The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana
Mahmood) With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a
statement on capacity in the criminal justice system. When this
Government came to power, we inherited prisons on the brink of
disaster, moments from total collapse. Had that happened, the
consequences would have been apocalyptic: courts would have been
forced to cancel all trials, the police would have been barred from
making arrests, and we would...Request free trial
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice ()
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on
capacity in the criminal justice system. When this Government
came to power, we inherited prisons on the brink of disaster,
moments from total collapse. Had that happened, the consequences
would have been apocalyptic: courts would have been forced to
cancel all trials, the police would have been barred from making
arrests, and we would have faced the total breakdown of law and
order.
The last Government knew what had to be done. My predecessor, the
former Lord Chancellor, begged his Prime Minister to act, but
rather than have the bravery to do so, the now Leader of the
Opposition chose to call an election instead. As a result, it
fell to this Government to take the necessary but difficult
action. While they say that to govern is to choose, my
predecessors left me with no choice at all.
On 18 July, just two weeks into the job, I announced to this
House that we had been forced to bring forward the release dates
of some prisoners serving standard determinate sentences from 50%
of time served in prison to 40%, serving the rest on their
sentence on licence in the community. Make no mistake: the action
we took prevented the immediate collapse of law and order in our
country, but with our prison population still rising fast, there
is more that we must do to address the capacity challenges our
prisons face, and our task now is to ensure that a crisis like
the one we inherited can never happen again.
Today, I can set out a measure that will begin to address a
specific and acute cause of our prisons capacity crisis: the
remand population. As this House will know, prisoners on remand
are in our jails but have not yet been tried or sentenced.
Because of the historical backlog in our Crown courts—another
element of the woeful inheritance my predecessors handed to
me—the remand population in prisons has soared. Today, it stands
at a record 17,000, which is nearly one in every five prisoners.
As some Members will know, remand prisoners are an especially
acute problem as they are placed in so-called reception or
category B prisons. Until they are tried and sentenced, they
cannot be moved elsewhere in the estate. It is in our reception
prisons that we face the most acute capacity pressure in the
country. Unless we address our remand population, we could still
see a collapse of the system, not because of a lack of cells, but
because we do not have those cells in the places we need them. It
is therefore crucial that we bear down on the remand
population.
Magistrates courts have sentencing powers for only up to six
months' imprisonment for a single triable either-way offence, and
only the Crown court can hand down sentences beyond that. Between
May 2022 and March 2023, the previous Government chose to extend
magistrates court sentencing powers to 12 months. This enabled
magistrates courts to retain more sentencing hearings and meant
that they were heard more quickly. It also freed up capacity in
the Crown court to hear more complex cases. However, magistrates'
sentencing powers were then reduced back to six months when,
having failed to address the capacity crisis in our prisons, the
pressure on prison places became too great.
This Government have now acted to relieve that pressure, so I can
announce that we will extend magistrates' sentencing powers back
to 12 months' imprisonment. On 28 October, I will lay a statutory
instrument to that effect, which will come into force on 18
November this year. This change does not increase the maximum
sentence for specific offences, and nor does it change the length
of sentence that a defendant will serve. Instead, it expands
which courts can hand down sentences of six to 12 months'
imprisonment for a single triable either-way offence. It will
enable the system to make more use of magistrates, who are an
integral part of our court system, delivering justice swiftly
across the country.
This measure will also allow us to begin to address the remand
problem in our prisons, but it will do more than that. This
Government inherited a record Crown court backlog. Waits for
trials have grown so long that some cases are not heard for
years. The impact on victims of crime is profound. For some,
justice delayed is, as the old saying goes, justice denied, as
victims choose to withdraw from the justice process altogether
rather than face the pain of a protracted legal battle. By
extending magistrates' powers, we will be able to make progress
on addressing the Crown court backlog, and we will free the Crown
court to take on more of the cases that only it can hear. This
measure is expected to free up an equivalent of 2,000 sitting
days within the Crown court each year, which will add capacity on
top of the additional 500 sitting days that this Government
funded on taking office.
This measure will, in total, see a slight increase in the overall
prison population, but by bearing down on the remand population
in our reception prisons, we will create capacity where we need
it most. This measure allows us to manage our prison population
smartly, and it means we can both address our prisons crisis and
tackle the courts backlog.
