse by the previous Government. I commit to working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that that housing is available.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend back to his rightful place. I remember being a junior shadow Minister under him—I will try to be less deferential in my current role.
My right hon. Friend rightly says that the Government are recruiting new probation officers to fulfil the new responsibilities under the Sentencing Bill and to deal with early release. The BBC recently reported, however, a shortage of 10,000 probation officers. How are we going to fill that gap? The Probation Service is absolutely essential to the strategy that he is rightly following now.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman brings a lot of experience to these issues. What he reflects on is an issue faced in constituencies like mine. I hope he will contribute to the debate on the Sentencing Bill later today.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I welcome the new Justice Secretary and the Minister responsible for sentencing to their places. The Probation Service relies on an effective tagging system in order to keep our communities safe, but the £300 million contract that the last Government awarded to Serco has resulted in lots of failures. I saw some of them close up when I shadowed Serco over the summer, including, for example, wrong addresses being provided, which means multiple failed visits and a failure to tag the offenders who need to be tagged. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much Serco has been fined in its contract, and will he commit to strengthening penalties so that we ensure that private contractors are not rewarded for failure?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
For years, our court buildings under the last Government were left to crumble and decay. This Government have boosted capital funding from £120 million last year to over £148 million for this year. From Reading to Blackpool, we are building new courts and restoring old ones.
Becky Gittins
Prestatyn justice centre and its hard-working staff provide a vital service to my constituents, but on a recent visit it was clear that the building needs investment. Can the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to repair and modernise our court estate, and will she look at what can be done to support our facility in Prestatyn?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We are talking to the unions. I hope that the £40 million we have put in will be able to alleviate some of the problems, but he is right that the assaults on our staff are entirely unacceptable. That is why I am committing from the Dispatch Box to making further announcements in the coming days.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the murdered prison officer Lenny Scott, whose killer was found guilty and sentenced over the recess. It is hard to overstate the seriousness of the case: this was a prison officer murdered simply for doing his job. Like police officers, we ask prison officers every day to stand up to some of the most violent people in our society. Does the new Lord Chancellor agree that prison officers deserve the same legal protections as police officers?
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This Government are committed to tackling the root causes of reoffending. That means investing in services that turn offenders away from a life of crime and instead back on the straight and narrow. That includes services in employment, accommodation and substance misuse treatment.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is unacceptable that this is being allowed to carry on in our courts, which is why we are taking that fundamental reform, because without victims we would not have a criminal justice system and it is important that we put them at the heart of this. We are funding independent domestic abuse advocates to support victims, to get them through the system quicker. We are also committed to rolling out more specialist domestic abuse courts. That was one of the clear recommendations of the Leveson review, and it is something that the Courts Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), and I are working closely on to support victims, but I will happily discuss this further with the hon. Member to ensure that we get this right for victims of domestic abuse.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Child sex offenders destroy the lives of their victims, so why did the Justice Secretary, as Foreign Secretary, appoint the “best pal” and known business partner of one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles as our ambassador to Washington? What message does the Minister think this sends to the victims of rape and child sex abuse here in the UK?
Robert Jenrick
The Minister could not answer, because it is simply indefensible and she knows it. Everyone in this House knows it. Everyone knows it. On Sunday, the family of one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre, said that Mandelson should never have been appointed. I agree; almost every person in this country agrees. Did the Justice Secretary not read the papers that detailed Mandelson’s extensive connections to Epstein after he had been convicted? Or did he read them and flippantly disregard the crimes and pain he caused so many? Will the Minister take this opportunity, in her role, to apologise on behalf of the Justice Secretary to Epstein’s victims?
Mr Speaker
I understand the point being raised, and it is a very important one, but we are a long distance from the original question—
Mr Speaker
I am well aware of that and certainly do not need to be told. We have a three-hour debate coming up on that subject, so hopefully the Minister can respond.
Alex Davies-Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The shadow Justice Secretary says from a seated position that this is about justice for victims. If this was really about justice for victims, in the 14 years of his Government he would have carried out reforms to ensure that victims got swift justice. Instead, he presided over a criminal justice system that is at breaking point, where victims are waiting years for their day in court, and where prisons are overflowing and we are unable to ensure that there is always a space available. It is this Government that are ensuring there will always be a prison place available. It is this Government that are getting on with carrying out the recommendations of the national grooming inquiry. It is this Government that take victims and justice seriously.
