Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing
Jake Richards Excerpts(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this important debate.
I echo colleagues from across the House in thanking Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery, for bringing this issue to our attention and for raising it publicly. Like the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), I have the great privilege of meeting lots of victims as part of my job. It is a difficult part of my job, but one that I enjoy. It is humbling to see people who have suffered a lot give up even more to try to change the world for others. Paris is another such person, and I hope that this debate will help to promote her views and that we can take this issue further in the weeks ahead.
Controlling and coercive behaviour is an insidious—that word was used a lot in the debate—form of domestic abuse. It can take many forms, including isolation from friends and family, depriving victims of their basic needs, and enforcing rules to humiliate, degrade or even dehumanise and control all aspects of day-to-day life. Too many people in our country, mainly women, experience this sort of abuse. As Members will be aware, the Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls in the next decade. Our VAWG strategy sets out what we are doing to reform the police response, strengthen the criminal justice system and empower victims with specialist support.
I want to address some of the points made in this very constructive debate. I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, about victims coming forward and putting their head above the parapet, which is incredibly humbling. I also agree with him—we agreed on an awful lot in this debate—about the need for constructive early advice for defendants to encourage early pleas where appropriate.
I think the shadow Minister put it well when he said that it is a really difficult balancing act, and there is no easy answer to the central issue that we are debating today. It is about trying to encourage guilty defendants to plead guilty, but doing so in a way that respects victims and puts them at the heart of the system. That is a really difficult balancing act that the justice system has to grapple with, and that we as a Government and as parliamentarians have to grapple with. As I will come on to say, it is even more difficult because of the nature of this particular offence, which so many Members highlighted in the debate.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), is right about trying to create mechanisms within criminal proceedings by which a defendant might plead earlier and re-engage with their prospects. Of course, she will be aware that there are already two formal opportunities to do so, and at any point in the process a defendant can, through correspondence, intimate that they are changing their plea. We need to consider how we can encourage that as part of the process more generally. The statutory guidance on this particular offence is being led by the Home Office, but I checked in preparation for the debate and can confirm that it will be published early next year.
I understand the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson about court staff training, but I think that that issue has been debated; I am very wary that this debate has touched on lots of other pieces of legislation that we have already debated extensively. That is essentially an issue of proportionality, and what we are trying to do through the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which has now gone to the other place, is not only to quicken the court process but to ensure that it is done fairly. Again, like the central issue that we are debating today, that is a balancing act between efficiency, productivity and ensuring that victims are at the heart. Efficiency and productivity are not for their own sake; they are for the victims’ sake. I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson appreciates that, and she made important points.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) is doing what she should do, and clearly does, as a good constituency MP by raising the case of her constituent. She did so powerfully, and I thank her for that.
Jake Richards
I have made it abundantly clear that I will not relitigate the Sentencing Act.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. The shadow Minister should not intervene from a sedentary position.
Jake Richards
We debated that legislation as it passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Indeed, I was in the main Chamber last week when we had an urgent question on that issue, and the Lord Chancellor was there in September. We will no doubt debate the issue again, but it is not what we are debating today, and I do not intend to respond to that question.
Jake Richards
No, I will not give way.
As I have already touched on, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and others made the point that early guilty pleas and discounts must be considered very carefully in the context of controlling and coercive behaviour. It is a unique offence, although of course there are lots of other offences that involve issues of control and power, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) powerfully highlighted. I can commit that the Government will look at these measures in the context of this particular offence.
Going back to the central balancing act that I have already touched on, we are not currently persuaded that the evidence suggests that victims would be best served by a scrapping of discounts just for this particular offence. Indeed, there is no other criminal offence for which that is the case, and at the moment—I say “at the moment” because this is an ongoing conversation—we are not persuaded that that is something we can do. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean also asked whether I would meet Paris. If she would like to meet me or the Victims Minister, we will of course meet her at the earliest opportunity.
Let me go back to the early guilty plea. Sir Brian Leveson did the modelling when he looked at this and encouraged us to offer further discounts, as the shadow Minister said. The evidence from his modelling said that it would encourage more people to plead guilty. We did not accept that recommendation, but it suggests to me that these discounts, however unsatisfactory or even unsavoury they are, do make the criminal justice system more expeditious, which ultimately serves victims as well.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) raised the case of her constituent Hayley, which was very powerful and moving, and asked about non-fatal strangulation and sentencing. I meet regularly with the chair of the Sentencing Council and will raise that issue formally in my next meeting with her. My right hon. Friend also spoke about the victims code, and I will ensure that the Victims Minister gets a transcript of her speech. My right hon. Friend will no doubt speak with her as well—I know that she has already met with her—but I will make sure that it is very much on the Minister’s agenda.
I agree about the confusion, or perhaps the lack of knowledge, about concurrent and consecutive sentencing. We all have a job to ensure that the criminal justice system can explain that to victims during the criminal justice process. Judges and Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors have an explanatory role, to ensure that everyone knows what they are dealing with when they leave the courtroom, because they often do not. There is more we can do in terms of an education setting, for want of a better phrase.
The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) raised a number of points, and I will try to deal with some of them. The interrelation of the family courts was raised consistently by other Members and is something that we are very alive to. I hope that we will publish the family justice strategy later this year, and I assure the hon. Member that dealing with some of these issues will be right at the heart of how we look at the whole family justice system. He and other Members are right that too often men—it is mainly men—are able to use the family courts to further compound misery and harm on women. It is not good enough, and I experienced it myself when I was a barrister in the family courts. I saw it with my own eyes, and we are going to try to change it.
The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire also mentioned special measures. I am reluctant—simply because it is not my brief—to go into it too much. I am aware that we want to retain some court discretion. I am not suggesting that his proposal would not do that, but I am reluctant to comment much further, because it is not my area, to be blunt. I will make sure that the relevant Minister hears what was said by the hon. Member and by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester.
On the point that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire made about the data protocol since 2024, I will go away and make sure that he gets a written answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) raised really powerful stories about what has happened in his constituency. He mentioned some of the things the Government have done; I would add restriction zones, which can be really powerful for ensuring that if offenders are released from prison, there can be better protections for victims of domestic abuse. They are quite innovative in flipping the burden on to the offender rather than victim, so the victim can go on with their life and not have to worry about bumping into the offender, which is clearly a more acute issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency than others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) raised the cases of Chloe and Skye, which are very moving. Her questions to me and the Government were essentially about whether we are ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are at the heart of our reforms to the criminal justice system. Last week, the Courts and Tribunals Bill was before the House of Commons, and the gist of that legislation is to try to get the backlog down. Until we do that, all these issues are exaggerated for victims, so that is what the Government are trying to do. My hon. Friend will be reassured that the Victims Minister is playing a really important role in making sure that victims are at the heart of the criminal justice system and all the reforms we are making.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has his own experience of the particular harms of this offence, and we have to consider them very carefully in terms of the early guilty plea. I will go away and do so.
I want to set out some of the things that we are doing to support victims. There is, of course, a technical argument in this debate about early guilty pleas and any discounts that might flow from that, but the heart of this issue is how we treat victims, particularly victims of domestic abuse and this insidious form of it. I understand that some victims and some of those who signed the petition will perhaps be disappointed with my central response to their ask, but we are, in my mind, taking huge steps to support victims and make sure that they are properly supported and protected throughout the justice system.
We are providing funding for a range of national and local services offering support to victims. Earlier this year, we committed £550 million to victim and witness support services over the next three years—the biggest investment in support for victims that we have ever seen in this country, which I am particularly proud of. That will go into offering specialist services around emotional, practical and therapeutic support, including counselling and advice around going to court. Too many times, I meet victims who simply have no support when they go to court; it is actually shocking. We are investing to make sure that we have that support in and around court for victims much more consistently and as less of a lottery.
I recognise the importance of ensuring that victims and their families have access to the information and support that they need. That is vital in helping them to navigate the criminal justice system. It is why the victims code is so important: it sets out what victims can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies in England and Wales. Earlier this year, we consulted on a new code to make those rights clearer and ensure that they are delivered more consistently. We also strengthened the accountability for those rights so that failures can be identified and addressed, rather than leaving victims without the support they should receive.
Of course, we must do everything we can to protect victims from further harm. In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring that the police have the right skills and training to respond appropriately to victims of violence against women and girls. In February 2025, the Home Office announced £13 million in funding to launch a new national centre for VAWG and public protection, which is designed to improve how police respond to violence against women and girls, including controlling or coercive behaviour, strengthen officers’ understanding of these crimes and help to ensure that victims receive consistent protection.
From February last year, offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or longer have been automatically managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements, which were mentioned in the debate. That requires co-operative working between the police and the probation and prison services to make sure that the risks posed by the most serious offenders are properly managed and that appropriate safeguards are put in place. That change recognises the significant harm that this kind of offending can cause by putting controlling or coercive behaviour on a par with other forms of domestic abuse. These arrangements are about preventing further abuse, protecting victims and ultimately saving lives.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for bringing this important issue to the House, and I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate, which was constructive and grappled with a difficult issue that has no easy answer. The Government’s position on guilty plea reductions will not be what some are hoping for, but I want to reassure victims that their experiences matter and that this debate has given them prominence in the Government’s consideration of these issues going forward. Ultimately, nobody should have to endure controlling or coercive behaviour, and those who do deserve not only justice, but the right protection and support throughout the justice system and beyond.
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
Jake Richards Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the early release scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. In July 2024, men’s prisons were operating at 99% capacity. At one point, fewer than 100 places were available across the male estate. Without intervention, we risked running out of prison places, leaving courts unable to sentence offenders and police unable to make arrests.