When this Government came to power, we inherited a justice system
in crisis. We took immediate action to avert a total breakdown of
law and order. We are now beginning the work of ensuring that
this country never faces this crisis again. There will be more
that we must do. In the coming weeks, I will return to the House
and set out our long-term plan for the justice system, but these
new powers for magistrates mark an important step. They help us
alleviate the capacity pressures caused by the historical remand
population that we inherited, and begin to address the record
Crown court backlog that my predecessors handed to me. In so
doing, for victims across the country they will make justice
swifter, and ensure that more criminals receive the punishment
that they deserve. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms )
I call the shadow Minister.
11.55am
(Melton and Syston) (Con)
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor and her civil servants for
their typical courtesy in giving me early sight of her statement.
I am also grateful to magistrates, to whom I pay tribute. In many
ways, they are the backbone of our justice system, and like
juries they root our justice system in our local communities.
Their service is hugely appreciated, as is the work of the
Magistrates' Association, and I recognise their skill and
dedication.
The Lord Chancellor highlighted the backlog as context. As she
will know, in 2010 the backlog that we inherited in the Crown
courts was 48,000. It was reduced to 40,000 by 2019, but we
recognise that it is a lot higher now. The change? A pandemic.
She rightly referred to significant increases in the remand
population. During the pandemic, supported by the then
Opposition, we opted not to mass-release prisoners, as other
countries did, and not to cancel jury trials. That of course led
to increases in the remand population, compounded by the effect
of the Bar strike.
The vast bulk of the backlog is in the Crown courts, as the Lord
Chancellor will know, and it is right to recognise the
interrelationship between magistrates courts and Crown courts. I
believe that the concordat on sitting days had not been formally
signed by the former Lord Chancellor at the time of the election,
and I therefore saw with concern that, in stark contrast to
previous Lord Chancellors who increased sitting days, it appears
we will see a reduction of 2,700 sitting days compared with last
year. I would be grateful for the Lord Chancellor's reflections
on that. In 2019 there were 85,000 sitting days, and 107,700 last
year. This year the cap appears to be at 105,000. That appears to
be the Government's choice, but I would welcome clarity from the
Lord Chancellor on that.
The changes that the Lord Chancellor has set out were
characterised by the chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Mary
Prior KC, in The Guardian:
“This is a knee-jerk reaction, done without consulting—once
again—the criminal barristers or solicitors who deal every day
with these cases”.
There are therefore a number of questions about that and the
broader criminal justice system, given the scope of the right
hon. Lady's statement, which I hope she will be able to answer.
Has she conducted a complete impact assessment for the changes,
and will she publish that and all the modelling on it prior to
the statutory instrument being laid? How many people are
currently on remand, and will she share with the House the
latest, most up-to-date figure? Reports suggest that this measure
will in the short term potentially increase pressure on prison
places, so will she say by what amount her modelling suggests
that will be? What prior consultation did she or her Department
undertake with the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and
the Law Society before making this decision? What assessment has
she made of the impact of the decision announced today on the
backlog and on the number of short custodial sentence passed by
the courts?
Given that the right hon. Lady explicitly referred to her
prisoner early release scheme, I hope she will be able to answer
all those questions, but there is also one important question
that I hope she will answer today by way of reassurance: are any
of the 37 prisoners released in error last month still roaming
free, or have they all been safely returned to prison? I would be
grateful for clarification on that, because it is important.
We will find out in under two weeks whether, in pre-Budget
spending discussions with the Chancellor, the right hon. Lady has
successfully fought for investment and in the interests of
justice and victims of crime, or whether she has sold out the
victims and the systems, and conceded cuts to the Treasury. If
she has succeeded in securing additional investment, she will
have my gratitude and support. If she has not, we will rightly
hold her to account.
It is almost as if the shadow Lord Chancellor was not, in fact, a
Minister in the Ministry of Justice just a few short months ago.
Let me remind him of a few salient facts. First, on Crown court
sitting days, I will not accept any suggestion or allegation from
him that this Government have cut sitting days or trials in the
Crown court. That is entirely untrue. As he knows, or ought to
know, perfectly well—I am sure he can check with the former Lord
Chancellor—on 28 June, the last Government and the last Lord
Chancellor determined how many days the judges could sit this
year. Since then, this Government have increased the number of
sitting days by 500. As there is clearly some confusion here, it
is important that I set the record straight.
