The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on the Conservative Back Benches has just said that summary justice is no justice—either they believe in our magistrates or they do not. I believe in our magistrates. Sir Brian recommended a permission stage, and we accept his recommendation for creating a permission stage on appeal. That is the right thing to do, particularly because many appeals have no merits, and that is why victims fall away.

Utter nonsense! We do not take advice from the Conservative party on the operational challenges that we face when we encounter these issues; we engage with the police directly. We will not give a running commentary on this long-standing issue in a criminal justice system that is failing after 14 years of the Conservative party in government. We have set out a five-point plan, through which we are attempting to grapple with this problem, and Dame Lynne Owens will report back to the Government early next year. We look forward to hearing her recommendations.

Consequences of judgments have been an issue for successive Governments. We are committed to the ECHR, offering asylum to those genuinely fleeing torture and execution. However, we seek to work domestically and with European colleagues on issues like article 8.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I can tell him that the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), met Paula today and we are keen to support her campaign.

Can I just remind the right hon. Gentleman that, just before the general election in July 2024, his Government had three different versions of their early release scheme? We inherited a situation where prison capacity was completely unsustainable. Successive former Justice Secretaries under the previous Government have said this in the last week. We brought forward our early release scheme and it was important to do that to put capacity into the system.

I know the right hon. Gentleman was a corporate lawyer, but he really needs to get into the detail. We are reforming through the Sentencing Bill so that we can get people out of the country by deporting them on sentencing. He needs to get into the weeds and look at the Bill—he can do better.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot and will not comment on individual sentences. I urge him to live up to the responsibility of being the shadow Lord Chancellor, because commenting in the way that he regularly does on individual sentencing decisions, stripped of context and without all the information, is wrong. Those are independent decisions made by the independent judiciary in individual cases.

We have invested £40 million to stop contraband, which includes enhancing security and easing crowding to curb violence. We mandate the use of protective body armour in high-risk units and on the long-term high-security estate where some of the most dangerous prisoners are held.

This Government are making choices to keep this country safer, and are cleaning up the mess left after the previous Government led our criminal justice system to rack and ruin. They left this Government to make the difficult decisions, when we came into office, that were necessary to prevent the total collapse of our criminal justice system.

No; what this Government are doing is cleaning up the almighty mess left to us by the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. He knows full well that I have already signalled an intention to review the powers of the Sentencing Council. We have an upcoming sentencing Bill, and I will take the action that he and his Government never did in 14 long years.

When my predecessor’s Government left office, prisons were on the point of collapse. We will ensure that prison places are available for those who need to be locked up to keep the public safe. We will expand punishment outside prison and help offenders turn their back on crime.

The whole House can see that the only pretence at a job is the one that the shadow Lord Chancellor is making, because he is pretending to be the Leader of the Opposition. We all know exactly what he is about. My reaction to what has happened in relation to the Sentencing Council’s guidelines was very clear when I made the oral statement last week in this House: we will never stand for a two-tier approach to sentencing. I am actually getting on with fixing the problem, rather than looking for a bandwagon to jump on, which is why I have already written to the Sentencing Council. I will be meeting it later this week, and I have made it very clear that I will consider its role and its powers. If I need to legislate, I will do so, but I will ensure that whatever changes I bring forward are workable and deliver the fair justice system that we all need and deserve—one that his Government did not deliver.

The shadow Lord Chancellor’s amnesia continues, because he clearly has not done his homework; he has forgotten that his Government were consulted extensively on this guidance. It also appears that he cannot read, because the letter states very clearly all the consultation that took place under his Government. It shows that they were consulted numerous times on the new guidance and welcomed it—I notice that he did not refer to that. The last few days have therefore been an expert lesson from the right hon. Gentleman: he has taught us all how to throw the shadow Transport Secretary under a bus.

I inherited a contract from the previous government with Serco, which I am holding accountable. The delays are unacceptable; Serco’s performance is not good enough, but the backlog has been reduced. Further financial penalties will be imposed where necessary.

What an absolutely outrageous set of remarks! The right hon. Member completely forgets that, only six months ago, his Government were in charge. The Government of which he was part all but ran our justice system into the ground. I do not recall seeing him standing up and speaking about delays for rape victims, or indeed any other kind of victim, when he was on this side of the House. I am glad he has now realised that the system ought to try to put victims first. His critique would have more force were it not for the fact that this Government, having come to office only six months ago, have increased Crown court sitting capacity by 2,500 days.

There will always be differing views among lawyers about what can and cannot be said. It is right that the Government took their own position and that we did nothing that could risk collapsing the trial. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that the online world poses a significant challenge to our contempt laws. That is why that is already being looked at. As there is a piece of work already under way, I do not want to pre-empt where that could land. The Law Commission has a good track record of considering major law changes. Because of the inquiry and the fast-moving nature of these things, I will keep this area under close review myself.

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

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

The Law Commission has reported on marriage law and the Government are consulting on broader reform of marriage law, which will consider issues raised about cousin marriage.

The Home Office is meeting with tech companies to discuss how we can break the business model of those criminals. We are addressing the issues with mobile phone theft.

The shadow Minister could at least have apologised to the country for being part of a Government and a party that ran out of prison places. It was the Tory party that ran the system at boiling hot—at over 99% capacity. I hate to remind him, but for months before the previous election, the Tory party operated its own emergency release scheme, which did not have any exclusions for offences connected to domestic abuse. I will take no lessons from him, as it is this Government who are cleaning up the mess that his party left behind.

I am tempted to remind the shadow Minister about his own Government's track record. He ought to know that it was my predecessor, his colleague, the former Lord Chancellor who agreed the allocation of sitting days with the Lady Chief Justice and that that concordat agreement was concluded during the election period when the Tories were still conducting business. When the right hon. Gentleman responds, perhaps he would like to explain why the allocation was made for only 106,000 sitting days. What I have done is increase sitting days by a further 500 and increase magistrate courts' sentencing powers, which is the equivalent of an additional 2,000 Crown court sitting days, in order to start cracking down on that backlog.

The Government have allocated a record £1.2 billion for prison building in the Budget, and we will be going further. We are the party of law and order. He needs to look at his record.

We do not comment on cases that are sub judice. Charging decisions are independent for the Crown Prosecution Service, which ultimately decides what charges to bring. Investigations and charging decisions should be done independently without Government interference.

The independent Crown Prosecution Service makes charging decisions. The Home Secretary and I have introduced a presumption of anonymity for all firearms officers if they find themselves being charged by the CPS. We believe this measure could have made a difference in Sergeant Blake's case.

Under the previous Government's ECSL scheme, there were zero exemptions to protect the public. This Government put in serious exemptions to prevent sex offenders and serious violent criminals from being released on to our streets.