This Government have acted to increase capacity and to reform sentencing. We have committed to delivering 14,000 prison places by 2031 and have already delivered 3,200. The last Government added just 500 net places in their time in office. We have also accelerated the removal of foreign national offenders, returning around 11,700 to their countries of origin. It is in that context that we launched the independent sentencing review in October 2024 and subsequently passed the Sentencing Act 2026 earlier this year to place the prison system on a more sustainable footing and ensure that space is always available for the most dangerous offenders. The Act also aimed to avoid the chaotic emergency release schemes carried out with little scrutiny or warning by the Conservatives.
However, we know that aspects of these changes have caused concern, and we are determined to do the right thing for victims. That is why the Government listened to the concerns raised, paused the implementation of the progression model and conducted an urgent review. As the Lord Chancellor confirmed in this House on 1 September, in addition to the 18,000 dangerous offenders already ineligible for the progression model, this Government have excluded rape and serious child sex offences from eligibility for changes to release dates under the Sentencing Act. Unlawful killings, including manslaughter, causing or allowing the death of a child, and death by dangerous driving, are also excluded, as well as indecent assault, ensuring that more historical child sex offences prosecuted under older laws are treated consistently with equivalent offences today. That means that hundreds more dangerous criminals will be staying behind bars for longer, including those who killed PC Andrew Harper in the line of duty.
The first releases on the progression model took place on 1 October, with His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service working closely with operational partners to ensure that eligible offenders were released safely into the community. As the second tranche of releases begins today, robust arrangements remain in place to manage releases, support probation practitioners and supervising offenders, and ensure that those subject to electronic monitoring requirements are fitted with a tag. As part of the supervision of offenders released into the community, HMPPS will maintain rigorous oversight of those on licence, with measures in place to recall those who are non-compliant.
We recognise the significant effect that release date changes can have on victims. We will ensure that those in the victim contact scheme who are affected by the new exclusions are informed if there are any changes to the release date of the offender in their case. I have also instructed my officials to attempt to contact victims not in that scheme to provide information, should they wish for that to happen. We have launched the victim support offender release helpline, with nearly £19 million of additional funding, to provide victims with emotional support, practical advice such as safety planning, and general information about sentencing changes.
It is important to add that the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending is unable to be here today because she is currently speaking with governors about early release and how the implementation of the progression model is going.
Nick Timothy
Two weeks ago, 700 prisoners were released from prison across the country, and today a further 650 will be released, most after serving just one third of their sentence. The Justice Secretary told the country that proper safeguards would be put in place, with a presumption that all released prisoners would be tagged. He called it the “toughest” tagging regime in history, but that was nonsense. Four days after the first release, the Justice Secretary admitted that he had no idea how many released prisoners had been tagged, and protested that it was unreasonable to expect him to know how many had been tagged so soon into the scheme. I have some advice for him and his Ministers: it is better to work out how to implement your policy before it starts, not after.
We know that a majority of prisoners are not being tagged before release, and we know that reoffending is already off the charts. The Met says that there have been 100 tag breaches in London each day since Labour’s first early release scheme began, while two or three prisoners released early are being re-arrested every week. I do not want to hear the same old lines from the Minister about prison building, though I note he has changed his tune since the Prime Minister took office in July. Since the election, not a single new prison development has been planned or approved—those were the Minister’s words in a written answer. The only new prison opened was begun under the last Government, and prison places are unused because officer numbers are down under Labour.
Can the Minister tell us very clearly the answers to the following three questions? How many prisoners released so far have and have not been tagged? How many tag breaches by released prisoners have there been? If he does not know the answers to those questions, when will the Justice Secretary and his team find out and tell the House of Commons?
Jake Richards
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s questions. I noticed over conference recess that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who I think is the Conservatives’ policy chief, apologised for the lack of investment and action on criminal justice over 14 years of Conservative Governments. It would be welcome to hear that from the Dispatch Box today, but alas, we will still have to wait for that apology.
Turning to the hon. Member’s questions, we have set out the numbers of prisoners who will be released in each tranche—that is publicly available on the Government’s website. We will be setting out data in relation to prisoner releases as we always do, and the next batch of data will be released in January of next year. This is a new sentencing regime, and it is right that we release the data in the appropriate way, as we have always done.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Tagging could be a way to provide real reassurance to communities and victims, but only if tags are fitted promptly and offenders are monitored. In April of last year, the Justice Committee raised concerns in writing about the time being taken to fit tags, and the Institute for Government found that between January and April of this year, more than 5,000 people who should have been monitored were not tagged—that equates to 15% of all people with an electronic tagging order. It also found that almost 1,600 people wearing a tag were wearing one that did not send a signal, due to technical faults or the device not being charged. Can the Minister tell us whether anything has changed since April? Specifically, what percentage of GPS tags are now being fitted on time? What is the longest time an offender can wait before monitoring begins, and when will offenders be tagged on day one, as victims and the public should be able to expect?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of not just having a tagging regime that works, but making sure that that regime is robustly monitored and scrutinised. Since March of this year, there have been improvements by Serco, the company that is operating the tagging regime. My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the National Audit Office report, and we will fully respond to it in detail as and when the full report is published later this month.
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Member for her questions. Of course, we want to ensure that when prisoners are released and it is necessary for them to be tagged—there is a presumption that those who will be released will be tagged—they will be tagged at source as soon as possible. Of course, those operational decisions are matters for the Probation Service.
Regarding the hon. Member’s suggestion of a royal commission, in the first two years of this Government, we have managed to stabilise the criminal justice system. We have begun to get some stability in terms of prison capacity. It was necessary to pass the Sentencing Act 2026 and implement the new sentencing regime, and over the course of the coming years we will make progress on the Crown court backlog—we will debate that later today—and tackling reoffending, which is at the heart of the criminal justice system crisis that we face.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
Historically, whether people were released at the right time or were released early under the various different schemes of various different Governments, it has always been rubbish for victims of domestic abuse. They are often not informed, and the proper safeguards are not put in place. I hear the Minister saying that there is now better communication and that there are helplines, but we have to do better than what the Conservative party did. There needs to be a proper, systematic approach for victims of domestic abuse, to make sure that every single possible safeguarding opportunity has been taken in every single case. I am afraid to say that I feel as if the Department does not know what is going on in the world, because I meet women every week who have not been informed and have not been provided with any safeguards. Can the Minister assure me that that vital work is going on?
Jake Richards
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Of course, she is a long-standing campaigner on these issues, and she is right that the criminal justice system has failed domestic abuse victims for too long. The Minister for Victims is working at pace with the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and alongside the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure everything is done to try to support victims during this period. We have invested more money, but it is not just about money; it needs to work. Of course, I will make sure that the Ministers for Victims and for the Prisons and Probation reach out to my hon. Friend to get the details of any cases.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If I understood it correctly, the Minister said earlier that past victims—and, therefore, presumably potential future victims—are being informed and supported. If they need that sort of information and support, does that not imply that the people who are being released pose a threat to them? What sort of category of person is being released? Is it a dangerous person? If it is not, why do the victims need the support that the Minister describes?
Jake Richards
We have debated the cohorts who are subject to the new regime at length in this place, both during the passing of the Sentencing Act and in relation to the changes that were made over the summer. When we returned to this place, the Justice Secretary rightly came to the Dispatch Box on 1 September to update the House.
Going to the heart of this issue, we release 4,500 prisoners every month in this country. We have done so for the past 30 years. Of course, there is an assessment of what measures should be in place and what notifications should be made to any victims, which is undertaken by brilliant probation staff every single day—brilliant staff who were gutted by the last Conservative Government. We are investing in our Probation Service to enable them to undertake the difficult work that they do week in, week out to keep our country safe.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
Getting prisoner numbers back down to manageable levels depends in part on an effective and well-managed Probation Service, but as I have heard from probation staff in my Bristol constituency, the service is simply overwhelmed after years of cuts. What steps are being taken to support the Probation Service’s ability to manage the specific challenges posed by early release, as well as the strains facing the service more broadly?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Probation and our Probation Service do not get enough attention in this place or in public debate more generally. We have invested £750 million in the Probation Service. That is the biggest investment in the Probation Service for a generation. We can compare that with what happened under the last Government, where probation was gutted. We had the failed privatisation experiment by Chris Grayling, which was an absolute disaster. To my mind, it is one of the most acute disasters of the past 14 years. It is right that we invest in probation. We appreciate that there are more challenges to come, and we are working at pace with the Probation Service. Indeed, the Prisons Minister was speaking with our probation colleagues this morning.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Kaylan Hippsley, who grew up in Ystradgynlais, was just 13 years old when he was tragically killed by a driver under the influence of drugs and alcohol in February 2024. The Court of Appeal increased his killer’s sentence to nine years, with at least six years to be served in custody before he would be considered for early release. However, Kaylan’s family have now been informed that his killer has been transferred to an open prison after serving barely two years and will soon be out on day release. Can the Minister explain how this has been allowed to happen? What assurances can be given to Kaylan’s family that the sentences imposed by the courts for such offences will actually be upheld?