Every year, the Government and the judiciary agree a number of
sitting days, and an overall budget to fund those sitting days,
in what is known as the concordat process. In June, the judiciary
reached an agreement with the former Lord Chancellor to sit
106,000 days in the Crown court, with a total budget of £275
million. It has become clear that there has been over-listing
against that budget, with more trials scheduled than the funding
allowed for. As a result, some cases have had to be delisted,
although far fewer than some recent reporting has suggested—it
was claimed that around 5,000 sitting days were being cancelled,
and I know that the shadow Lord Chancellor had some other numbers
in his remarks. In fact, as I understand it, the number is more
like 1,600 sitting days. Although misleading reports have
abounded, one thing is clear: the concordat process has not
worked as it should. I can assure the House that the first
concordat process on my watch will be very different, and such
confusions will not occur again.
The shadow Lord Chancellor asked a number of questions relating
to the impact assessment for the changes announced today. I will
publish all the usual impact assessments when the statutory
instrument is published. As I said in my opening remarks, we
expect an initial impact on prison places, but over time we
expect that to come down. We have a little more space in prisons
because of the action we have taken to stabilise the pressure on
prison places. It is a sensible measure to then take the
opportunity to bear down on the Crown court backlog by providing
the extra 2,000 sitting days that this change will allow, while
also bearing down further on our remand population.
As the shadow Lord Chancellor will know, the exact numbers are
difficult to model because listing is a matter for the judiciary.
Some of those on remand will ultimately be found not guilty and
some will be found guilty and sentenced, and the whole range of
sentencing measures is available to the independent judiciary.
But we expect to make some progress on the remand population and,
crucially, to be able to move people from the reception estate
into the rest of the prison estate, thereby helping us to make
sure we have the prison places where we need them. I can also
confirm that all of the 37 people released in error because of
being incorrectly sentenced are now back in custody.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms )
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
(Hammersmith and Chiswick)
(Lab)
As someone who spent a decade shadowing and scrutinising the
previous Government's justice policies, I sympathise with the
Lord Chancellor over the chaos she has inherited, but the
proposed changes to magistrates' sentencing powers may have mixed
results. They should ease the backlog in the Crown court, but
they may put additional pressure on our overcrowded prisons. My
concern is that we do not have robust data on the Crown court
backlog or on the effects of varying sentencing. The Government
are about to embark on a quick but thorough review of sentencing.
Will they use that opportunity to get the policy and the figures
lined up?
I think this is my first chance in the House to welcome my hon.
Friend to his new position as Chair of the Justice Committee. Let
me deal with Crown court data first. In fairness to the previous
Government, they discovered this error prior to the conclusion of
their term in office. When I came in, I was made aware of the
issue with Crown court data. I ordered further investigation and
examination of the issues. It is clear that a number of problems
with the data—a number of errors and other issues—need to be
resolved. We will make sure that it is published when we can be
sure that it is accurate and that all those errors have been
finally resolved.
Clearly, the situation is unacceptable. I am in discussion with
the Lady Chief Justice about the need for a full external audit
of Crown court data, because I think we can all agree that that
data must be accurate. We clearly must do more to restore
confidence in the reporting process, and I will update the House
further in due course.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
(Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her
statement. So many of my constituents are appalled by the state
in which the Conservatives have left our justice system: huge
court backlogs, a woefully big remand population, overcrowded
prisons and so many victims and survivors without justice. I
therefore welcome her determination to arrest this problem and
this decline, and especially the reports of her correspondence
with the Prime Minister over a fully funded Ministry of Justice.
However, I want to address some of the Liberal Democrats' key
concerns about some of the proposals that she has set out.
First, the Secretary of State recognised that there may be
additional issues with prison capacity in the short term. With
the system bursting at the seams and with us, a matter of weeks
ago, just 100 men away from the prisons being completely full,
how will she prevent our prisons from collapsing as a result of
these measures?
Secondly, on prison effectiveness, putting too many eggs in the
prisons basket will ultimately fail to keep our communities safe.