Mr Lammy
I remain very concerned, particularly about neurodiversity in young people and how they fare in the criminal justice system. I will look closely at the youth justice system, working closely with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and of course the Department for Education.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place. The only one in, one out deal that is working in the Government is the one for Deputy Prime Ministers.
Just last month, the country was crying out that the Justice Secretary must face justice after his scandalous failure to register a licence for fish. Well, he thought he was off the hook, but finally it is justice for Lammy. I know that he has a previous and rather traumatic experience with one John Humphrys on “Mastermind”, so I hope that he is sitting comfortably. How many foreign nationals are clogging up our prisons, and does he stand by the letter he signed that opposed the removal of 50 foreign criminals, one of whom went on to murder?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I am deeply troubled by this case, and of course, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. It is hard to think of a more graphic illustration of what we mean when we say that justice delayed is justice denied, and it is exactly why this Government are gripping the backlog in our courts, with record sitting days, increased sentencing powers for magistrates and by proposing once-in-a-generation, bold reform of our criminal courts.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I would like to associate myself with the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on the bravery of the Hillsborough families and pay tribute to them for the success that has been landed today.
Many of us across the House are deeply concerned that domestic abusers are weaponising the family court to perpetrate their abuse. Efforts to reform it have not yet been forthcoming from this Government, and we need change. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to legislating in the next King’s Speech for reform of the family court, so that it supports survivors and does not sabotage them any longer?
Mr Lammy
Yes, of course, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I am sure the Lord Chancellor has read Baroness Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar and on the bench, which was published last week. Its troubling findings are primarily for the Bar itself and for the judiciary to address, but do the Government support the report’s recommendations and what can they do to ensure that they are implemented?
Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Sackman
What I did not hear in any of that was an apology. It is extraordinary to hear that the shadow Justice Secretary has suddenly discovered a sense of urgency, but where was that sense of urgency in the past 14 years? The so-called party of law of order allowed two things to happen. First, it took our prison system to the brink of collapse. That let down the public, and it let down victims—soft on crime, and soft on law and order. Secondly, it allowed the backlogs in our Crown courts to run out of control to record highs.
For 14 years the Conservatives did absolutely nothing, so let me explain the contrast with a party and a Government who are gripping the crisis and who are tough on law and order. We commissioned one of their own—Sir David Gauke—to give us his sentencing review. We commissioned one of our most revered judges, Sir Brian Leveson, who today has set out his recommendations. We will not provide our policy response today, because that demands and requires seriousness—not what we hear from the shadow Justice Secretary, but serious, careful analysis—and we will provide our formal response to the House in the autumn.
But we are not delaying. We are not waiting; we are investing in the system. To take up the challenge from the right hon. Gentleman about what the Lady Chief Justice said, we have already done what the previous Government failed to do, with an additional 4,000 Crown court sitting days and a record level of 110,000 sitting days a year—up from what the so-called party of law and order gave us. We also understand that we need proper system capacity. As we heard from the Lord Chancellor yesterday, this is not simply about adding more Crown court sitting days; as Sir Brian Leveson tells us—had the right hon. Gentleman bothered to read the report—we cannot simply sit our way out of this crisis.
We have to build system capacity—more judges, more prosecutors, more defence lawyers, and more court ushers. Of course we need to invest in the system, which is what the Government are doing with a promise of £450 million into our courts, additional to what the Conservative party provided. We are staying laser-focused on our mission, which is to provide swifter justice for victims, and restore public confidence in a justice system that was left to rack and ruin by the Conservative party.
The right hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun: we have been very clear that we are going to consider Sir Brian’s careful and detailed report, and we are going to listen to those who represent victims, and to the barristers and judges who do such an exceptional job. We will do what it takes for the victim who, if she reports a rape or serious crime, is told that she will have to wait until 2028, or 2029 in some cases, for her day in court. That is unacceptable, and that is why we will do whatever it takes, with the seriousness that the previous Government simply failed to have.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
What Sir Brian’s comprehensive report demonstrates is the terrible state that our once envied criminal justice system was left in by the shadow Lord Chancellor and his colleagues. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with Sir Brian that digging ourselves out of the hole in which they left us will require more investment, greater efficiency and structural change? Is that the debt that we owe to victims of crime in particular, to ensure that they get justice? It is up to this Government to put right the wrongs that have been done over the past 14 years.