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Member for raising that clearly tragic case. I am not able to comment on the details of it, as I am sure he will appreciate, but I will make sure that the relevant Minister writes to him about that.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will be aware that care leavers represent some of the most vulnerable children and young people in our society, yet they are over-represented in our prisons. Indeed, a pilot conducted by Catch22 worked across 135 local authorities, supporting and working with care leavers who find themselves in the criminal justice system, and in particular those leaving prison. Will the Minister look at the outcomes of that pilot in his efforts to work towards releasing people from prison?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right that a disproportionate amount of the prison estate is taken up by those who have been in care. It goes to the heart of the debate about how we confront reoffending. We know that reoffending makes up such a large degree of the criminality that we see on our streets. When people come into contact with the criminal justice system, they too often leave it more likely to commit crimes, and we have got to tackle that. It is an issue not only of capacity, but of investment in probation. In fact, just earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition said that she wants to support dealing with reoffending. That was a sensible, grown-up intervention by her, and I was surprised to read it. I look forward to working with her on those issues in the months ahead.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I have Guys Marsh prison in my constituency. It provides valued jobs, and I pay tribute to the prison officers who work there. The Minister will know that all of these policies flow from the pressure on spaces in our prison estate. Not that long ago, the Government had Crown prerogative powers to bring forward new prisons or to extend prisons without going through a lengthy planning process. That would solve the problem at a stroke. Why will the Minister not investigate that in order to speed up an expansion in prison spaces?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member has raised that point on a number of occasions when we have had the opportunity to debate this issue. He is right that we need to look at how we can fast-track planning infrastructure projects of real national importance, such as prisons, and I know that the Prisons Minister and the Justice Secretary are keeping a close eye on that. I just gently push back that some of the hon. Member’s colleagues on the Conservative Benches spend a lot of their time opposing the building of prisons in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who has apologised for the Conservatives’ record on criminal justice, spends a lot of time opposing the building of the prison in his constituency.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The reality is that there would not be an early release scheme if the Conservatives had not presided over a record that left our prisons at 99% capacity, having built a staggeringly low 500 places in their 14 years in government. My constituents are angry about the situation in which we find ourselves, so will the Minister set out the steps the Government are taking to reassure victims and to ensure that we never end up in this situation again?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right, and I can set out clearly what we are doing. By the end of this Parliament, there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before under a Labour Government. That is because this Government are spending three times more on prison building than the Conservatives ever did. The Conservative Government closed 23 prisons; we are building 14,000 places. That is the difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The sad truth is that dangerous sexual predators are being released early under this scheme. The sister of a friend of mine was told by police just a few weeks ago that her heinous assailant was being released in a few months’ time and there was nothing they could do. She resigned from her job and has fled the country in terror. That is where things have got to. There are some 4,000 empty cells that require maintenance and refurbishment, and 10,000 cells are occupied by overseas nationals. Will the Government use those places to stop dangerous offenders from being released early?
Jake Richards
I am happy to ensure that the hon. Member has the appropriate information needed about the case that he raises, and we will be able to look into that case individually. Prison capacity more generally is still a challenge. Although 4,000 places may be available today, there are different categories of prisons and there is geographical need. It is not quite as simple as just being a numbers game; the picture is a bit more complicated than that. I am proud that this Government have increased the deportation of foreign national offenders by 40%. We will continue to deport more foreign national offenders when the new early release scheme comes into effect early next year, and I look forward to Members from across the House supporting the Government in our efforts.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The prisoner early release scheme is clearly simply a result of the failings of the previous Conservative Government, but as the Minister has already acknowledged, we do not want those prisoners to end up back in prison a short time after being released. What is being done to stop those prisoners reoffending, particularly in terms of their employment and resettlement?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend rightly comes to the heart of this debate, which is how we can confront reoffending. We are working with local employers and we have regional councils to try to ensure that people have opportunities for work and housing. It is a challenge—it has been a challenge for decades—that ex-offenders often do not have the right support when they leave prison. That is why we are investing in the Probation Service and working with local authorities at pace to ensure that when ex-offenders leave prison they are given the opportunities to build a stake in society and not commit offences again.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my role as the chair of the justice unions all-party parliamentary group.
This second tranche of early releases is coming so soon after the first that probation staff are just in despair at their workloads. There was a workload measurement tool that was used to help balance workloads, but it was switched off on 25 September this year. Workload pressures and insufficient pay are why the probation union Napo is holding a formal ballot on industrial action next Monday. Does the Minister therefore recognise that the probation system is on the brink of collapse?
Jake Richards
I do not accept the right hon. Lady’s characterisation of the Probation Service. There are great challenges, however. The prisons and probation Minister is today at a conference with probation colleagues, meeting them, listening to them and working with them, because we need the Probation Service to work with us on the challenges we face. I gently say again that this Government have invested £750 million in probation, which is the biggest investment in probation for a generation. We have introduced new technology, such as Justice Transcribe. That app helps probation officers save a huge amount of time on paperwork and builds their capacity. We accept that there are challenges ahead, but we are meeting colleagues and we will work with them to meet those challenges.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm to my constituents that the most dangerous offenders, including rapists, are excluded from the progression model? What steps is his Department taking to repair the prison estate, which was left on the brink of collapse by the Conservatives, and ensure that we never reach this crisis point again?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right. I can confirm, as the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have at this Dispatch Box, that rapists will not be subject to the new regime. My hon. Friend is also right that constituents like his and mine expect us to meet this challenge by building more prison places. That is why we are investing in 14,000 new prison places by 2031. There will be more criminals behind bars at the end of this Parliament under a Labour Government.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Minister will know that all of the 3,000 new prison places that have come online since the election were initiated by the last Conservative Government. Will he tell the House why this Government have not planned or approved any new prison spaces since they came to office?
Jake Richards
We hear this a lot—Conservative Members saying, “Well, we didn’t do anything for 14 years, we didn’t spend much money, and then in the final few months we thought, gosh, we have a prison capacity crisis, we had better start planning, and then we called an election.” It is absolutely hopeless. What we are doing constitutes the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, with 14,000 places by 2031. The Conservatives’ policy chief has apologised for their record on criminal justice, as has the Leader of the Opposition. Will the hon. Gentleman do so?
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Of course, the legacy that we inherited was the failure of the last Government, who did not build enough prison places and left it until the last minute to sanction new places. I appreciate the Minister’s clarity in respect of the new prison places and the Government’s investment in 14,000 future places, but may I ask him about the recruitment of prison officers? Will we have enough personnel to support that expansion so that we do not have to resort to early release in the future?
Jake Richards
There is indeed a challenge. Alongside our prison building programme, the biggest since the Victorian era, is the need to recruit people to staff those prisons. However, we are implementing a range of new recruitment initiatives to ensure that we have enough prison officers to make them safe and workable.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Several constituents who have been in touch with me are victims of domestic abuse and desperately need to move. Emotional support and safety planning are cold comfort when offenders are cutting off their tags, when they are making threats to kill, and when the victims’ addresses are being disclosed to them, but these vulnerable families are still coming 12th, 15th or 18th on the list for being moved to new social housing. What is the Ministry of Justice doing with local authorities to ensure that these people are properly prioritised?
Jake Richards
That absolutely should not be the case and it is very worrying, so I will ensure that the appropriate Minister meets the hon. Lady to discuss those individual cases. As I have said, we have invested in community safeguarding measures and there is a further £18 million for victim support, but I entirely appreciate that victims want reassurances about their safety rather than just warm words, and that is what this Government are committed to providing.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Local residents and I are deeply concerned about the possible return of a convicted child sex offender to Townsend following his planned release. On Saturday I held a community meeting which was joined by the police and crime commissioner as well as representatives of Dorset police. It is clear that people fear that this man will be not just a cause for concern in his own right, but a magnet for violent and antisocial behaviour to himself and the wider community. Will the Minister arrange for a meeting with the Probation Minister and me, along with local residents? The last thing we want is to see Townsend go through this sort of ordeal.
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend has raised that particular issue, and indeed the issue more generally, with me on numerous occasions. To the extent that I am allowed to make such promises at the Dispatch Box, I will ensure that he has the right meeting with the appropriate Minister.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I must take umbrage at the idea that the last Government were too slow to react. HMP Millsike, in my constituency, was given planning approval in September 2019, but it took six years to build, and according to the latest figures it still has 344 empty cells. Should the Minister not be moving heaven and earth to ensure that we fill every available cell, rather than releasing dangerous criminals back on to our streets?
Jake Richards
As I have said, the Leader of the Opposition has apologised for the Conservatives’ record, but some of them have not got the message. As for the use of space, the hon. Member is right to say that we need to maximise the prison estate. The Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, from this Dispatch Box, made it clear that he was looking at how we could maximise all parts of the estate. However, as I said earlier, it is not quite as straightforward as a simple numbers game, because there are different categories of prison and different geographical demands. One in seven of the prison population are on recall and many are on remand, so they need to be near the appropriate courts. It is not quite as straightforward as the hon. Member would like to suggest, but of course we are determined to use every single space that we can.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his comments about probation. We saw the failure of the privatisation experiment conducted by the previous Government, and the impact that it had on probation staff and those who were using the Probation Service, so I welcome those comments. Like the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), I am really concerned about those who are cutting off their tags. I have spoken to victims of domestic violence in my constituency of Harlow, who have raised the issue with me. What reassurance can the Minister give me that that will not be allowed to happen, and that if it does happen, those who take off their tags will be treated severely?
Jake Richards
Any attempt to interfere with tagging is very serious and will be treated in the toughest possible way. Concerns have been raised about the tagging regime, by the National Audit Office and others, and the Government will respond in due course. Performance has improved since the interim report was published a few months ago. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that at the heart of this is the question of how we tackle reoffending and bolster our Probation Service, which we have invested in. Challenges that have been raised and we accept them, but I will not take lessons on the Probation Service from the Conservatives after their failed privatisation under the now Lord Grayling, which was one of the biggest failed experiments in public service reform over the past 40 years.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Last week I held my regular roundtable for local domestic abuse organisations in Bath. There was fear—real fear—among the organisations that represent survivors and victims about the number of early releases. Representatives of Avon and Somerset police, who were present, tried to reassure the group that they had the capacity and could manage the situation, but how will the Government ensure, through assessment and review, that the Avon and Somerset force does indeed have the capacity to support victims and survivors? How will that be assessed and when will there be a review?
