Tag: Shabana Mahmood

The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 17 November 2025.

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.

This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.

The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.

I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.

Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.Toggle showing location ofColumn 510

My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.

Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.

In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.

I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.

Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed.Toggle showing location ofColumn 511

We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.

The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.

We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.

Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.

Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.

While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.

Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.

We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.

It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.

We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.

I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House.

The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on sentencing in England and Wales. As the House will be aware, the independent sentencing review was published today. It was chaired by David Gauke and his panel comprised experts, including a former Lord Chief Justice, and representatives from the police, prisons, probation and victims’ rights organisations. The Government are grateful for the review’s recommendations, and I will ensure that a copy is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Today, I will set out our in-principle response.

First, however, it is essential that we set the review in its proper context. A year ago today, the Conservative party called an election. They did so because they were confronted by the prospect of prisons about to collapse. Rather than confront their failure, they chose to hide it and hoodwink the public into re-electing them. It did not work, but their legacy lives on.

Our prisons are, once again, running out of space and it is vital that the implications are understood. If our prisons collapse, courts are forced to suspend trials, the police must halt their arrests, crime goes unpunished, criminals run amok and chaos reigns. We face the breakdown of law and order in this country. It is shameful that, in this day and age, we are confronted by this crisis once more. The reasons are clear. The last Government added just 500 places to our prison estate, while at the same time, sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and we are heading back towards zero capacity. It now falls to this Government to end this cycle of crisis. That starts by building prisons.

Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 places. Last week, I announced an additional £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 places by 2031, in the largest expansion since the Victorian era. That investment is necessary, but not sufficient. We cannot build our way out of this crisis. Despite building as quickly as we can, demand for places will outstrip supply by 9,500 in early 2028, and that is why I commissioned the sentencing review. Its task was clear: this country must never run out of prison places again. There must always be space for dangerous offenders.

At the same time, the review was tasked with addressing the fact that our prisons too often create better criminals, not better citizens. Instead of cutting crime, they are breeding grounds for it. The reviewers have followed the evidence and example of countries across the world. Today I present an initial response, with further detail to follow once legislation is placed before the House.

Let me start with the report’s central recommendation: the move to a three-part sentence called the earned progression model, which the Government accept in principle. Under the model, an offender will not necessarily leave prison at an automatic point. Instead, their release date will be determined by their behaviour. If they follow prison rules, they will earn earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. That echoes the model I witnessed in Texas earlier this year, which cut crime and brought their prison population under control.

Under the new model, offenders serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release of 40% or 50% will now earn their release. The earliest possible release will be one third, with additional days added for bad behaviour. The review suggests a new maximum of 50%, but for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit. For those currently serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%, their earliest possible release will be 50%. Again, for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit.

David Gauke also suggests that those serving extended determinate sentences should also earn an earlier release. This we will not accept. Judges give extended sentences to those they consider dangerous, with no Parole Board hearing until two thirds of time served, and I will not change that. I can also confirm that no sentences being served for terror offences will be eligible for earlier release from prison.

In the second part of the progression model, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision. That will see more offenders tagged and close management from probation. The Government will therefore significantly increase funding: by the final year of the spending review period, an annual £1.6 billion will rise by up to £700 million, allowing us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders. If offenders do not comply with the conditions of their release, the sentencing review has suggested that recall to prison should be capped at 56 days. We have agreed to this policy in principle, though the precise details will be placed before the House when we legislate. In the final stage of the three-part sentence, offenders could still be recalled if a new offence is committed, and I will also ensure that the most serious offenders continue to be subject to strict conditions.

The review also recommends a reduction in short prison sentences. A compelling case for doing so has been proposed in this House many times. In the most recent data, nearly 60% of those receiving a 12-month sentence reoffended within a year. With reoffending rates for community punishment consistently lower, we must ask ourselves whether alternative forms of punishment would make the public safer. It is important, however, to note that the review recommends a reduction in short sentences, not abolition. It is right that judges retain the discretion to hand them down in exceptional circumstances. In considering exceptional circumstances, we will continue to ensure that courts have access to thorough risk assessments for domestic abuse and stalking cases, and breaches of protective orders linked to violence against women and girls will be excluded.

The review also recommends an extension of suspended sentences from two to three years. In this period, the prospect of prison time hangs over an offender should they break any conditions imposed upon them, and we accept that recommendation.

The recommendations set out above will see more community punishment. For that reason, it is essential that it works. The review recommends a series of measures to make community punishment tougher and force offenders to pay back to those they have harmed. We will consider new financial penalties, which could see offenders’ assets seized, even if they are not knowingly linked to crime, and expanded use of punishments such as travel and driving bans that would curtail offenders’ liberty.

We accept a recommendation to expand intensive supervision courts. Those impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements, that tackle the root causes of prolific offending. Offenders are brought before a judge regularly to monitor compliance, and the prospect of prison hangs over them like the sword of Damocles.

However, I believe community punishment must be tougher still. Unpaid work must pay back, so I will shortly bring together business leaders to explore a model whereby offenders work for them, and the salary is paid not to the offender but towards the good of victims. I will also work with local authorities to determine how unpaid work teams could give back to their communities, whether by filling potholes or cleaning up rubbish.

I invited David Gauke to consider cohorts of offenders who this Government believe require particular focus. I welcome his recommendations on female offenders. Approximately two thirds of female offenders receive short sentences. Around the same number are victims of domestic abusers. I am pleased to say that the review’s recommendation on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison.

I asked David Gauke to consider how we tackle foreign national offenders. Today, our deportation rate is ahead of the last Government’s. I welcome the recommendations to make it quicker and easier to deport foreign criminals. Under the existing scheme, they are sent back to their country of origin after serving 50% of the custodial sentence. We will bring that down to 30%. We will also conduct further work with the Home Office on how we can deport foreign prisoners serving less than three years as soon as possible after their sentencing.

I also asked the review to consider how we manage sex offenders. The review has recommended we continue a pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal. I will go further, with a national roll-out beginning in two regions, covering 20 prisons. I am exploring whether mandating the approach is possible. Of course, it is vital that this approach is taken alongside psychological interventions that target other causes of offending, such as asserting power and control.

When discussing sentencing, it is too easy to focus on how we punish offenders when we should talk more about victims. Everything I am announcing today is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse, it is victims who pay the price. By cutting reoffending, we will have fewer victims in future, but there is more we must do to support victims today. The review recommends a number of important measures, including better identifying domestic abusers at sentencing, so that we can monitor and manage them more effectively. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned on this, particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I also welcome the recommendation to expand the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, where trained staff support victims. To improve transparency in the system, we will extend a pilot of free sentencing transcripts for victims of rape and serious sexual offences.