We know that 75% of ex-offenders go on to reoffend within nine
years of being released. From the work I did before I arrived in
this place on getting kids out of crime and out of gangs, I know
that rehabilitation, done holistically, is a critical way of
reducing reoffending and victimhood. How will the Secretary of
State double down on rehabilitation and through-the-gate
mentoring programmes to reduce offending?
Thirdly, these measures will put more pressure on magistrates
courts, at a time when many, such as my own in Eastbourne, have
closed. That risks forcing victims of crimes currently heard in
those courts to wait even longer for justice. How will the
Secretary of State address that risk?
Finally, one of the worst Justice Secretaries in recent memory,
, tried a similar policy in
2022, with magistrates increasing the number of people being sent
to prison on short sentences. The scheme was dropped after a
year, and short-sentence reoffending rates are at 57%, which is a
deplorable number. How will the Secretary of State avoid these
measures backfiring in a similar way?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Just for reference, your questions should be two minutes, no
longer.
I thank the hon. Member for his questions. I am very aware of the
number of places in our prison estate, and we had a particularly
difficult moment before the last bank holiday, in August, when we
came down to fewer than 100. However, as a result of the measures
we have taken on SDS40, there is now some space and some capacity
in our prison system. It is important that we use this
opportunity also to bear down on the remand population and to
deal with the Crown court backlog.
This is a delicate balancing exercise, and it is one that I will
personally be keeping a close eye on and keeping under review.
However, I think that the measure we have announced is ultimately
the right one, because it helps us with our prison capacity
challenges. As a result, we will have the prison places where we
need them—in the reception prisons—and we can start moving people
out to other parts of the estate, which is not possible until
cases are heard. I am confident that we have the capacity in the
magistrates courts to deal with the additional workload. Again, I
will be keeping that under review.
The hon. Member is right: 80% of offenders are actually
reoffenders. This country has a real problem with failing to
rehabilitate offenders, and our record on reducing reoffending is
not as strong as it should be. Prison has a place, and it is
really important that people who break our laws are properly
punished. That is necessary for the public to maintain confidence
in our system and for law-abiding citizens to feel that there are
consequences when our laws are broken. There is no doubt in my
mind that punishment and prison are important, but they go hand
in hand with rehabilitation. I do not think there is a choice to
be made between punishment and rehabilitation—they are two sides
of the same coin, and we have to have both. This Government are
determined to have a better track record on both punishment and
rehabilitation compared with anything that has gone on in the
previous 14 years.
Let me gently say that it is not the case that magistrates courts
send more people to prison. Following the previous change the
courts were able to run through cases faster, and because the
previous Government had not created capacity in the prison
estate, the pressure on prison places became acute and the
measure had to be dropped back to six months—the shadow Lord
Chancellor might wish to offer further comments on that. That is
what happened and what I expect to happen again.
Ms (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is fascinating and powerful to hear the plans to deal with the
backlog in the courts. I know that all our constituents will be
grateful for the Lord Chancellor's work. I have a constituent who
was the victim of an aggravated burglary that involved multiple
men coming to her house with machetes in 2021. Finally, last week
at Snaresbrook Crown court, a date for the trial of the gentlemen
accused of this crime was set for October 2026. The Lord
Chancellor will recognise and share the concern of my
constituent. As she says, justice delayed is justice denied. What
comfort can she give my constituent that such matters will be
expedited as a result of her work?
I am very sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend's
constituent. I have many such instances of unacceptable delays
for hearing cases in my own constituency caseload. I hope that
the measures that I have announced today will begin to ease some
of that pressure, because making this change will free up around
2,000 sitting days in the Crown court. This Government have
funded an additional 500 beyond the concordat process agreement
that was reached by the previous Government in June. I am
determined to make more progress in dealing with the Crown court
backlog so that constituents such as my hon. Friend's do not have
to wait so many years for their cases to be heard and,
ultimately, for justice to be done.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
May I reach out across the party divide to say that I warmly
welcome what the Justice Secretary said about punishment and
rehabilitation? By coincidence, I have just written to her—she
will not have seen the letter yet—about the work of my
constituent, the publisher Andrew Duncan, in co-ordination with a
panel of experts that includes a psychology professor, a former
governor of Pentonville, a Probation Service specialist in
reducing reoffending and a central London magistrate, on a new
concept of community detention. My request is that either she or
the Minister she thinks most appropriate will agree to have a
meeting with my constituent, a few members of his team and me. As
a right-of-centre politician, I am sometimes sceptical of
alternatives to prison. This one sounds really interesting, and I
think it would not be a waste of her time.