Jake Richards
The Government appreciate that there are concerns— understandable concerns—among victims’ groups and victims themselves. The Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary accepted that at the Dispatch Box, and we have invested more in our victim liaison work in order to do a better job in reaching out to victims, ensuring that they are heard and also listening to them so that we can put into effect safety measures that will help them. We are talking to the police regularly and investing in them as well to ensure that, as much as possible, we keep communities safe during this period.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker, although I had to leave the Chamber briefly for duties elsewhere in the House.
Today, 650 people are being released. We know that they are coming—we can anticipate the fact that we need to release 650 people. I googled, “What is the reason we cannot tag people on release?” The answer was a lack of capacity in the companies that have the contracts for attaching the tags. It seems to me that the companies are not fulfilling those contracts. It cannot be beyond their technological ability to tag people on release, so what are they going to do about it?
Jake Richards
There have been question marks, to put it mildly, over the performance of the companies that undertake the contracts. We are working closely with Serco, and there has been an improvement in the implementation of tagging since March. However, I would suggest that although there is a presumption that every person who is released should be tagged, ultimately it is an operational decision and a decision for the Probation Service, as is the case in respect of the 4,500 prisoners who are released every month as per normal.
Mr Speaker
We will let the Front Benchers change over after we have heard from Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers. I am sure that he was watching television this morning when the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said that he was arresting
“two or three early-release offenders a week”,
and that seems to be the case. He gave the example of someone who was released last week having originally been arrested for shop theft, and who lasted just a few days before doing the very same thing and is now back in prison. More worryingly, the Met Commissioner said that those who have been convicted of firearms offences have also been released. Surely it is time to ensure that gun-toting criminals are not allowed back on the streets.
Jake Richards
I had thought that there was going to be a session without a question from the hon. Member, so it is reassuring to hear one.
We know, for example, that one in seven of the prison population are on recall. There are recall provisions in operation, and that is right. If people are released from prison and then break their licence conditions, or indeed commit a further offence, they should be brought back to prison. That is the system working. We want to bring the number down, because we want to tackle reoffending and ensure that when people do leave prison they do not turn to crime again, and that constitutes much of the work that we are doing with the Probation Service and local authorities.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jake Richards Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
A report commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and published in 2023 found limited evidence of unaccredited child contact centres. Protocols make it clear that as part of family court proceedings, the judiciary and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service should refer families only to centres accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres. There are, however, clearly issues with the sector, in terms of cost and accessibility, and we will always seek to improve it.
Alison Hume
In cases where family court proceedings lead to child removal, parents can be forced to use unregulated contact centres—it can cost hundreds of pounds for just a few hours of contact—because of a lack of accessible, regulated contact centre provision. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of this situation on the welfare of children and families, and will his Department initiate a review of current arrangements?
Jake Richards
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Where it is safe to do so, we would always encourage parents to have contact with their children. The courts encourage this; it is always in the child’s best interests to have that contact. Where contact centres are necessary, they need to be close to home and, clearly, affordable. This sector is independent of Government, but if it is not working, as we are hearing from my hon. Friend, we will look into it in due course.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
On 1 September, the Lord Chancellor announced from this Dispatch Box a further £4.5 million to better support and supervise children, in order to move them away from criminality. Earlier this year, we published the youth justice White Paper, and we are getting on with the job of delivering that reform across the country.
Steve Witherden
Early intervention is key to tackling youth offending, and our Government’s commitment to new youth hubs is essential to support at-risk young people and steer them away from a life of crime. Constituents of mine in Cefn Mawr, Plas Madoc, Acrefair and Ruabon have reported a rise in antisocial behaviour among young people. Would my hon. Friend agree that a new youth hub in Plas Madoc would go a long way to addressing this problem?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right that youth services and support for early intervention is at the heart of tackling reoffending. We know that 80% of adult prolific offenders commit their first offence when they are a child, so early intervention is crucial. Dealing with young offenders is at the heart of what we published in the youth justice White Paper earlier this year and what this Government are doing.
Alex McIntyre
To break the cycle of offending and reoffending in young people, we need to do more to give young people opportunity and something productive to do. What discussions has the Minister had with Alan Milburn about his review, and how can we ensure that young offenders are put on a more productive pathway?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right that tackling reoffending and youth crime needs a cross-Government effort. It is an issue for the Department for Education, the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and indeed the Ministry of Justice. That is why on Thursday I will be in No. 10 North with colleagues from across Government launching our new strategy to devolve youth justice services so that they serve places and localities and the people within them.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
My constituents are extremely concerned about young people on e-bikes and e-scooters repeatedly committing crimes and antisocial behaviour. There is a feeling that those individuals get away with that behaviour and put other people in danger. Will the Minister assure me that the justice system is robust enough to punish every individual involved in that reckless behaviour?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is right. It is an issue in my constituency as well: I hear about it a lot from constituents and see it for myself outside my constituency office in Dinnington. How the police enforce the law on our streets is obviously a matter for them, but I have been introducing reforms in the youth justice system to implement more rigorous community punishments for young offenders and, critically, to look at parenting orders. It is not just a job for Government to ensure that young people turn their back on crime; it is also their parents’ responsibility, and we want to ensure that that responsibility is felt.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Social media is being flooded by videos, often shared by young people, glorifying dangerous driving on roads like Beachy Head Road in Eastbourne, where dangerous driving claimed the life of 17-year-old Oakley Meer. While dangerous driving is a crime, its glorification is not necessarily. What steps is the Ministry of Justice taking to crack down on that, working with Ofcom, to achieve justice for Oakley and his family, who are campaigning to make that road safer?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is right to raise the issue, as death by dangerous driving is a horrific crime. In fact, straight after questions I will be meeting a victim of that very offence and next week I will meet the chair of the Sentencing Council. We can certainly look into how we can ensure that those who celebrate such offending are treated in the right way.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. Some 80,000 disabled people are unable to access funds that are legally theirs, and that is a disgrace. This is a complex issue, because mental capacity is a complex area of law and we must have due regard to the safeguarding mechanisms, but it cannot be beyond the wit of this place, or indeed of the Government, to overcome that obstacle. I met the leader of the Liberal Democrats last week to discuss this issue, and we are going to make progress in the coming weeks.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Jake Richards
I am not just happy to meet them; I am keen to meet them. If we are going to improve the family justice system, we need to hear from those who have experienced it. We are rolling out child-focused courts, which will help, but we have to improve productivity more generally, and we are getting on with that.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It was May when I stood here and asked the Minister to intervene in the situation of a paedophile moved to an open prison two years into his 10-year sentence. I was promised an answer then. I raised the matter again in July and again last week, and yet I have still had no answer. When will Sanders’ survivors finally stopped being ignored by this Minister and get an answer on why this man has been put in an open prison?
Jake Richards
I understand the force of the hon. Lady’s question. I will look into that immediately the moment this session ends, and I will meet her behind the Speaker’s Chair to confirm how we do that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister has been absolutely brilliant in helping to identify children with a parent in prison. Will he now agree to join me on 25 November for national Children with a Parent in Prison Day, where we will be able to hear from young people with lived experience about the important next steps, and getting them the support they need?
Jake Richards
Yes. My hon. Friend is a massive champion of this issue. There are over 200,000 children of prisoners across the country. I am working closely with the Department for Education to ensure that we can identify them. It was a manifesto commitment and we are making strides; we now need to go further. In response to her invitation, I would be happy to be there at the end of November.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Jimmy, the son of two of my Shipley constituents, was given an IPP sentence with a tariff of two and a half years in 2007. He remains in prison with no set release date, despite having passed his mental health tribunal. I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s recent announcement to review these unjust sentences, but can the Secretary of State assure me that prisoners with autism, like Jimmy, will get the support they need to start a new life?
Fathers and Positive Male Role Models
Jake Richards Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for introducing this debate. I am cheered by the fact that since the general election, when I and most hon. Members at this debate—at least those on the Labour Benches—entered Parliament, the issue has been raised repeatedly in both Chambers. Members from all parties should be heartened that we are talking about such matters and making sure that they have the prominence they deserve.
We have heard a number of thoughtful and important contributions, but I was particularly moved by what my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) said about being a father and parent, and sometimes feeling like you are failing in that. That is an incredibly important emotion for us public servants to consider when we think about public policy. Often, fathers may feel unable to provide for their children, materially or emotionally, and we have to think about how we, as a society and as a Government, can support men and parents through that difficult period. That important point is not often made, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing so.
To answer the questions of the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) directly, when I was reappointed to my role, the Prime Minister made it explicitly clear that the cross-Government men and boys agenda would be right at the heart of his Government. The conversations I have had with him, both prior to and post him entering Downing Street, have only cemented that. We will undertake a summit in due course and at the right moment, and the change of Prime Minister and Government gives us an opportunity to work out the best mechanism for doing that.
It is one thing to hold a summit in Downing Street, but could we be more interactive across the country? We are looking at different mechanisms to make that a real moment for the country to talk about these issues and would be genuinely open to suggestions on a cross-party basis about how we can get that conversation going, out of this building and around the country, not just in Westminster. That is an ongoing discussion, and no doubt we will be able to update the House.