I want to go further than the review recommends to better support victims. Exclusion zones are an important tool, preventing offenders from entering areas their victims might be in, but these place greater limits on victims than on offenders. I want to change that, locking offenders down to specific locations so that victims know they are safe wherever else they want to go.

This review sets out major reform. I know its recommendations will not be welcomed by all. By appointing David Gauke, a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, I hoped to show that two politicians from different traditions can agree on the reforms our justice system requires. I do not expect Conservative Members to join me to solve this crisis. In fact, I can hear their soundbites already. “Just build faster,” they will say. Well, we are building faster than they did: we have already added 2,400 places, and we are now investing £4.7 billion more. “Just deport more foreign criminals,” they will say. Well, we are ahead of where they were, and today we have accepted major reform to go further and faster. “Clear the courts backlog,” they will say despite having created it themselves. Well, we are investing more in our courts than they ever did, and we are ready to embrace once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims.

While we are doing more on each of these areas than they ever did, these are not solutions that rise to the scale of the crisis that they left behind. We must build prisons on an historic scale, deport foreign national offenders faster than ever, and speed up our courts; and yet still, despite all that, we must reform sentencing too. So, more in hope than expectation, and despite, not because of, experience, by appealing to the better angels of their nature—if they have any—I end by inviting those opposite to help us fix the crisis that they left behind. I commend this statement to the House.

The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2025.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

When I spoke in this House on 1 April, I set out the Government’s intention to introduce emergency legislation, because I believe that our justice system must be above all else fair, and that, standing before a judge, we are all equal, no matter the colour of our skin or the question of our faith. Given the existential nature of this matter for our justice system, I was clear that we would move at pace to change the law. The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill was introduced that same day. With Second Reading taking place just three weeks later, we are forging ahead with plans to legislate as quickly as possible.

Before I set out the contents of the Bill, it bears repeating how we came to be in the current situation and why expedited legislation is necessary. In the last Parliament, the Sentencing Council put forward revised guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. I should note that during a statutory consultation they were welcomed by the last Conservative Government in no uncertain terms. The shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who was a Justice Minister at the time, should be able to furnish his colleagues with the details, but as he is absent today, I will do so.

Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

Can the right hon. Lady clarify whether the guidelines proposed under the previous Government were the same as those with which she is dealing now, or did they differ—and if they differed, how did they differ?

Shabana Mahmood

They did not differ in any substantial way. All the guidelines, in so far as they concern issues relating to race, religion, culture or belief, are exactly the same as those to which the Justice Minister responded under the Conservative Administration. Hiding behind that, I am afraid, shows a failure to reckon with the Opposition’s own track record, which has become quite a hallmark of theirs in recent weeks and months.

These guidelines help judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence, providing guidance on the thresholds for disposals of this type. In the process of deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where they consider such a report to be unnecessary. The reports are used to give the courts more context of the offending behaviour in a given case, and set out any factors that should be considered as part of the sentencing process. As I said to the House on 1 April, generally speaking I am in favour of the use of pre-sentence reports, and in fact I have recently freed up capacity in the Probation Service precisely so that it has more time to produce reports of this type.

Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

The chairman of the Sentencing Council has argued that the sentence should be tailored to the offender, but my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the Secretary of State—think that the sentence should be tailored to the offence and its effect on the victim. That is what counts, not the background, circumstances, history or origins of the offender.

Shabana Mahmood

The purpose of the pre-sentence reports, used properly, is to provide the court with the full context of the offending behaviour. That enables the court to ensure that when it imposes a custodial sentence it will be successful and capable of being delivered in respect of that offender, or else a community sentence should be imposed instead. It is a useful mechanism that judges have at their disposal. We would expect it to be used in all cases except when the courts consider it unnecessary because they have all the information. Because I consider pre-sentence reports to be so important in giving the courts all the information that they need to pass the right sentence for the offender who is before them, I have specifically freed up capacity in the Probation Service so that it can do more work of this type. However, the updated guidelines specifically encourage judges to request them for some offenders and not others, stipulating circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. That is the bit that I am seeking to change.

Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)

The right hon. Lady has just said something very important: namely, that she would normally expect a pre-sentence report to be given in all, or at least almost all, cases. I hope that is her position, because what seems unfair to me is that a pre-sentence report, which presumably enables people to present arguments in mitigation, should be available to some people who have been convicted of a crime but not to others. Surely it should be available either to everyone or to no one, because everyone’s individual circumstances deserve the same degree of consideration.

Shabana Mahmood

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, we fully support section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020—the sentencing code—which makes it clear that a court must obtain a pre-sentence report unless it considers it unnecessary to do so. That would be in cases where judges consider that they already have at their disposal the facts that will enable them to make a determination of the correct sentence for any particular offender. I think that the Sentencing Council got things right in the paragraph of the current guidelines that comes before the one that is the subject of the debate and the Bill, which states:

“PSRs are necessary in all cases that would benefit from an assessment of one or more of the following: the offender’s dangerousness and risk of harm, the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the offender’s personal circumstances and any factors that may be helpful to the court in considering the offender’s suitability for different sentences or requirements.”

That covers all the areas in which we would normally consider PSRs to be necessary, and I would like them to be used more extensively. Indeed, I would like them to be the norm in all cases, because I think they offer important information to people who are passing sentence—unless, of course, it is unnecessary because judges have already been furnished with all the details, having heard the whole of the case that has been taking place before them.

Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)

The Lord Chancellor has just given us, very helpfully, the list of matters that might be relevantly considered in a pre-sentence report. As she has said, however, one of the items on that list is “personal circumstances”, and that is what the Bill will remove from the Sentencing Council’s discretion. May I ask her why she has not used in the Bill the language that is included in the explanatory notes? Paragraph 8 states that the Bill will

“prevent differential treatment… It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort”.

That strikes me as a much narrower exclusion, and perhaps one better targeted at the problem that the Lord Chancellor has, in my view, rightly identified.

Shabana Mahmood

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. That is why we have offered the additional context in the explanatory notes. Personal characteristics and personal circumstances have, over the years, been elided in different court judgments, and the different definitions of the two have sometimes slipped. I wanted to make it clear in the Bill that we are constraining the Sentencing Council’s ability to create guidance for PSRs in relation to personal characteristics. We refer in the Bill to race, religion, culture and belief, specifically to ensure that the Sentencing Council understands that we are targeting this part of the offending section of the imposition guideline. It will then have its own interpretation of how personal circumstances and personal characteristics should apply. I would expect this to be analogous to protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010, in terms of the way in which the courts are likely to approach the question of what a personal characteristic is for the purpose of the Bill.