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice quotes Magna Carta, but the state’s obligation is to ensure a fair trial, and essential to a fair trial is timely justice. In circumstances where some victims of crime are waiting two or three years for their day in court, that is not fair. In fact, that is resulting in many victims pulling out of trials, rendering court time wasted and retraumatising those victims. What the shadow Secretary of State for Justice has not read is the entirety of Magna Carta. I quote:
“To no one will we…delay right or justice.”
The right to a timely trial is embedded in Magna Carta, and we need to get back to delivering it.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
In his urgent question, the shadow Secretary of State for Justice said that “the public knows best”. For once, I agree with him, which is why the public threw out the last Conservative Government after they crashed our criminal justice system.
Yesterday, I made the case for safeguarding the guarantors of our justice system—our jury trials. However, today, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to raise our concerns that reclassifying certain offences and drawing on magistrates to run the new intermediate courts risks putting unbearable strain on the magistrates courts, jeopardising their ability to deliver swift justice, especially for survivors of domestic abuse crimes. Before adopting any new proposals, will the Minister publish an impact assessment of the measures on victims in magistrates courts, and will she rule out any measures that will delay justice, safety or freedom for survivors of domestic abuse?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for the recognition of the importance of magistrates courts. Sadly, Harlow magistrates court was closed by the previous Government—as was Chorley magistrates court, of course. I recently spoke to a police officer in my constituency who has been a police officer for three years. He is being asked to gather evidence to go to court for crimes committed before he was even a police officer. Is it any wonder that victims have lost confidence in the system? This Government need to ensure that we have fundamental reforms to this process to ensure that people in my constituency get the justice they deserve.
Sarah Sackman
I come back to the fact that this Government are investing in our court estate. We have invested an additional £20 million in our court buildings for maintenance and to keep the show on the road, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: the delays will reach a tipping point if we choose to do nothing about them, and that is simply not an option. The obligation on the state is to deliver a fair trial, and timeliness is critical to that. The longer the wait, the more likely it is that victims will pull out of the system and that the evidence becomes undermined, because people’s memories fade. That is why timeliness and getting the delays down is so critical to the mission we have to pursue.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Stuart, I do not need any challenges from you. You should know better; you are on the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs. You really do have to think about what you are saying. Your behaviour is getting intolerable.
Sarah Sackman
When the Victims’ Commissioner, the London Victims’ Commissioner and those who engage and support victims through victim services tell me that we have to take this opportunity for once-in-a-generation reform, because we are letting victims of crimes down, I take that more seriously than any other pleas for change. It is absolutely obvious that the delays from running a system with such record and rising backlogs and the failure to invest have real consequences for people’s lives. People are pulling out of the system and out of the process because they have simply lost faith in it. I will be thinking of their voices—of the victims—every day that we consider these proposals and drive them forward. Failure is not an option.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Yesterday, the Bar Council facilitated a useful conversation with local barristers in the south-west. I think they have some reservations, but I will leave them to make representations. One thing that they did say, which I urge the Minister to feed into the provisions of the second half of the report, is about the efficiency of the forensics service and the transfer mechanism to bring prisoners into the courts. The delays and inefficiencies there, and the contracts that are laid that set out those services, can have a material impact on the efficiency of the court service. I urge the Minister to make sure that that is focused on, because that could have a massive impact. I have grave concerns about where things are.
Finally, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I allowed—against advice—Alex Chalk and his predecessor to make some capital-to-revenue switches in their budgets to deal with the urgency of this problem. I hope that is helpful to the Minister in her negotiations with the Treasury going forward.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his typically helpful and constructive contribution. We are talking about a system that has so many moving parts, and that is why we will not give an instant response to Sir Brian’s review or to some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raises. It is clear that we have got to get the whole system working.
In that vein, let me address our professions and our criminal Bar, who do a sterling job. I have engaged closely with the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association, and we need to do this in collaboration with them. It will be a team effort to rebuild our criminal justice system, and we will continue to engage over the summer as we bring together the necessary reforms to bring down the backlogs and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
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.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
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?
Shabana Mahmood
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.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
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?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
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.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
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?
Alex Davies-Jones
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.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
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?
Alex Davies-Jones
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.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
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?
Shabana Mahmood
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.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
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 Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
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.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
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?