It is a great personal honour to be speaking in this debate. I am the father of a three-year-old girl—she turned three just yesterday. I think I speak for all parents when I say that from the moment you find out you are going to become one, your life is never quite the same again—that feeling is correct, because it never is. On a professional level, every day since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have been struck by the incredible work that organisations and groups do to support men. In my constituency, that includes Better Today in Kiveton Park, Andy’s Man Club in Maltby, Bramley and Kiveton Park—it operates across the country; I know we have a lot of Andy’s Man Club supporters in the Chamber today—and Dinnington boxing club. Sport is such a big part of this conversation about reaching and supporting men, and there is brilliant work in my constituency, too.
As all Members have said, fathers clearly matter, and where a father is not present, another male role model can also make an extraordinary difference—a granddad, a stepdad, an uncle, a teacher, a youth worker, a football or rugby coach, or a mentor. Indeed, the hon. Member for South West Devon raised the issue of teaching. I am always struck by the fact one in three primary schools does not have a male teacher. That is a massive problem, which I know colleagues in the Department for Education are trying to change. However, we all have a role, as parliamentarians and indeed as society, to perhaps try to change attitudes to teaching, particularly in early years, because this issue is vital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) talked about the importance of mentors. Absolutely, and there is a lot of good work happening already, including in her constituency, which she touched upon. Gareth Southgate is working on a mentorship scheme—many of us will have seen the documentaries—and there are other great organisations, such as Football Beyond Borders. I am also looking at what is happening internationally—some brilliant work is being done in California to recruit 10,000 new mentors to mentor young men and boys. There is a big opportunity here because there is already good work happening. What can we do as a Government to turbocharge that and make sure it is happening across the country? Watch this space on that one, because I am looking forward to developing this further.
We know, as has been touched on in the debate, that men are sometimes bombarded with competing ideas about what it means to be a man. The Government recently issued new guidance, which schools are following from this month, that rightly talks about young people developing positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity and learning from positive male role models. We will not counter the kind of toxic masculinity that we have spoken about in this debate by simply wagging our fingers at teenage boys, telling them just to get off their phone, or suggesting that all men are evil or that all masculine traits are wrong. We have to offer something positive—something better, something in the real world—to get them away from that narrow online space and back to participating again in society. If we cannot give boys a convincing idea of masculinity, built on confidence and kindness, responsibility and respect, and a sense of purpose, the algorithm will be only too eager to provide another one instead.
There is also a wider challenge, which is fuelled by a really difficult backdrop for men and boys in our country, and public policy must be made through that lens. We know that boys fall behind girls at every stage of education, from early years through to GCSE and beyond. Boys are more than twice as likely to be excluded from school and make up a far larger proportion of the NEET population, which is of course an issue that this Government are prioritising—my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) spoke about that. Indeed, the gender pay gap, which is a huge systemic issue in our country—the Treasury is doing good work to try to narrow it more generally—is in reverse for those aged 18 to 24. That does not mean that we take our foot off the pedal in trying to get equality for women, but it does mean that we have to consider that age group and what is happening for young men in our labour market, and I know that this Government will.
We know that men continue to have a lower life expectancy than women, and we know that suicide is still one of the leading causes of death for men under 50—a fact that is particularly poignant today, on World Suicide Prevention Day. Again, that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). We lose so many men to suicide—75% of suicides are men. That does not mean that we ignore women by any means, but when we think about mental health provision, we need to look at the facts and the data. What we are being told is that this is a particular issue, and it should inform policy.
Across a lot of areas—health, education, employment, family life—men and boys experience poorer outcomes. That is all part of a broader pattern that requires a broader cross-Government response, which is why my role as the Minister with responsibility for men and boys is a cross-Government one. Many of the industries that once provided generations of men with secure work and an identity have declined. Work and working-class communities were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). I see the decline in my own constituency. I am hugely proud to represent former mining towns built on the graft of working-class communities and often working- class men.
We should not of course romanticise the past. Many of the gender expectations of previous generations were highly restrictive, particularly for women, and nobody would want to turn the clock back completely. But we do have to understand what disappeared when those industries went and that post-industrial period occurred. What went were the routes into skilled work and institutions with social connection and status, and for many men a sense that they had an almost automatic, useful role to play in society and our economy. Where do boys and young men find that purpose today? When I speak to men and organisations working with them, three things come up: a need for purpose, belonging and connection. The decline of our industrial base in this country has greatly challenged that. We have to look for new mechanisms. We cannot just turn back the clock. Again, that is partly economic policy, but no doubt social policy as well. And it all goes back to the theme of this debate and why fathers and role models are so important, not as a social ideal, but as people who are present in young men’s lives to set an example, provide stability and help anchor them when life becomes difficult.
Supporting fathers is preventative: by strengthening relationships early on we can stop problems taking root. We can keep an eye on the longer term prize, because the boys we support today will become the fathers, partners and role models of tomorrow. The Government are doing that in several ways. I am proud to be part of a pro-family Government, something that I am very pleased to say explicitly. We are supporting families from the very beginning. We want family services to be accessible and welcoming to all parents, and for fathers to feel that support is for them, too. That includes recognising that the transition to fatherhood itself can be really challenging and making sure fathers are supported during those critical months around birth.
I mentioned Best Start family hubs and our wider family support services. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland will push us to go further and faster. He mentioned parenting courses—I am a big fan. There is good evidence in Australia on the use of online parenting courses. It is less about telling parents how to parent, and more about giving them the opportunity to take stock, have a moment and consider how they are parenting and whether their routine and their life is building a healthy family environment. I think we could all do with that every now and again. “Parenting courses” is sometimes the wrong term, but it is a moment for families to consider how they are raising their children. The Best Start family hubs agenda is reaching men in ways that hopefully work for them and includes flexible weekend provision, dedicated groups and outreach through trusted community settings.
Government Members will no doubt be pleased to hear that we are reviewing parental leave and looking carefully at how the system can better support working families and allow parents to play an active role during those crucial months. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Jon Pearce) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) about how important that is. Again, there was powerful advocacy for that change. They know that the Government are reviewing it and will return to Parliament with an update early next year. No doubt the Chancellor will hear their cries. Even if he is not here today, it will be noted.
We are also actively recognising the importance of positive role models and strong support networks more generally. Just yesterday I held a roundtable in Downing Street with a number of men’s mental health charities on the issue of suicide prevention to try to look at how we as a Government can work with partners in the communities as part of our developing agenda on devolution in place. There is no point in us in Whitehall just saying things. We have to work with the organisations that actually deliver. Too often public policy does not work for them.
Jim Shannon
On the issue of suicide, in my contribution I referred to the stats. It is unfortunately true that the level of male suicides in Northern Ireland is the highest in the whole of the United Kingdom—higher than in Scotland and Wales and higher than in England. Will the Minister share his thoughts with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland—Robbie Butler, the Health Minister —to ensure that the good things that the Minister and the Government are doing here can be shared and we can take advantage of what they have learned?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. This agenda has to include our devolved nations as well, and I will make sure that we do that. The disparities in suicide rates across the country are really striking. The north-east in particular has far higher suicide rates than London. More generally, the areas that are more isolated are where people become more isolated. There is also a link to economic factors, deprivation and unemployment, with unemployment being the metric that aligns most. We know that work is not just about financial support, but about purpose, routine, structure and connection, which are so important.
All of this feeds into our wider agenda. That includes tackling health inequalities, and we have launched England’s first men’s health strategy. It is focused on opportunity, which means ensuring that boys and young men can succeed in education. We have heard about the Milburn report, and all the work happening now and in the coming weeks and months. It is also focused on connection and belonging, which are fundamental. That means supporting healthy relationships, positive understandings of masculinity and strong community ties.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland for securing this debate. I reassure him and all Members that, as we develop the Government’s work on men and boys, fatherhood, mentoring and positive male role models, they will absolutely remain at the heart of this conversation. I want this to be a collaborative process across Government and with parliamentarians from both sides of the House, because this issue is clearly vital to all the communities we represent.
Mr Charters
I welcome the Minister back to his post. Will he commit to working with the new class unit set up by the Minister for Women and Equalities as part of her work?
Jake Richards
Yes. We are working very closely with the Department for Women and Equalities, and I was heartened by that announcement earlier this week, because there is a particular issue with working-class boys. The educational statistics are even more pronounced and acute for working-class boys in communities like my hon. Friend’s and mine.
We know that giving a young man opportunity means giving him a stake in his future. If we give him strong relationships, we give him people to turn to if the future does not go to plan. If we give him purpose and belonging, we give him reasons to look after himself and look out for others. That is how we can assure that boys and young men thrive. It is how we can build a better society for everyone, and that is what this Government are determined to do.
Young Offender Institutions: Authorisation of PAVA Use
Jake Richards Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
In April 2025, the then Lord Chancellor announced the authorisation of PAVA spray for use by a specially trained and selected group of staff in the three public sector young offender institutions: HMYOI Feltham A, HMYOI Werrington and HMYOI Wetherby. This authorisation was granted for a period of 12 months and was accompanied by enhanced oversight, monitoring and evaluation arrangements.
The introduction of PAVA in the YOIs was intended to provide staff with an additional means of responding to the most serious incidents of violence, where its use is necessary, proportionate and appropriate to prevent serious harm to young people in custody or staff. It remains authorised only as a measure of last resort. As the only distance-based tactical option available to specially trained staff in these settings, PAVA provides an important capability to respond to serious violence rapidly to reduce the risk of injury to staff and young people.
Violence within the children and young people’s secure estate continues to present significant challenges. While work continues to improve safety, stability and outcomes for young people in custody, staff must be equipped to respond effectively to the most serious and dangerous incidents.