However, I wanted to make the intention behind the Bill very clear to the Sentencing Council, and to everyone else. It is tightly focused on the offending section of the imposition guideline and leaves the wider question of personal circumstances untouched. As I will explain later in my speech, there is helpful Court of Appeal guidance on circumstances and on other occasions on which a PSR should normally be required, and nothing in the Bill will affect the Court of Appeal precedents that have already been set.

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)

Is the Lord Chancellor aware that the Sentencing Council guidelines, and indeed the Bill, turn on issues that some of us have campaigned on for decades? I think that there would be concern if the Bill undermined the independence of the judiciary.

Shabana Mahmood

It certainly does not undermine the independence of the judiciary. There is a long tradition of campaigners, including my right hon. Friend, who have a lengthy track record of campaigning on issues relating to disparities within the criminal justice system and, indeed, across wider society. In so far as those disparities relate to the criminal justice system, my strong view is that they are matters of policy.

Parliament is the proper place for that policy to be debated, and Parliament is the proper place for us to agree on what is the best mechanism to deal with those problems. It is not within the purview of the Sentencing Council, because this is a matter of policy. Judges apply the laws that are passed by this House; that is their correct and proper function. I will always uphold their independence in that regard and will never interfere with it, but this turns on a matter of policy. It is right for the Government of the day to seek a policy response to this issue, and it is right for it to be debated and, ultimately, legislated for in the House.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I thank the Lord Chancellor for opening the debate, and for her answers to the questions so far. I think every one of us believes that the foundational principle that justice is blind must be adhered to in every way, but we live in an age of ever-changing political correctness, which, regardless of whether we like it or not, invades Parliament and our lives.

I am very much in favour of what the Lord Chancellor has said about race and faith. As a person of faith, I want to make sure that race and faith can never be mitigating or aggravating factors when it comes to justice. Given the lives that we live, the world that we live in, and all the things that impact on us daily and in this House as MPs, can the Lord Chancellor confirm that faith, justice and religion will always be preserved in the way that they should be?

Shabana Mahmood

For me, one of the most moving parts of the parliamentary day is when the day starts with prayers. Those are Christian prayers, and I am of the Muslim faith, but I always find it moving to be part of them and to hear them. They remind us that we all belong to a country with a long heritage, which is steeped in faith. The source code for much of the law of England and Wales is the Bible. The hon. Gentleman makes some broader points on the issue of faith and how important it is, and I suspect that he and I have a lot in common in that regard. There must never be differential treatment before the law of our land, and before any court, on the basis of faith.

Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)

I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s point about parliamentary sovereignty and that fact that policy must be determined by this place. I think many Members from across the House will have been quite shocked by the response of the Sentencing Council to her letter when she asked it to consider the guidelines again. Does she agree that if this place continues to butt heads with the Sentencing Council over guidelines like these, maybe the best thing to do is abolish the Sentencing Council?

Shabana Mahmood

I have had constructive conversations with the Sentencing Council, and I have made it very clear that I do not really do personal. I certainly would not do it in relation to the judiciary, whose independence I uphold and whose security I am ultimately responsible for. I take those responsibilities very seriously. I swore an oath on my holy book, and that means a huge amount to me. There is a clear difference here about where the line is drawn between matters of policy and matters that are correctly within the purview of the judiciary, which is how the law should be applied in the cases that they hear. I am simply making it very clear that this is policy and is for this place to determine, but as I will come to later in my speech, this situation has highlighted that there is potentially a democratic deficit here. That is why I am reviewing the wider roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and will legislate in upcoming legislation if necessary. I will now make more progress with my speech and give way to other colleagues later if people wish to intervene again.

The updated guidelines specifically encouraged judges to request pre-sentence reports for some offenders and not for others, stipulating the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. This included cases involving offenders from ethnic, cultural or faith minorities. In other words, a pre-sentence report would normally be considered necessary for a black offender or a Muslim one, but not necessarily if an offender is Christian or white, and we must be clear about what that means. By singling out one group over another, all may be equal but some are more equal than others. We must also be honest about the impact that this could have. Equipped with more information about one offender than another, the court may be less likely to send that offender to prison. I therefore consider the guidance to be a clear example of differential treatment. As such, it risks undermining public confidence in a justice system that is built on the idea of equality before the law.

Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)

Given that the Sentencing Council refused the Lord Chancellor’s first invitation to rewrite its guidance, is she confident that the limited nature of this Bill is sufficient? Would she not be wiser to take a broader power to ensure that in future all sentencing guidance has an affirmative vote in this place?

Shabana Mahmood

It is right that, moving at pace, I have sought to have a targeted Bill that deals with this particular imposition guideline. I have made it very clear that I am conducting a wider review of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council. If we need to legislate further—maybe in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, although other mechanisms are also potentially available—I will do so. I am not ruling out further legislation—in fact, it is very much on the table—but it is right that we are moving quickly in order to deal with the problems that could be caused by the guidelines coming into force, and that I have taken targeted action in this short but focused Bill.

As I told the House a few weeks ago, I had several discussions with the Sentencing Council in the time leading up to 1 April, when the updated guidelines were due to come into force. I reiterate my gratitude to the council’s chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for engaging with me on this issue and for ultimately making the right call by pausing the guidelines while Parliament has its say. I should say again that I have no doubt whatsoever about the noble intentions behind the proposed changes, because I understand the problem that the Sentencing Council was attempting to address. Racial inequalities exist in our justice system and are evident in the sentencing disparities between offenders from different backgrounds, but as the Sentencing Council acknowledges, the reasons for this are unclear. Addressing inequalities in the justice system is something that this Government take very seriously, and we are determined to increase confidence in its outcomes, which is why we are working with the judiciary to make the system more representative of the public it serves.

I have also commissioned a review of the data that my Department holds on disparities in the justice system in order to better understand the drivers of the problem, but although I agree with the Sentencing Council’s diagnosis, I believe it has prescribed the wrong cure. Going ahead with the new guidelines would have been an extraordinary step to take. It would have been extraordinary because of what it puts at risk: the very foundations of our justice system, which was built on equality before the law. The unintended consequences would have been considerable, because the idea that we improve things for people in this country who look like me by telling the public that we will be given favourable treatment is not just wrong, but dangerous. We are all safer in this country when everyone knows we are treated the same. If we sacrifice that, even in pursuit of a noble ideal such as equality, we risk bringing the whole edifice crashing to the ground.

