PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Topical Questions - 28 January 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

This Government inherited a record and rising Crown court backlog and prisons on the point of collapse, serving as breeding grounds for crime that create better criminals, not better citizens. The work of restoring safer streets in this country will be long and hard, but we are taking immediate action. Since the last Justice orals, we have increased the number of sitting days in the Crown court by 2,000 this financial year and boosted criminal legal aid by up to £92 million a year to get cases moving through the courts more quickly. We have published a 10-year prison capacity strategy, setting out plans to build 14,000 new prison places to ensure we always have the space to lock up dangerous criminals. We launched the Women’s Justice Board, with one clear goal: to send fewer women to prison. We are doing what it takes to deliver swifter justice for victims and punishment that cuts crime.

Ministers have talked quite a bit today about expanded powers for magistrates courts. Could the Secretary of State tell me what additional funding is being made available and what training there will be for magistrates to assist them with this expanded role?

The changes in relation to magistrates court sentencing powers were made by the previous Government due to prison capacity issues, and they were working well. We have restored those same powers, so I do not think those issues around training are necessarily engaged. However, we will ensure that legal advisers and the full package of measures that magistrates need to fulfil their obligations are in place.

It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. Last week, I hosted a roundtable for MPs to discuss their concerns about IPP sentences and share the work the Department is doing. The Prisons Minister in the other place hosted a similar roundtable for peers. We are determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for those serving IPP sentences, while recognising that at all times public protection is paramount.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Two weeks ago, three grooming gang members were sentenced at Bradford Crown court for the most appalling rapes of children, but they received only six, seven and nine-year sentences respectively—six years, out on licence in four, for the rape of a child. Does the Secretary of State agree that those sentences are disgracefully short, and will she commit to using the sentencing review to mandate full life sentences for these evil people? If she will, she will have our support.

We have a shared objective in making sure that these evil individuals feel the full force of the law. I will not comment on individual sentencing decisions, and the shadow Lord Chancellor might wish to reflect on that decision; it is not appropriate to do so, given our collective commitment to the independence of the judiciary. However, as I said in response to earlier questions, we will legislate to make grooming an aggravating factor, and this Government will make sure that victims get the justice they deserve.

I have written to the Attorney General asking him to review those sentences as potentially unduly lenient. Two of the men who were sentenced at Bradford Crown court for grooming gang offences were absent. They are thought to have absconded abroad. Can the Justice Secretary confirm how many grooming gang defendants the Government are currently pursuing overseas and what efforts are being made by the Government with, in this case, the Pakistani authorities, using every lever of the British state to locate these evil men and get justice for the victims?

I will happily write to the right hon. Gentleman with details on the specific case that he raises. He is right to say that we have international agreements and arrangements with other jurisdictions to ensure that offenders can be brought back to face justice in this country. I am sure that those arrangements are being applied appropriately, but I will make sure that he gets a fuller answer on the case that he has raised.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for the campaigning work that he is doing in this area. Journalism is the lifeblood of democracy, and strategic lawsuits against public participation represent an abuse of the legal system; they are used by those with deep pockets to harass and silence journalism. Such behaviour is intolerable. My focus, and the focus of this Government, will be on the implementation of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which introduced an early dismissal mechanism and cost protection for SLAPP defendants.

I agree that we need to do everything we can to remove foreign national offenders from our prisons. Between 5 July 2024 and 4 January 2025, 2,580 foreign national offenders were returned—a 23% increase on the same period in the previous year—and we are currently on track to remove more foreign national offenders this year than at any time in recent years.

Humanist marriage has been legal in Scotland for 20 years but continues to wait to be legalised in England and Wales. The Law Commission made recommendations two years ago on clarifying the law, but when asked to set out a timetable for action, the Minister in the other place could only respond, “in the fullness of time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 2024; Vol. 841, c. 910.]

Can the Minister set out the timetable or, alternatively, say when the Government will make an order to end the long wait for humanist marriage?