Having considered the available evidence, including operational experience, monitoring data and ongoing evaluation of the use of PAVA in YOIs, during recess agreement has been reached across Government to extend the authorisation for a further 12 months in the three public sector YOIs and I wrote on 11 August to the Justice Committee and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to inform them of my decision. I am making this statement today to ensure all colleagues are aware.
This extension will provide further time to gather evidence on the effectiveness, appropriateness and impact of PAVA in youth settings. Throughout the extension period, every incident involving the drawing or use of PAVA will continue to be reviewed and evaluated as part of established oversight arrangements including ongoing monitoring of its use and the impacts on children with protected characteristics.
Data and emerging trends will be subject to ongoing scrutiny through existing governance processes, including oversight by the independent restraint review panel. An independent expert will continue to monitor the use of PAVA and provide advice on its operation, impact and any issues relating to proportionality.
Over the extension period, NHS England data and evidence relating to children on whom PAVA is used in the three public sector YOIs will be incorporated into the evidence gathered by the Youth Custody Service. This will help strengthen the evidence base and inform assessment of any health impacts, with input from the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England; any impacts on the emotional and behavioural wellbeing of children, including any longer-term implications as they develop into adulthood; and the impacts on children with protected characteristics and other vulnerable groups.
Ministers will continue to receive regular reporting on the use of PAVA, including on its effectiveness, any disproportionate impacts identified, and the actions being taken in response.
Our long-term ambition is to significantly reduce the use of force across the youth secure estate. To achieve this, we must continue to bring down levels of violence across the estate.
This is a key objective of the youth custody transformation plan, which is due to be published in the coming months. Alongside this, we will continue to improve standards for children in custody.
[HCWS310]
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service: IPP Sentence Annual Report 2025-26
Jake Richards Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Justice (Lord Timpson) has today made the following statement:
Today, I am laying before Parliament the HMPPS 2025-26 annual report on the IPP sentence, pursuant to section 67 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
This report sets out the activity across HMPPS for the financial year of 2025-26 to support those serving the IPP sentence in prison to work towards a safe release, and those in the community, towards the termination of their licence.
The latest published statistics show that as at 31 March 2026, there were 896 unreleased and 1,433 recalled IPP prisoners, compared to 1,012 unreleased and 1,532 recalled IPP prisoners on the corresponding date in 2025. As at 31 December 2025, there were 891 offenders serving IPP sentences in the community and 207 prisoners in hospital for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983, compared to 1,376 offenders in the community and 233 prisoners in hospital on the corresponding date in 2024.
The Sentencing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 22 January 2026, introduced further reforms to IPP licence termination on 1 June 2026. These reforms: reduced the qualifying period for licence termination from three years to two years following first release; and enable individuals whose licence is not terminated at the end of this period to apply for a further Parole Board review one year later, prior to automatic termination.
The IPP action plan 2026-27 is included as part of this annual report, which sets out planned HMPPS activity for the year, including six measurable targets. Through the IPP action plan HMPPS has committed funding to sustain vital services such as the IPP approved premises pilot, and to trial a new IPP advocate role, designed to provide more personalised support to those serving IPP sentences. Further successes include:
Additional funding for psychology services, enabling greater access to specialist assessments for individuals facing the most significant barriers to progression.
The phoenix unit at HMP Aylesbury is due to open later this summer as a purpose-designed residential unit to support IPP prisoners who have become disengaged from progression.
A release on temporary licence model has been agreed for all four progression regime prisons—Humber, Warren Hill, Erlestoke and Buckley Hall—to enable IPP ROTL.
Strengthened recall processes by: streamlining the documentation required for a recall request, to ensure that the reasons for recall are robustly and clearly stated; enhancing quality assurance for decision-making; delivering additional training for public protection casework section staff who formally revoke an offender’s licence; and ensuring that only senior managers in PPCS can revoke the licence.
In addition, HMPPS used the risk assessed recall review power to re-release 61 recalled IPP prisoners between 1 November 2024 and 31 December 2025, in some cases months ahead of a scheduled parole hearing.
The Government are determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for all those serving the IPP sentence and an eventual end to their sentence, but only in such a way that does not put the public and victims at risk.
[HCWS204]
Safeguarding in Youth Custody: Review and Government Response
Jake Richards Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Today the Government published their response to Isabelle Trowler’s independent review into the safeguarding of children in youth custody.
No child should ever come to harm, least of all while within our care. That is why safeguarding children within the youth custodial estate, as well as those being cared for by the state more broadly, must be an absolute priority for all of us in Government.
In November 2025, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman published a report into the historical abuse at Medomsley detention centre. There had been shocking and systematic abuse of young men and boys held there, by the very staff who were meant to protect them, between 1961 and 1987. The PPO’s report examined what was known by authorities and identified serious, missed opportunities to act. We must ensure that the failings of the past are never repeated.
While the youth custodial estate has changed significantly in recent years, with fewer children in custody and more held in therapeutic environments such as secure children’s homes and secure training centres, those who remain often present multiple complex needs. Despite clear progress, there remains troubling evidence that safeguarding issues persist.
In the light of this and the findings of the PPO’s report, I commissioned Isabelle Trowler, the chief social worker for children and families to undertake a rapid review of current safeguarding arrangements in youth custody.
I am extremely grateful to Isabelle for undertaking this comprehensive review, and to the whole panel of experts for all their contributions.
The review makes 34 wide-ranging recommendations for the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Custody Service, as well as other partners across Government. It concludes that safeguarding responses within the youth custodial estates are generally robust, but highlights notable failings and areas where more must be done to ensure children’s safety while they are within our care.
Importantly, the report addresses the management of allegations against staff and highlights how important independence and specialist expertise are within decision making that relates to child safeguarding. The recommendations also focus on the role of other key partners within the system, including local authorities, and on strengthening counter-corruption measures. Other important functions within the system are also addressed, such as reinforcing the importance of timely and regular vetting and Disclosure and Barring Service checks. I welcome all of Isabelle Trowler’s recommendations and support the direction they set both within the youth custodial estate and across Government.
We are committed to working closely with our partners across Government to consider how best to deliver these for the whole system. I thank my colleagues across Government for all the work that has been undertaken on these recommendations so far.
The YCS’s capacity and capability is crucial in delivering many of these reforms. That is why we have already begun implementing key changes within the youth custodial estate. We are bolstering expertise within the YCS to ensure there is specialist child protection proficiency, and are establishing a new safeguarding oversight board to provide dedicated scrutiny of risks, allegations and decision making. We have also improved the management of allegations against staff by ensuring that all abuse of trust cases are routinely referred to local authority designated officers and that safeguarding specialists are directly involved in counter-corruption investigations.
As the review makes clear, staff in the secure estate do one of the most demanding jobs in public service. It is our responsibility to ensure that our staff have the support and skills to keep children safe and deliver effective rehabilitation. We are redesigning initial training for frontline youth justice workers and strengthening recruitment to ensure the right people are better equipped in the right roles.
We will be taking forward the Trowler review recommendation for a proactive safeguarding inquiry and will reform the complaints system to allow trusted adults to raise concerns on behalf of children. Ensuring that processes are accessible, particularly for those with additional needs, is also crucial within this work. This will all ensure that children’s voices are heard and acted on.
The Trowler review highlights the importance of a whole-system approach to safeguarding. The youth justice system has a strong history of effective partnership working at a community level. We will further enhance cross-Government governance structures and ways of working, bringing together justice, children’s services and health partners.
The recommended reforms represent significant change to how we support and safeguard children across Government. Some of these measures will take time to implement and will need careful consideration to ensure they are practical and sustainable for the whole system.
Many of these recommendations will be taken forward as part of the forthcoming youth custody transformation plan, which will set out our longer-term vision for a safer and more effective youth custodial system.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the men who survived the horrific abuse at Medomsley, which was the catalyst for this review. While we cannot change the abuse that occurred, I would like to use this opportunity to reiterate the Government’s apology.
On our own behalf and that of past Governments, we are truly sorry for what you endured and for how long it was allowed to continue. Without your courage in coming forward and sharing your experiences, the full extent of the abuse may never have come to light. Hearing directly about the profound and lifelong impact that this has had has only reinforced to me the importance of this work and the imperative of strengthening safeguarding for children in custody today.
I will deposit a copy of “A Rapid Review of Safeguarding in Youth Custody” in the Library of the House. The Government response has been laid before Parliament.
[HCWS192]
Early Release of Prisoners
Jake Richards Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I thank the shadow Justice Secretary for his opening remarks. This is a profoundly serious matter for all Members in this place, victims across the country—including those here in the Gallery—and indeed all members the public.
Confidence in our law and order system must be maintained. We must all, therefore, recognise that we as a country face a challenge: to ensure public safety and protect victims while maintaining a functioning prison estate. I have no doubt that this is a priority for us all.
To begin, it is imperative to recognise the genesis of the Sentencing Act 2026, its implementation and provisions and, ultimately, why we are debating these issues. On 5 July 2024, the Home Secretary, in her first day in office as the then Justice Secretary, was presented immediately with a criminal justice system in crisis. There were fewer than 100 places left in the adult male estate. A day one decision for her was the nature and scope of an emergency release scheme, not whether there should be one. We all remember the chaotic scenes that we saw in the weeks afterwards. There were similar scenes when such last-minute release schemes were implemented by the last Government: judges were told not to jail the most serious offenders due to a lack of prison places and criminals walked away, with a lack of time to provide the most robust community measures.