I know there are disagreements in this House with regard to the correct policy to pursue, not least between the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, who opposes the guidelines, and the shadow Transport Secretary, whose support for them I have noted already—though I suppose that does assume that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice really is who he shows himself to be today. I must admit that I have begun to question whether his principles are set or really of no fixed abode. After all, he did pose as a Cameroon centrist for so many years, and only recently became his party’s populist flag bearer. It is enough to make me wonder whether he is, in fact, a Marxist—but one of the Groucho variety. “These are my principles,” he says, and if you do not like them, he has others.

Regardless of our positions on this question of policy, one thing is clear: this is a question of policy. How the state addresses an issue that is systemic, complex and of unclear origin is a question of what the law should be, not how the law should be applied. Let me be clear about that distinction: Parliament sets the laws and the judiciary determine how they are applied, and they must be defended as they do so. I will always defend judicial independence, and as I said earlier, I swore an oath to do so when I became the Lord Chancellor. Given the shadow Lord Chancellor’s recent diatribes, including just hours ago in this place, he may want to acquaint himself with that oath, if he intends ever succeeding me in this position, although I am assuming that it is my job he wants, not that of the Leader of the Opposition.

James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)

I think the Lord Chancellor just said that the approach to the guidelines taken by the Sentencing Council puts the foundation of the justice system at risk. Given that, how can she have confidence in a Sentencing Council that takes such an approach?

Shabana Mahmood

I have engaged constructively with the Sentencing Council and will continue to do so, and I am in the process of legislating to prevent this imposition guideline from ever coming into force. It has currently been paused, and I think that was the right step for the Sentencing Council to take. I am conducting a wider review of the roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and it is right that I take a bit more time to think carefully about that, about what we may or may not want it to do, and about how we may right the democratic deficit that has been uncovered. I think my approach to the Sentencing Council is very clear from the action I am taking.

Sir Julian Lewis

I do not think anyone is questioning the firm action the Lord Chancellor is taking. The point my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made is: why should it be necessary for her to take that action? Surely, if the Sentencing Council cannot see the distinction she makes between its proper role and Parliament’s proper role, it is not fit to do the job.

Shabana Mahmood

The Sentencing Council might argue, rightly, that given the guideline was welcomed by the former Government, it probably thought it was on safer ground than I consider it to be. However, there is clearly a confusion, a change in practice, or a development in ways I disagree with about the proper line between what is practice or the application of the law and what is properly in the realm of policy. That is what I am absolutely not going to give any ground on and that I will be setting right.

Sir John Hayes

The right hon. Lady is right about the moving process or trend that she has described, but the trouble is that it is part of a bigger problem, is it not? It is the problem of judicial activism, and it is not new. For some time, judicial activists have sought to do exactly what she has said, and it is they, not people in this House, who endanger the separation of powers.

Shabana Mahmood

However, it is always up to the people in this House, if they feel that a law is being applied in ways that were not intended, to put that law right. I am afraid the right hon. Member’s comment is a rather damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative Government, with 14 years of sitting back and allowing other people to do the policy work that Ministers in the previous Government perhaps did not have the time or inclination to do themselves.

I do not think that judges, in applying the law, are doing anything wrong; they are doing their job. They are public servants, and they do their job independently. It is right that we have an independent judiciary in this country. We are very lucky to have a judiciary that is world class and highly regarded. One of the reasons why so many businesses from all over the world want to do business in this country is that they know they can trust our courts system and the independence of our judges. I think it is incumbent on the whole of this House to defend the independence of the judiciary, because that independence was hard won. It is one of our absolute USPs as a rule of law jurisdiction in this country, and none of us must ever do anything that puts it at risk.

If there are issues about the way in which the law is applied—if Parliament or Ministers ever consider that it has strayed too far from the original intention—we can always legislate, and I am doing just that today. I hope this is an example that others, if they have issues in their areas, may consider taking as well. It is a question of policy, and that should be decided and debated here in this place, in this House, and the public must be able to hold us to account for the decisions we take, rewarding or punishing us at the ballot box as they see fit. This is the domain of government, politics and Parliament, and today we reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.

Dr Caroline Johnson

The right hon. Lady is making a point about the wider justice system and the importance of equality before the law. What has she done to assure herself and the House that, in all aspects of her Department’s work, people are being treated equally under the law—whether in relation to parole, how they are treated in prison, bail conditions and so on?

Shabana Mahmood

I have ordered a wider review of all guidance across all the MOJ’s work in so far as it relates to equality before the law to make sure that the problems we have uncovered here are not replicated elsewhere. There is the issue of bail guidance, which was discussed in the House earlier. I have already ordered a review, and that guidance is being redrafted as we speak. That particular guidance has been something like 20 years in the making—it has been added to over many years—so the redraft has to be careful and we must make sure it does not have any unintended consequences. However, we are cracking on with that work at pace, and I will make sure that, by the time I am done, we can all be absolutely clear that this sweep towards allowing potential differential treatment is sorted out once and for all.

Dr Johnson rose—

Shabana Mahmood

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make more progress. I think I have been more than generous.

That brings me to the Bill before us today. While the updated Sentencing Council guidelines are currently paused, if we do not act they will come into force— [Interruption.] Well, there was a lot to say, gentlemen, about the previous Government’s track record and it needed to be said. And I do not think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) should mind me taking interventions from people on his own side. That is a novel approach for the shadow Front Bench.

Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. It is tightly focused, containing just two clauses. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which brought the Sentencing Council into existence. It dictates that the guidelines the council produces may not include references to personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. Clause 2 relates to how the Bill will be enacted: that it will apply only to England and Wales, and that its measures will come into force on the day after it passes.

It is also important to be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not stop the Sentencing Council from issuing broader guidance concerning requests for pre-sentence reports in those cases where it is helpful for the court to understand more about an offender’s history and personal circumstances. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, for example those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. And, as detailed in the Bill’s explanatory notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; or Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt a principle which finds its ancient origins in Magna Carta and has developed over the centuries to serve the interests of justice not just here but in jurisdictions around the world: that each of us, no matter who we are, where we come from or what we believe, stand equal before the law of the land.

Wider questions remain about the role and the powers of the Sentencing Council, as I have noted. The council does important work, bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it is clear in this instance that it went beyond its original remit. It sought to set policy, which stood out of step with the Government of the day. Therefore, it raises the question: who should set sentencing policy? Today’s legislation only addresses this question in the narrowest terms, considering the guidance on pre-sentence reports. It does not give us a definitive resolution as to whether it is Government Ministers or members of the Sentencing Council who should decide policy in the future. As I noted, that leaves us with a democratic deficit.

As I told the House on 1 April, the question of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council must therefore be considered further. That work is already under way in my Department. Should a further change be required, the Government will include it in upcoming legislation. The Sentencing Council plays an important role in our justice system, and any changes to it must be made carefully and with the consideration it deserves. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them.