I understand that humanists have been campaigning for legally binding humanist weddings. The Government are committed to strengthening the rights and protections available, particularly for women in cohabiting couples. We will look at the Law Commission’s work and publish our response in due course.

May I express how sorry I am to hear of the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent? I am happy to write to him—he asks quite a specific question—but it is important that we provide support to all sorts of victims. That is why we have the victims code, which strengthens the power of the Victims’ Commissioner, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that specific matter.

As my hon. Friend rightly says, I cannot comment on that specific case, but we adhere to the principle of open justice and transparency in our legal system. That is why we have the publication of sentencing remarks and transcripts, and the broadcasting of many of our hearings, so that the public can see exactly how justice in this country is administered.

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

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

We have just witnessed the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission being prised out of her job, six months after the Secretary of State described her as

“unable to fulfil her duties”.

When will a new chair be appointed, and will this be accompanied by a wider review of the CCRC, to restore confidence in that damaged organisation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to restore confidence in the CCRC. That is why we are taking the decision not only to appoint an interim chair to steady the ship but, more importantly, to implement the recommendations of the Henley review so that we can restore confidence in this important institution, particularly in the light of the appalling miscarriage of justice in the case of Andrew Malkinson.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We believe that much more can be achieved through the increased use of AI and other digital technology to speed up some of the paper processes that create delays across the criminal justice system. As chair of the Criminal Justice Board, I have asked for a cross-system criminal justice response on this and I will update the House in due course.

No doubt we all agree that preventable deaths should be prevented, and tragedies like Hillsborough and Grenfell must not be repeated because we fail to make changes, so what consideration has the Secretary of State given to creating a national oversight mechanism to ensure that lessons are learned from every state-related death?

The Government will shortly be publishing the Bill that campaigners refer to as the Hillsborough law, which will reflect issues relating to the duty of candour, which this Government are committed to, and I know that campaigners are making representations to the Home Office on the national oversight mechanism that it is currently considering.

Can the Secretary of State explain to the House in what circumstances the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are allowed to deny access to evidence, after a trial has concluded, to a defence lawyer who is seeking to appeal, as has happened in the Lucy Letby case and, I believe, in others?

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as Justice Secretary, I am not able to interfere in any independent decisions made by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, but he has made his point and I will ensure that it is dealt with by the appropriate individuals—either the Home Secretary or the head of the CPS.

There are serious questions about the transparency of the police, the CPS and the Government in the days and weeks following the Southport attack. In written answers to me, the Government have refused to provide the dates when the Prime Minister was told that Rudakubana possessed ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual. Can the Justice Secretary tell me why?

The Prime Minister has responded to the other questions that have been raised. The appropriate information was made available at the appropriate time to either the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. It was right that the Government did not give any commentary that could have collapsed the trial. On the specific charge relating to ricin, that decision required Law Officer approval, which was sought and immediately given.

I know that the Justice Secretary is aware of the tragic case of my constituent Sara Sharif. Will she consider reforming family courts and ending the presumption in favour of parental contact despite the fact that there were safeguarding concerns?

That case of that little girl, Sara Sharif, is one of the most tragic of recent times, and I know that that view is shared right across the House. That is why a safeguarding review is under way to look at all the agencies that were involved and should have been protecting that little girl from those who ended up killing her. We are looking at the presumption: there is a review, and we will consider the findings of that review and publish our response in due course.

My constituent, who is a British citizen and the mother of two young children, faces the prospect of being forced to return to Poland to accompany those children under the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, having fled escalating domestic abuse. If she does, her inability to speak the language or work will leave her entirely dependent on her abuser, even though he is barred from contacting her. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that domestic abuse is explicitly recognised as a valid defence against return orders of this type?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I invite her to write to me about that specific case, which sounds like it throws up a very difficult set of factual circumstances that I would like the opportunity to consider.