The Conservative party released more than 10,000 prisoners early for a series of emergency measures taken to manage the capacity crisis they created. Those schemes were introduced at short notice, without the long-term reforms necessary to put the system on a sustainable footing, but there was no option but to act to prevent a collapse of the criminal justice system, which would have seen sex offenders and others able to act with impunity.
A prison capacity crisis is not just a problem for our prisons; it means the unravelling of the criminal justice system completely, with courts unable to hear cases, police unable to make arrests and a grinding halt to law and order in our country. Therefore, in the aftermath, the Government rightly wanted to ensure that would never happen again. The Home Secretary—then the Justice Secretary—commissioned the right hon. Sir David Gauke to undertake an urgent review of how we sentence offenders. On its conclusion, Gauke found that under the previous Administration action was taken only when the criminal justice system was within three days away of collapse.
We recognised then that a two-pronged approach was required. One part was to build more prisons, backed by capital investment. That is how we have been able to embark on the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, with 14,000 new prison places by 2031. Two years into this Government, 3,200 places have already been delivered—contrast that with just 500 extra places over 14 years under the Conservative party.
In the 14 years of Conservative government, 23 prisons were closed. We would not be having this debate if those decisions had not been taken.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is right: prisons were closed that, in my view, might have been kept open. Has he looked at those prisons to see if any of them could be brought back quickly into use? Clearly that would be much faster than building new prisons. Has he looked to other secure facilities that might be used as prisons? During covid, the Government acted quickly, passed laws and put Nightingale hospitals in place. Why can we not have emergency prison places rather than letting these dangerous people on to our streets to do more harm?
Jake Richards
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He has been consistent on this, although we do not agree on everything when it comes to criminal justice matters. The Government have looked at all options, including whether we can reopen those prisons closed by the last Conservative Government. I was struck by the shadow Justice Secretary’s welcoming of the suggestion that there should be new planning reforms around how we build prisons, because every time we try to build a new prison in a Conservative MP’s constituency, the Conservatives oppose it. It has happened time and again, with one thing being said at the Dispatch Box and their MPs arguing something completely different in their local media.
Sir Roger Gale
There are people in the Gallery and in the public out there who want to know that dangerous criminals will not be released at the start of September. That is what they want to hear; we do not want to hear the history. We want an answer from the Minister. He heard the offer from the shadow Secretary of State in reply to my question. We are prepared to back the necessary legislation before the recess to put a stop to this. Is he prepared to take that offer—yes or no?
Jake Richards
What we will not do is put our head in the sand, which would lead to another prison capacity crisis, which would lead to another urgent, chaotic early release scheme as we saw under the last Conservative Government time and again. I cannot look victims in the eye and tell them that is good for them or for the country, and I will not do so. That is why, when the Home Secretary was Justice Secretary—
Jake Richards
Let me make some progress first.
The Home Secretary recognised that alongside prison building, there would be a need to reform sentencing, and for that be done above party politics. That is the principal reason why she asked Sir David Gauke, a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to undertake an independent sentencing review.
Jake Richards
Some Opposition Members still think he is a great man. I do not think that is a universal view on the Opposition Benches.
Following publication of the review, the Sentencing Bill began its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent on 22 January this year. It was explained during its passage that many of its provisions would come into effect only in the autumn of this year. Any Government would continue to assess how best to achieve sustainability in our prison system, while ensuring public safety and confidence. Every decision that this Labour Government have taken has been based on keeping the public safe, protecting our criminal justice system and delivering justice for victims. That will continue to guide all future decisions, under this Prime Minister and the next Prime Minister.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Can the Minister not understand that people out there, such as my constituent Leanne Vaughan—her daughter was killed by a hooligan driver, and she had to wait 28 months before he was sentenced to 66 months in prison, but then was released after 21 months—do not believe what he is saying? It is appalling. People are heartbroken by their losses, and this Government are not meeting their expectations or ours.
Jake Richards
I understand. I meet victims all the time in my role at the Ministry of Justice. Before being elected to Parliament, I represented many victims of child sexual abuse every day in courts up and down the country. I understand the issues that victims such as his constituent face. I impress on the hon. Member that the Sentencing Act and the provisions that we are debating today have not yet come into effect. I am happy to speak with him outside the Chamber about that individual case, but I just put that in the context of the Sentencing Act and the provisions implemented by this Government.
I will deal briefly with the specific cohort of offenders cited in the motion. The grooming gang scandals remain one of the gravest betrayals of our time. We are determined to get to the truth behind years of systemic failure on the issue. I am sure that the whole House joins me in paying tribute to the victims and survivors who have so bravely spoken out about their ordeal. As I have said, before entering Parliament I spent the best part of my career representing just some of them. I know personally just how difficult it is for them to speak out.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I took part in Rupert Lowe’s independent rape gang inquiry—
Esther McVey
I took part in the independent rape gang inquiry, meeting victims who had waited such a long time for justice and to see their abusers put behind bars. What does the Minister have to say to those victims who received a letter to say that their perpetrators are back on the streets? Is that a mistake and it will not happen? Ministers had said that those who have committed the most serious and heinous of crimes would not be on the streets. Can he take this opportunity to say that those letters were a mistake?
Jake Richards
I am not sure which letters the right hon. Member is referring to, because none of the letters sent out by the Ministry of Justice has referred to people already being released. I understand the concerns that she raises. We take our engagement with victims incredibly seriously. The purpose of the letter is not merely for communication; it is also so that victims can have a say in licence conditions when offenders are released. Offenders are released as things stand. The Sentencing Act 2026 changes that for certain offenders, and there is a process in place by which probation ensures that the community is kept safe with robust licence measures. That will continue.
We have improved the Probation Service’s powers. We are putting £700 million into the Probation Service, which is the biggest investment for a generation. I understand the right hon. Member’s concerns—I really do—but I gently suggest to her that criminals have been released from prison for a long time. There are measures in place, and we need to ensure that they are as robust as they can be.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Everybody would appreciate some clarity that when we are talking about the letters, those are specifically the letters informing victims that the Sentencing Act 2026 will affect when their perpetrators will be released. The issue that has been raised by many victims is that these are blanket letters; they are not personalised. They do not say which perpetrator. In the letter, it says that “some” will be managed in the community. These victims have been so failed by our justice system at every step that when they receive such a letter, they assume that it means their perpetrator will not be managed in the community. Can the Minister please reflect on the impersonal letter that is sent, sometimes by email, to inform victims that what they thought was true is no longer true, and that their perpetrator may be out sooner than they had expected?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. The hon. Lady’s call for us all to reflect on that will be taken up. I know that the Justice Secretary and the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), who is sitting next to me, will have heard that. There will be further correspondence; it was not a blanket correspondence by any means. The Government and the Probation Service want to engage with victims as much as possible to ensure that their voices are heard every step of the way. I am grateful for the intervention.
Nick Timothy
We have brought this motion to the House. The Labour party has accepted that motion—it will not contest it and the House will not divide. Having accepted what we have put in the motion, will the Minister tell us what the plan is to ensure that rapists and sex offenders will not be released, starting from September? Will the Government bring forward emergency legislation before the summer recess? Will they bring forward new commencement regulations—yes or no? The Minister has our commitment of support if he does that. If he is not in a position to say so, because it is up to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and he does not yet know, the Minister can just say that.
Jake Richards
As happened on numerous occasions under Boris Johnson and Theresa May, in Opposition day debates the Government are quite within their rights not to divide on an issue—an Opposition day is an Opposition day.
This Government are dealing with the prison capacity crisis that we inherited. We are facing a situation where, if the Sentencing Act measures are not implemented, in October or November of this year we will be back where we were in July 2024. The Sentencing Act received Royal Assent in January and some of its measures are being implemented from September onwards. The Government will always balance making sure that we have a sustainable prison system and never going back to the crisis that we saw under the Conservatives with public safety and confidence in the system. That will continue under this Prime Minister and under the next Labour Prime Minister.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time—he is very generous—and for his kind remarks about my consistency. He also mentioned our differences, and I will explore those in greater detail in due course, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I can be helpful to the Minister. This matter seems to go well beyond party politics, because we have a crisis in prison numbers and this is an occasion on which we might find common cause and seek a way forward. Indeed, that offer has generously been made by those on the Opposition Front Bench, so perhaps the Minister, who I suspect is a rather decent man at heart, should take up that offer in the spirit in which it has been made, and see whether we can sort this out in a way that protects all our constituents from harm.
Jake Richards
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s kind words, personally, but I gently say that the Opposition party has no plan for how to deal with the prison crisis that its amendment would have brought about later this year—there is no plan; there is no suggestion; there is no idea of where they would put the criminals we are locking up every day. By the end of this Parliament there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before under a Labour Government. We are building more prisons than since the Victorian era. There is no plan from the Opposition. It is very easy and straightforward to bemoan the changes in the Sentencing Act, which received Royal Assent in January, but the Opposition have to come Parliament with a credible plan for capacity.
Jake Richards
I will not give way another time.
Once prisoners are released, offenders will be subject to strict licence conditions. We are adding tougher restrictions as part of the Probation Service’s toolkit for managing offenders when they leave prison. That includes restriction zones, which can be used for the most serious sexual and violent offenders, pinning the offender to certain areas rather than restricting the movements of victims.
We are ramping up tagging to monitor offenders in the community, with thousands more subject to 24/7 monitoring and curfews. We are already tagging at record levels, and we will invest a further £100 million to expand our ability to monitor even more offenders. That is the biggest expansion of tagging in history. Also, while on licence, offenders can be recalled immediately if they cannot be safely managed in the community.