The Bill we are debating today is small, but the issues it contains could not be of greater significance. I know the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree that the Sentencing Council’s intentions on this issue were noble, but in trying to reach for equality of outcome, they sacrificed too much, undermining the sacred principle of equality before the law. It is right that we, as policymakers, stop the updated guidelines from coming into force. We must stand up for the idea that no matter our race or religion, no person should receive preferential treatment as they stand in the dock before a judge, so I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.

The speech made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor, at Southwark in London on 12 February 2025.

Today, we are in Southwark, the home of London’s probation service, one of the busiest in the country.

Here in London, the Service supervises more than 36,000 offenders.

And, every day, in this building, there are a thousand untold stories of how our probation service protects the public and makes our streets safer.

I want to talk about the future of our probation service today.

But to look to that future, I think we must first look to the past.

Because it was here, in Southwark, that the probation service first took root.

Over 150 years ago, the Church of England’s temperance movement posted a man called George Nelson to Southwark’s police court.

Nelson was the first of a band of missionaries, driven by their faith and strict teetotalism, who gave up their time to help offenders give up the drink.

Addiction then, as addiction now, drove much criminal behaviour…

And the approach worked.

In fact, it worked so well that the courts came to rely on missionaries like Nelson.

A system soon developed where offenders would be released on the condition that they kept in touch with these volunteers.

Because what began as a moral cause proved to have a practical purpose:

These missionaries led to less crime and fewer victims.

As this Government might say: they made our streets safer.

By the early twentieth century, this voluntary service was so greatly valued that it was placed on a statutory footing.

The 1907 Probation of Offenders Act established the first formal structure for probation…

And the volunteers became professionals.

In the years that followed, the service grew:

The 1925 Criminal Justice Act paid probation officers a regular wage.

By the 1950s, probation’s work expanded to offenders on parole.

And by the 1980s, the service was focused increasingly on prison releases.

Over time, the role developed.

Where the early missionaries were focused on crimes driven by addiction…

In time, they took responsibility for the management of ever more, and ever more complex, offenders.

Too often overlooked, with our focus invariably falling on the police or on prisons…

Probation became an indispensable part of a criminal justice system that keeps us safe.

It remains so today, now a service that is more than 20,000 strong…

And probation officers supervise almost a quarter of a million offenders – around three times the number currently serving time in our prisons.

Each year, they oversee more than 4 million hours of community payback.

They monitor around 9,000 offenders on a tag at any given moment.

They provide sentencing advice to hundreds of courts every single day.

And they also provide a vital link to tens of thousands of victims, through the Victim Contact and the Victim Notification schemes.

But while there have been bright moments in the service’s past, we must acknowledge the dark days too.

In 2014 the service was split:

Part remained in the public sector, managing the highest-risk offenders.

The rest was hived off, to be run by the private sector, who would supervise those of low and medium risk.

Community Rehabilitation Companies would bring the ingenuity of the private sector to solve the problem of reoffending.

The rhetoric was of a revolution in how we manage offenders.

The reality was far different.

Workloads increased, as new offenders were brought under supervision for the first time…

The number of people on probation increased between December 2014 and December 2016, with almost 50,000 offenders newly under its remit.

Scarce resources were stretched further than ever…

Morale plummeted.

And worrying numbers voted with their feet, leaving the service altogether…

With the Inspector of Probation declaring a “national shortage” of probation professionals in 2019.

The new companies woefully underperformed.

Between 2017 and 2018, just 5 of 37 audits carried out by HMPPS demonstrated that expected standards were being met.

In 2019, 8 out of 10 companies inspected received the lowest possible rating – “inadequate” – for supervising offenders.

The Chief Inspector called them “irredeemably flawed”.

And the service was labelled ‘inadequate’.

In 2021, it was finally, rightly, re-unified and re-nationalised.

Now, make no mistake…

Every day, across the country, probation staff make this country safer.

This was clearly evident in the service’s response to the prison capacity crisis.

With prisons just days from collapse, this Government was forced to introduce an emergency release programme, which saw some offenders leave prison a few weeks or months early.

The alternative, as I said at the time, did not bear thinking about:

We would have been forced to shut the front door of our prisons…

An act that would have sent dominoes tumbling through our justice system:

Courts unable to hold trials…

Police forced to halt arrests…

And the eventual path to a total breakdown of law and order.

In making that decision, I knew the probation service would have to carry an even heavier load.

They would have to put in place plans for the safe release of prisoners in just a few weeks.

I tried to give them as much time as I possibly could to prepare:

An eight-week implementation period.

It wasn’t long to prepare, but the probation service used it with great skill.

But now is also a moment to be honest about the challenges the service faces.

And the simple fact is this:

The service was burdened with a workload that was, quite simply, impossible.

When we took office, we discovered that orders handed out by courts were not taking place.

In the 3 years to March 2024 around 13,000 Accredited Programmes, a type of rehabilitative course, did not happen.

This wasn’t because an offender had failed to do what was expected of them…

But instead because the Probation Service had been unable to deliver these courses.

As I have shown already in this job, I believe in confronting problems, not pretending they are not there.

And so, we will ensure only those offenders who pose a higher risk, and who need to receive these courses, will do so.

This isn’t a decision I take lightly.

But it is a decision to confront the reality of the challenges facing the probation service.

I should be clear:

For those who will not complete an accredited programme, they remain under the supervision of a probation officer…

And all the other requirements placed upon them will remain in place.

Any breach of a community sentence could see them hauled back into court.

Any breach of a licence condition could see them back behind bars.

Addressing individual issues like these, however, is no long-term solution to the challenges the probation service faces.

Today, across the country, probation officers are spread too thin – responsible for caseloads and workloads that exceed what they should be expected to handle.

Probation officers are drawn to the profession not because it is just another job.

This job is a vocation, even a calling…

They are, after all, the inheritors of those missionaries of 150 years ago.

They are experts in their discipline…

Who want to know that their work is protecting the public…

And keeping offenders on the straight and narrow.

Over-stretched, they can’t work with offenders in the way they need to.

And the burden placed on probation officers’ shoulders grow heavier and heavier.

It has driven people away from the job…

It has made the public less safe…

And it has to change.

It is clear we need to bring more people into the probation service.

In July, I committed to bringing on 1,000 trainee probation officers by March of this year.

But we must go further.

Today, I can announce that, next year, we will bring on at least 1,300 new, trainee probation officers.

New probation officers are the lifeblood of the service, and they will guarantee its future.

But they are not enough alone.

It is also clear we must remove the administrative burden that weighs probation officers down…

And makes them less effective in their roles.

Today, too many hours of probation officer time are wasted each day.

They are drowning in paperwork.

And I don’t mean metaphorical paperwork.