I thank the right hon. Member for the spirit in which he made his
remarks. I hope that where consensus is possible on a cross-party
basis across this House, we are able to work together, because
this is a national problem that will require us all to come
together to solve it. I will track down his letter and ensure
that he gets a full response and a meeting.
(Telford) (Lab)
In Shropshire, the justice system is broken. Under the watch of
the last Conservative Government, the remand court in Shropshire
magistrates court was closed and transferred to Kidderminster. I
am delighted to say that, under this Government's watch, that
remand court is about to reopen. Some 300 court sessions are
running empty each and every year at Shropshire magistrates
court. My local paper, the Shropshire Star, highlighted a
criminal trial—it involved a retrial—that will take seven years
from the original date of the offence to be disposed of, which is
an absolute disgrace. Will the Lord Chancellor look at ways in
which we can further empower district judges in the magistrates
court, and at the use of technology in the justice system?
Finally, it is important that the transparency around data is
fixed. Unfortunately, the last Conservative Government did not
release the data on time. We need to understand what is really
going on now, and what has happened in the past.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Cases are taking too long to
reach conclusion in our courts. We are making some changes, and I
am considering what further ones we will need to make. There is
an important piece around efficiency and productivity in the
court system, and there have also been reports by Lord Justice
Auld, Lord Leveson and others on other ways to speed up trials
being heard. All those options are on the table, and I will
update the House in due course about this Government's
approach.
I simply reiterate my remarks on the data: when it is finally
published, it is important that we can be certain that it is
accurate and properly captures what is going on in our Crown
courts and that we can all have confidence in it. In fairness,
the last Government did pick up on this problem. I am determined
that it will be resolved and that the data will ultimately be
published.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her very welcome statement.
There is a clear commitment to the change that is necessary. She
will note that I nearly always focus on victims, so will she
outline what weight is given to victim impact statements, and
whether there is a need to determine in law how much weight is
given to the impact on devastated families? I always think of the
devastated families—they are the ones who are really
important.
Let me reassure the hon. Member that we place great importance in
the victim's experience. This Government will strengthen that
further and ensure that victims are not further traumatised by
their experience of seeking justice. Victim impact statements
have an important role to play. The victims Minister, my hon.
Friend the Member for Pontypridd (), recently met Victim
Support and other groups. This is a really important piece of
work for the Government, and I know the hon. Member will hold us
to account on our track record. I am very aware of the impact of
delays in the system on victims, which is why we are making the
changes today. We will make more progress to bring those delays
down.
(Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Lord Chancellor and her Department for their
important work in tackling the backlog. Given that the previous
Government agreed the funding allocation, who does she feel is
responsible for the number of Crown court sitting days being cut?
Has she explored the further use of artificial intelligence in
small judgments to speed up the backlog?
I reiterate my previous remarks on what has happened to Crown
court sitting days, but I do not think it is helpful for me to
speculate on who is ultimately responsible. It is clear that the
concordat process has not worked as it should. As I said, the
first process that I conduct as Lord Chancellor will not have
those issues. An agreement was reached and it has to be stuck to.
I am sure that all those in the system are worried about the
impact on victims—they are the ones who will be waiting longer.
As I said, although reports have suggested that up to 5,000
sitting days have been cancelled, the number is more like 1,600,
and the changes we have announced today will free up capacity in
the Crown courts.
I am very interested in the role that AI and other technology and
digital solutions can play in increasing efficiency and
productivity in the Crown court system and the court system more
broadly. That is subject to discussions in relation to the Budget
and the spending review. I hope to update the House in due
course.
(Great Grimsby and
Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I am very concerned to hear of the missed publication of Crown
court backlog data. How can we hope to drive down the backlog if
we do not know how big it is?
One of the reasons why I am determined to get to the bottom of
what has gone wrong, and to ensure that all errors and accuracy
issues are dealt with, is so that we have comprehensive data that
we can rely upon. We know that the Crown court backlog is at
historic levels. Sadly, I do not think that any assurance work on
the data will suddenly bring that down—I suspect it is more
likely to go up—but it is important to establish the true scale
of that backlog, because this House needs to know exactly what it
looks like so that it can hold the Government to account on their
efforts to bring it down. We cannot do that unless we know its
exact size. Sadly, I suspect it will remain at the historic
levels that we have inherited—I do not think it will come down by
much.
(Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Lord Chancellor very much for her statement. It is
very clear, from everything we have seen over the past 14 years
and since 4 July, that the previous Government completely failed
to manage our prison estate. Does she agree with me and my
constituents that it is really important that we maintain space
in our prison system to lock up the most dangerous offenders? At
the same time, we need to have a look at community sentences.
Will she be doing that?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There must always be space in
our prisons to lock up the most dangerous offenders. We must
always place public protection above all other considerations
when it comes to dangerous violent offenders. When we have a
capacity crisis as acute as the one I inherited, we unfortunately
have to also consider alternatives, simply because running out of
space is no option at all. I reiterate the remarks I made
earlier: punishment and rehabilitation have to go together. It is
not a choice between one or the other. They are two sides of the
same coin and the Government are determined to make progress on
both.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Lab)
My constituents will welcome the clarity that the Lord Chancellor
has provided today. With reference to her point about the
long-term plan for the justice system, a plan that we have to get
right, may I ask her to keep in mind the need for a proper,
robust and accessible legal aid system?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Legal aid underpins our
system of justice and access to justice. Stabilising the
situation in relation to legal aid is a key priority for the
Government.
(Doncaster East and the Isle
of Axholme) (Lab)
I have a number of prisons in my constituency, so I was
particularly concerned to read about Serco's failures on tagging.
What is the Secretary of State doing to hold it to account?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Serco's performance is
unacceptable. We are having daily meetings with it to ensure it
recovers the position. I have made it clear that improved
performance is an absolutely priority. We are already imposing
financial penalties, given its performance to date, and we will
not hesitate to trigger relevant contractual penalties if it does
not improve.
Mr (Cardiff West)
(Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and commend her
and her ministerial team for the work they are doing to fix the
last 14 years of Tory mess in this Department. In her statement,
she talked about the withdrawal of victims from the process. On
that point, 60% of rape victims are dropping out of their cases,
partly because they are waiting years for justice. Will the
Secretary of State explain how independent legal advocates will
support victims to see their cases through to trial?
The introduction of independent legal advocates for rape victims
will, we believe, ensure that the rights that victims already
have will be enforced, and in such a way as to give them the
confidence to continue with their cases. This is a key priority
policy for our party and for the Government, and I will be very
pleased to be able to roll it out over the coming months and
years. It is a significant change to our legal system. It will be
the first time that independent legal advice is given to a type
of victim. We think that is incredibly important, because rape
victims lose confidence in the process and are often
re-traumatised by the process of seeking justice. The independent
legal advocates will try to ensure that the scales of justice are
rebalanced and that victims have a fair shot at having their
already existing legal rights enforced.
(South Norfolk) (Lab)
Prisons have two vital functions: punishment and rehabilitation.
Reoffending has gone up, because after 14 years under the
Conservatives prisons have become colleges of crime. We need to
get the basics right and we need to get the fundamentals right on
prison education reform. Will my right hon. Friend look at how we
can improve literacy and numeracy skills in our prison
estate?
We will of course look at improved literacy and other skills
within our prison estate. The problem with running a prison
estate as hot as the previous Government did, and so full to the
brim, is that when we are so badly overcrowded and prisoners are
locked up for 23 hours every day, there is very little other work
we can do to help prisoners rehabilitate. Dealing with the
capacity crisis will enable us to have a better performance and
better track record on rehabilitation, which is crucial if we are
ultimately to reduce the number of victims in future and cut
crime.
(Wolverhampton West)
(Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that failing to address the
prisons capacity crisis and allowing the Crown court backlog to
grow to unprecedented levels has meant that the entirety of our
criminal justice system has been broken? I make particular
reference to rape and serious sexual offences cases.
It is clear that the position I have inherited from my
predecessors was shocking and completely unacceptable. We were,
simply, one bad day away from total disaster in our criminal
justice system. That is why, since we formed the Government, we
have been making the difficult choices necessary to stabilise our
criminal justice system and stabilise the situation in our
prisons, so we can restore the system to one that the public can
rightly have confidence in.
|