I mean literal pen and paperwork.

This takes up valuable time, that would be better spent working with offenders…

And it also introduces the risk of error – the failure to identify the critical piece of information that might shape a professional’s judgement of the risk that an offender poses.

Where digital processes do exist in the probation service, they can be difficult to navigate.

Information is stored in multiple different systems that do not speak to each other.

And probation officers are forced, laboriously, to type the same information time and again.

We will soon pilot a digital tool that will put all the information a probation officer needs to know into one place.

Over time, this will include information from other agencies, like the police as we need to make sure data is more readily shared, so that probation can make better decisions.

We’re also trialling a new system for risk assessing offenders, to make it more straightforward for probation officers to make robust decisions.

A group of officers in Brighton started using this in December last year…

And we estimate it will cut up to 20 percent of the time it takes to do this crucial activity.

It might sound simple, but the impact could be considerable.

Every minute saved is more time probation officers can spend working with offenders.

Less simple, but even more transformational, there’s the potential of artificial intelligence.

We are currently looking into voice transcription.

This would automatically record and transcribe supervision conversations by taking notes in real time…

Allowing probation officers to focus on building relationships, while also removing the need for them to enter handwritten notes into a computer afterwards.

In time, we believe that AI could play a more active role in supporting staff to supervise offenders – for example, drawing on the data we have on an offender to suggest a supervision plan tailored to them.

This new technology will ensure probation officers provide what only they can:

The human factor.

The ability to work with an offender, one-to-one, to understand the risk they pose…

To develop a plan for how to manage it…

Ultimately, to turn them away from a life of crime – and so protect the public.

That is what remains true about the probation officer’s job now, just as it was 150 years ago.

The courts didn’t turn to the temperance movement’s missionaries because they were great at paperwork.

They did so because of how they worked with offenders.

They knew – in the words of the Government Minister who brought in the 1907 Probation Act – how “to guide and admonish” an offender to make the public safer.

But while new staff and better technology are necessary to the future of our probation service…

They are not sufficient.

With a caseload of nearly a quarter of a million offenders…

We must also look at the work that probation officers are doing…

And we must ask:

Where should their time be spent…

And, more specifically, who should their time be spent with to have the greatest impact?

In this, it is clear there are two types of offender.

On the one hand, we have those who pose a higher risk to society.

In this group, we have those who are dangerous – posing a real risk of harm to the public.

We also have those whose offending is prolific – the one in every ten offenders who is guilty of nearly half of all sentenced crime.

On the other hand, we have offenders who pose a lower risk.

They are not serial offenders, with a high risk of reoffending.

Their crimes are instead often fuelled by addiction, homelessness, and joblessness.

These crimes are not excusable.

All crimes must be punished.

But these two groups – the higher and lower risk – are different.

If we want to reduce reoffending, cut crime and have safer streets, we have to treat them differently.

And too often today, we don’t.

We have a one size fits all approach.

That must change.

For higher-risk offenders, a probation officer’s time and focus is essential.

It is no exaggeration to say that effective supervision of this cohort can be the difference between life and death.

We all know the tragedies:

I think of Terri Harris, her children John Paul and Lacey Bennett and Lacey’s friend Connie Gent, savagely murdered by Damien Bendall in 2021, when Bendall was serving a community sentence.

And I think of Zara Aleena, murdered by Jordan McSweeney in 2022, just nine days after he had left prison on licence.

We will never be able to stop every tragedy.

But we have to stop more.

There are improvements that we can and must make to the processes probation officers follow, and the technology they use.

We have introduced new training, to better identify risk…

New digital tools, as I have mentioned already, will draw together the critical pieces of information from partner organisations, like the police.

But the vital ingredient is time:

The time of a professional probation officer…

Devoted to identifying the risk an offender poses…

Creating a plan to manage it…

And supervising, closely, that offender to ensure they do not deviate from it.

That is the human factor that only a probation officer can provide.

If probation officers are to have this valuable time with these offenders, we must be more efficient with the time they devote to lower-risk offenders.

At the very end of their time in office, my predecessor introduced a policy called Probation Reset.

This saw supervision of lower-risk offenders end after two-thirds of their licence period.

This was a step in the right direction.

The interventions that work best with lower risk offenders are not necessarily those provided by probation officers.

So that is where we must now direct the attention of their supervision.

We need to get these offenders off drugs and booze – reoffending rates are 19 points lower when an offender completes a drug treatment programme.

We need to ensure they have a roof over their heads – reoffending rates double for those released homeless.

And finally, we need to get them working – reoffending rates are up to 9 points lower when an offender is employed.

The probation service has a role to play here…

But their unique value is in referring offenders to the intervention that is required to address the cause of their offending.

And so today, I can announce that we will build on the work of Reset.

This Government will focus the probation service on the interventions that have the greater impact.

For lower risk offenders, we will task probation officers with providing a swifter intervention.

They will spend more time with an offender immediately after their release:

First, assessing the root causes of an offender’s crime…

Then referring them to the services that will address that behaviour:

Which could be education, training, drug treatment or accommodation…

Delivered by the probation service, our partners across Government, and through the brilliant work done by the voluntary sector.

Once offenders are following that direction, as long as the offender stays on the straight and narrow, we must then focus probation officer’s time more effectively:

That means more time spent with the offenders who pose the greater risk…

More time with offenders who pose a risk of a serious and violent further offence…

And more time with offenders whose prolific offending causes so much social and economic damage to local communities.

That is how we will reduce reoffending…

That is how we will cut crime…

And that is how we will make our streets safer.

These measures are necessary today, but they will be even more important in the months and years to come.

David Gauke’s independent review of sentencing will report soon.

He has been asked to ensure we never run out of prison places again.

There is no doubt that this will increase pressure on probation.

As I made clear when I announced the review, I have asked David to consider how we make more use of punishment outside of prison.

In my view, technology is likely to play a key role – taking advantage of advances in the tech that is being used here and in other jurisdictions:

Like sobriety tags, which can measure the alcohol levels in offenders’ sweat every 30 minutes, and have a 97 percent compliance rate…

And GPS tags, which can put in place exclusion zones to alert authorities if offenders enter areas we have banned them from.

There are also likely to be more sentences served in the community…

And more drug, alcohol and mental health treatment requirements placed on offenders.

These are the tools that must be at the judiciary’s disposal to deal with criminals…

And judges must have trust and confidence that the probation service can deliver them.

The changes I have announced today are about support for the probation service:

1,300 new trainee probation officers…

New technology to lighten the administrative burden…

And a new focus of their time on where it has the greatest impact.

Today, I have set out what I think the future direction of the probation service must be.

And I think we must, finally, consider the alternative.

What would happen if we allowed probation to carry on as it is?

What would happen if we allowed the service to be stretched so thin, trying to do too much with too many offenders…

Too much time spent doing the wrong things, and not enough time doing what is right and what works.

We know what the consequences would be.

We’ve seen it in the stories of far too many victims…

And the pain their friends and families have experienced – and continue to experience – every single day.

When the probation service isn’t able to properly assess the risk of offenders or supervise them…

Innocent people pay a terrible price.

The first job of the state is to keep its people safe.

We are willing to take the difficult decisions, where they must be taken.

I will support probation officers, both the new recruits we will bring in and the professionals of whom we have asked so much in recent years.

While they are professionals these days, and experts in their field…

They are drawn to the profession by the same desire that called to those missionaries a hundred and fifty years ago:

To encourage offenders to turn their backs on crime…

And to make our streets and the public safer.

To fulfil that purpose now, we must do things differently.

And that begins today.

Thank you.

The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2024.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about prison capacity in England and Wales.

As you know, Mr Speaker, I wanted to make this announcement first in this House. However, given the scale of the emergency facing our prisons, I was forced to set out these measures before Parliament returned.

Since this Government took office two weeks ago, it has become clear that our prisons are in crisis and are at the point of collapse. The male prison estate has been running at over 99% capacity for the last 18 months. We now know that my predecessor warned No. 10 Downing Street but, rather than address this crisis, the former Prime Minister called an election, leaving a ticking time bomb. If that bomb were to go off—if our prisons were to run out of space—the courts would grind to a halt, suspects could not be held in custody and police officers would be unable to make arrests, leaving criminals free to act without consequence. In short, if we fail to act now, we face the prospect of a total breakdown of law and order.

Rather than act, the last Prime Minister allowed us to edge ever closer to catastrophe. Last week, there were around 700 spaces remaining in the male prison estate. With 300 places left, we reach critical capacity. At that point, the smallest change could trigger the chain of events I just set out. With the prison population rising, it is now clear that by September this year, our prisons will overflow. That means there is now only one way to avert disaster.

As the House knows, most of those serving standard determinate sentences leave prison at the halfway point, serving the rest of their sentence in the community. The Government now have no option but to introduce a temporary change in the law. Yesterday, we laid a statutory instrument in draft. Subject to the agreement of both Houses, those serving eligible standard determinate sentences will leave prison after serving 40%, rather than 50%, of their sentence in custody, and will serve the rest on licence. Our impact assessment estimates that around 5,500 offenders will be released in September and October. From that time until we are able to reverse this emergency measure, 40% will be the new point of automatic release for eligible standard determinate sentences.

The Government do not take this decision lightly, but to disguise reality and delay any further, as the last Government did, is unconscionable. We are clear that this is the safest way forward. In the words of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, these steps are “the least worst option”. He went on to say that

“the worst possible thing would be for the system to block”,

and that any alternative to these measures would be “dangerous for the public”.

I understand that some may feel worried by this decision, but I can assure the House that we are taking every precaution available to us. There will be important exclusions. Sentences for the most dangerous crimes—for sexual and serious violent offences—will not change. That will also be the case for a series of offences linked to domestic violence, including stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour and non-fatal strangulation, as well as those related to national security.

We will also implement stringent protections. First, this change will not take effect until early September, giving the probation service time to prepare. Secondly, all offenders released will be subject to strict licence conditions, to ensure they can be managed safely in the community. Thirdly, offenders can be ordered to wear electronic tags, and curfews will be imposed where appropriate. Finally, if offenders breach the conditions of their licence, they can be returned to prison immediately.

Let me be clear: this is an emergency measure, not a permanent change. This Government are clear that criminals must be punished. We do not intend to allow the 40% release point to stand in perpetuity. That is why I will review these measures again, in 18 months’ time, when the situation in our prisons will have stabilised. Throughout, this Government will be transparent. We will publish data on the number of offenders released on a quarterly basis, and we will publish an annual prison capacity statement, legislating to make this a statutory requirement.

When we implement this change, we will stop the end of custody supervised licence scheme introduced by the last Government, which operated under a veil of secrecy. From the Opposition Benches, I was forced to demand more information about who was being released and what crimes they had committed. This Government have now released that data, showing that over 10,000 offenders were released early, often with very little warning to probation officers, placing them under enormous strain. This was only ever a short-term fix. It was one of a series of decisions this Government believe must be examined more fully, which is why we are announcing a review into how this capacity crisis was allowed to happen and why the necessary decisions were not taken at critical moments.

The measures I have set out today are not a silver bullet. The capacity crisis will not disappear immediately, and these measures will take time to take effect. But when they do, they will give us the time to address the prisons crisis, not just today but for years to come. This includes accelerating the prison building programme to ensure we have the cells we need. Later this year, we will publish a ten-year capacity strategy. That strategy will outline the steps that the Government will take to acquire land for new prison sites, and will classify prisons as being of national importance, placing decision making in Ministers’ hands. The Government are also committed to longer-term reform and cutting reoffending.

Too often, our prisons create better criminals, not better citizens, and nearly 80% of offending is reoffending, all at immense cost to communities and the taxpayer. As Lord Chancellor, my priority is to drive down that number. To do that, the Government will strengthen probation, starting with the recruitment of at least 1,000 new trainee probation officers by the end of March 2025. We will work with prisons to improve offenders’ access to learning and other training, as well as bringing together prison governors, local employers and the voluntary sector to get ex-offenders into work. We know that if an offender has a job within a year of release, they are less likely to reoffend. It is only by driving down reoffending that we will find a sustainable solution to the prisons crisis.

In a speech last week, I called the previous occupants of Downing Street “the guilty men”. I did not use that analogy flippantly. I believe that they placed the country in grave danger. Their legacy is a prison system in crisis, moments from catastrophic disaster. It was only by pure luck, and the heroic efforts of prison and probation staff, that disaster did not strike while they were in office. The legacy of this Government will be different. We will see a prison system brought under control; a probation service that keeps the public safe; enough prison places to meet our needs; and prisons, probation and other services working together to break the cycle of reoffending and so cut crime.

I never thought that I would have to announce the measures that I have set out today, but the scale of this emergency has forced this Government to act now, rather than delay any longer. This Government will always put the country and its safety first. I commend this statement to the House.

The speech made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor, on 16 July 2024.

My Lords, Ladies, friends, colleagues.

Lady Chief Justice, thank you for that welcome.

May I also take the opportunity to welcome Richard Hermer KC as he takes his oath today as Attorney General.

Mr Attorney, your deep expertise will be of enormous value to the Government…

And I know already that we will be allies to one another in our roles.

So too Sarah Sackman, who takes her oath as Solicitor General today.

Madam Solicitor, it took me 14 years from becoming a Member of Parliament, to serving in government.

You’ve done it in 5 days.

That is a fitting tribute to the talent and dedication you have shown to upholding the rule of law throughout your career.

I look forward to working closely with you in the months and years ahead.

I must say what an honour it is to take my own oath as Lord Chancellor today.

There once was a little girl in Small Heath, one of the poorest areas of Birmingham…

Who worked behind the till in her parents’ corner shop.

Yes, she took great inspiration from Kavanagh QC, that brilliant barrister with working class roots…

But she never dared to dream she would be sitting before you all today…

Counted among the holders of this ancient role.

So believe me, I know: along with some fairly idiosyncratic outfits, comes great responsibility.

I hold this office in the very highest regard.

I do so not just as a former barrister, but as the child of immigrants.

My parents weren’t steeped in Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights – as I would one day be.

But they did have a strong sense, arriving here in the UK from rural Kashmir, that this country was different:

That there are rules, some written and some not, that we abide by:

Queues must be observed, near religiously…

Weather must be discussed, pretty compulsively…

But also, more seriously, there are institutions, like our courts, that are incorruptible…

And that, in this country, no-one is above the law, not even the government, and none are below it either.

To have so many of my family here today, stretching the limits of my guestlist quota, means a great deal to me.

And while I have the chance:

Mum, Dad, can I just say: jazakallah khair, thank you.

Instilled as a child, my respect for the rule of law grew stronger as I grew older:

First, studying law at university…

Then, in practice.

And it was never felt more keenly than when appearing before a member of our fiercely independent judiciary…

I can now confirm that the same tingle of nerves never goes away…

Even when you’re the Lord Chancellor appearing alongside the Lady Chief Justice.

I’d also like to thank the man who set me on my way in the law, to whom I will forever be indebted:

My pupil master – William Audland KC – who is squeezed between members of my very large, extended family in the gallery today.

I understand it’s customary for a new Lord Chancellor to draw parallels with an eminent predecessor when they take their oath…

I had a good old look around for a Lord Chancellor who looks or sounds like me, but drew something of a blank.

That’s right, folks. There wasn’t a single Brummie.

There was one who leapt out though, whose example I hope to follow:

Frederick Elwyn-Jones.

We share a few things in common:

Our Inn of Court – Gray’s.

Our political party – Labour.

As a barrister he had a passion for human rights, and was a prosecutor at Nuremberg.

I – and this government – will follow his example in defending the international rule of law and upholding human rights.

And we will certainly not be seeking to extricate ourselves from the landmark human rights convention drawn up in the aftermath of that war.

Elwyn-Jones served as Lord Chancellor for 5 years between 1974 and 1979.

By recent standards, that counts as an eternity.

I certainly hope to emulate his longevity.

It is said that he was the first Welsh speaking Lord Chancellor for centuries.

I wonder what he would’ve made of the first Lord Chancellor to speak Urdu.

I’ve carried the weight of many identities in this career…

It is a privilege, but also a burden…

I am always aware that, for the good of those who come afterwards, getting this wrong – I usually use less temperate language – isn’t an option.

But getting it right can open doors.

When I walked into the Ministry of Justice for the first time…

10 days ago, though it feels like 10 months…

I walked past the portraits of my recent predecessors:

The good, the bad and the ugly.

They all looked alike, and not much like me.

So, at the very least, I hope my appointment shows the next little girl…

In Small Heath, or wherever she may be…

That, in this country, even the oldest offices in the land are within reach of us all.

The responsibilities of this ancient office are as real today as they ever were.

The rule of law is more than an ideal.

It is more than a vague concept, employed only by academic lawyers…

It is the most enduring of British values.

We are a nation that believes in due process…

We are a nation where the law has the final word, not the mob…

And we are a nation where our disputes, however fierce, are resolved by debate and argument.

For politicians of all stripes, the law looms large.

As parliamentarians, we are not only advocates for our constituents, we are legislators…

Charged with making and shaping the laws our society will live by.

But it is our independent courts who must then interpret and enforce those laws, with no hint of political interference.

And I take seriously my oath to defend your independence…

You are the guardians of the rule of law and at the heart of our legal prestige.

It is a job that requires deep expertise, knowledge and integrity…

As you make decisions on some of the most difficult ethical and technical issues of our time…

You must be free to make them without political pressure and undue influence.

You must never be subjected to the kinds of attacks that we saw in recent years…

When newspaper headlines branded those who uphold the law: “enemies of the people”.

I will be a champion for the rule of law, and our judiciary, inside Cabinet and in our government, at home and abroad.

I will say ‘no’ where ‘no’ is warranted…

Even if, at times, I frustrate my ministerial colleagues in doing so.

After all, that frustration is not a failure of our system, but an essential feature of it.

The final part of my oath places a duty on me to ensure the provision of resources for the courts…

Which is where safeguarding access to justice truly begins.

I must first take the opportunity to acknowledge the complete dedication shown by those who work in our courts and tribunals…

And how hard you have worked to recover from the effects of the pandemic.

I know the challenges faced in our courts, and across the justice system, are very deep indeed.

I hope you saw last week, in the emergency measures that we have taken to address the prisons crisis…

That I will do what it takes to ensure justice can be done in this country.

But I know there is so much more that must be addressed:

Justice delayed is all too often justice denied…

And this has proved particularly true of women and girls who are the victims of violence and abuse.

So we must work hard across the justice system to ensure cases are heard sooner and justice is done in a timely way.

We must also continue the modernisation of our courts and tribunals – criminal, civil and family.

And we need legal aid that is fit for the needs of the modern world.

I don’t pretend that any of these have easy answers…

Nor that everything will be solved quickly.

But I can say that I will fight for our justice system…

And that I intend to be in that fight for the long haul.

Chapter 4 Verse 135 of the Quran reads:

O ye who believe!

Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah…

Even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin…

And whether it be (against) rich or poor:

For Allah can best protect both.

This is the fundamental articulation of how we, as Muslims, view justice in how we deal with the world.

It places justice above all else.

Upholding justice is the ideal that has guided my life.

It ties together both where my family came from, and the great nation we chose to call home.

And so I will fight for it, every day…

With the fierceness of many generations of small but mighty Kashmiri women…

Inherited from my mother.

And I will pursue the hard work of rebuilding our justice system…

With the dogged determination I inherited from my dad…

Who came to this country to make a new life for his family – and never took “no” for an answer.

To swear this oath today is the greatest honour of my life.

But, more even than that, it is the greatest of responsibilities.

I will work tirelessly to discharge its duties and to defend justice.

Thank you.