To carry out all that additional supervision, we need a Probation Service that is fighting fit. That is why we are increasing probation—
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I understand what the Minister is saying about the looming prison crisis, but I just wonder whether he can explain to us how releasing dangerous sexual predators and grooming gang members fits with our manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls?
Jake Richards
I understand my hon. Friend’s intervention. Let us be clear that many of the offenders we are talking about have been released previously and would continue being released but for the Sentencing Act. This is about what measures we put in the community to ensure that the community is safe, and that is why we are investing more than ever before in our Probation Service and why we have recruited a further 1,300 probation officers this year. We are refocusing supervision to devote more time to dangerous offenders so that we can better protect the public. This is ultimately the choice: either strict licence conditions in the community for those who have already served time in prison under the changes; or, simply put, the collapse of the system altogether, leaving sex offenders and others to act with impunity.
I understand how distressing it can be for victims when an offender in their case is released. That is why we are taking steps, as I have already touched upon, to contact those eligible for and opted into the victim contact scheme to let them know how these changes will affect them, but I recognise that this will not cover all victims affected. That is why, through the Victims and Courts Act 2026, we will for the first time provide a new dedicated route for all victims to request information about an offender. We must ensure that we get this right, which is why it is taking some time to implement carefully, but this is proper engagement with victims rather than the chaotic botched emergency release schemes that we had under the previous Government.
Sir Julian Lewis
I have a fairly simple question. Does the Minister have a clear idea of what categories he regards as constituting dangerous offenders, and if he does, what percentage of the prison population is made up of these people? If it is something like 10%, 15% or 25%, that still means that there are 75% or more of other categories of prisoners who could and should be released before those in that dangerous category are even considered.
Jake Richards
Sentencing judges always consider dangerousness and risk to the public, as probation officers do. Every offender has a level of dangerousness, which is risk-assessed by probation as and when they leave prison. That has happened for the last 50 years and will continue to happen under the new Sentencing Act.
I want to end again by reflecting on the horrific grooming gangs scandal, which lays heavily on our national conscience, and the women and girls, often young girls, who were systematically raped and exploited and then disbelieved by those who should have protected them. Those who prey on children must face the full force of the law, but in order to do that, we need a prison system with enough space. The previous Government left prisons on the verge of collapse. We prevented the disaster of running out of places altogether, and the breakdown of law and order it could have caused, but only just. Now we are ensuring that we never again return to that position, building prisons at an exceptional rate and delivering landmark reforms to sentencing to ensure that there is always a cell available for the most dangerous offenders and to end the cycle of capacity crisis.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026
Jake Richards Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The statutory instrument makes a series of technical but important amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and associated regulations. Its purpose is to ensure that legal aid legislation remains consistent and aligned with wider changes to the law around anti-social behaviour orders and national security measures.
The instrument makes changes in three main areas. First, it updates the scope of civil legal aid to reflect the reforms to measures tackling anti-social behaviour introduced by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Secondly, it clarifies the legal aid framework for terrorism prevention and investigation measures, otherwise known as TPIMs. Thirdly, it aligns the legal aid framework for state threats prevention and investigation measures, or STPIMs, with the framework for TPIMs. Taken together, the changes ensure that legal aid will continue to support the vital principle of access to justice while maintaining a coherent and accessible system.
I will briefly discuss each of the main changes, starting with measures that tackle anti-social behaviour. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced respect orders, youth injunctions and housing injunctions. Those measures replace or reform much of the existing anti-social behaviour injunction regime. Civil legal aid is already available for current anti-social behaviour injunctions. The instrument simply ensures that legal aid continues to be available for the new orders and injunctions.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On the application of ASBIs, I noted in the equalities statement that according to a Department for Work and Pensions survey, in 2022-23, around 66% of those receiving legal aid had a disability. Some 40% had a mental health condition, and around 10% had some kind of learning disability. Those figures seem alarmingly large. I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts on that, or perhaps he could go away and look into it.
Jake Richards
That is certainly something we can look into. As my hon. Friend knows from his previous life before becoming a parliamentarian, legal aid is vital for access to justice, especially for those vulnerable groups. Although we are talking about antisocial behaviour measures and terrorism prevention orders, that still applies across the civil and criminal order regime. He is absolutely right, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister comes back to him with the details in due course.
Civil behaviour orders can have significant consequences for those subject to them, which is why legal aid access is so important. The change will make sure that individuals facing an order can continue to access civil legal aid, subject to the usual means and merits tests.
I turn to the amendments relating to national security. TPIMs are civil measures imposed by the Home Secretary to prevent an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activities. STPIMs are a parallel regime designed to prevent and disrupt hostile state threat activity. Both place significant restrictions on an individual’s daily life, including where they can go, who they can meet and who they can speak to.
Given the seriousness of those powers, it is right that the legal aid framework around them is coherent, clear and fair. Civil legal aid is already available for those who are subject to TPIMs and STPIMs, and that will not change. The instrument ensures consistency in legal aid availability for those two measures and fixes some ambiguities in the current drafting.
Legal aid is already available for TPIM cases, but the legislative framework is complex and has some ambiguity. The instrument clarifies the position and ensures that the legislation matches how the scheme already operates in practice. It confirms that legal aid is not subject to a means test, ensuring that individuals can obtain immediate access to legal advice to understand the restrictions on their rights, regardless of their finances. However, legal representation for proceedings is means-tested. That reflects the fact that TPIM proceedings are treated for legal aid purposes as judicial review cases. As with all JR proceedings, the legal aid means test applies. Finally, the instrument aligns the legal aid framework for STPIMs with the framework already in place for TPIMs.
The amendments to national security measures do not change the underlying legal aid policy. Instead, they ensure that legislation reflects how legal aid operates in practice, and that there is a consistent approach across the two comparable national security measures. To conclude, this statutory instrument will help to maintain a coherent and effective legal aid framework. It ensures that legal aid continues to be available as anti-social behaviour powers are reformed, clarifies the position in relation to TPIMs and ensures consistency with STPIMs. The changes provide greater clarity, support access to justice and ensure that the legal aid system continues to operate fairly and consistently. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Jake Richards
I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions. I appreciate the uncharacteristically constructive tone from the official Opposition—there was a party-political barb in there, but none the less, it was a welcome contribution. I greatly respect the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle’s previous career in the police; I know he comes to these issues with some expertise. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford, is absolutely right: there is no point having access to legal aid if there are no legal aid lawyers. The Government have taken huge steps to try to ensure that there are no legal aid deserts, including a huge upgrade in legal aid investment, but there is a lot more work to be done, and we will get on and do that. With that, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jake Richards Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
There are fewer than five transgender women in the general women’s estate. The exact figure cannot be provided without breaching data protection legislation obligations.
Douglas Lumsden
In Scotland two weeks ago, the Court of Session ruled it unlawful to hold biological males anywhere on the women’s prison estate, and even the SNP Government, after a year of dither and hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money wasted, have now been forced to accept this and move biological males out of women’s prisons. Can the Minister set out a timeline for all women’s prisons right across the UK to remove biological males so that they can fully comply with the Supreme Court ruling brought about by For Women Scotland?
Jake Richards
The judgment in Scotland relates to prison rules that apply in Scotland only—England and Wales have separate rules, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt know. I gently remind him that the rules in England and Wales were introduced in 2023. They mean that transgender women with male genitalia or any history of violent or sexual offending are not held in the women’s estate, except in truly exceptional cases that are signed off at a ministerial level. This Government inherited those rules, and Ministers have not approved the placement of any transgender women in women’s prisons. This is a classic case of this iteration of the Conservative party spending all its time in opposition criticising the very policy that it introduced.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010 and that Scotland has taken the relevant steps. The Minister responded to my hon. Friend with a fairly vague answer about what needs to happen in England. We know that there are women who are not biological females in the women’s estate in England and Wales. When will women get the same protections as in Scotland?
Jake Richards
The policy that we are implementing in England and Wales is lawful; it complies with the Prison Rules 1999 and the Equality Act 2010. The guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has come out. We have 40 days to consider and ratify it, and we will do so.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
Given that we are thinking about the women’s prison estate more generally, and given that the Swansea residential women’s centre was due to open in 2024 but now does not look like it will open at all, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Welsh women can access alternatives to custody?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are determined to drive down the population of women who are in prison where it is safe to do so. That is why Lord Timpson set up the women’s justice board, which has taken huge steps not just in improving resources for women in custody, but in ensuring that we have plans to reduce the population wherever possible.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Knife crime is a serious offence, and the courts rightly treat it as such. Immediate custodial sentences continue to be widely used, particularly for repeat possession, with sentence lengths increasing over time. Alongside this, the Government have strengthened powers through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, including tougher penalties and new offences to keep communities safe. No one should believe a word the Opposition say on knife crime—they broke their promise that anyone caught carrying a knife would face a presumption of immediate imprisonment, and they slashed neighbourhood police numbers as knife crime soared under their watch.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the latest figures show that the average custodial sentence for an adult knife or offensive weapon offence is just over eight months. Under the Sentencing Act 2026, there has been a presumption since March that any sentence below 12 months should be suspended, so what action is the Minister taking to ensure that that presumption does not effectively decriminalise many knife offences?
Jake Richards
I am incredibly proud of this Government’s work on knife crime, whether that is taking zombie knives off the streets or ensuring early interventions are used more effectively for children caught carrying knives. That is why knife crime is going down under this Government, having soared under the last Government.
I have two points to make about the presumption introduced by the Sentencing Act. First, it is just that—a presumption. The Conservatives keep talking about scrapping short sentences, but that is nonsense; it is a presumption. Secondly, that presumption was first proposed by the Conservative Government in their final few years in office. They now oppose the very policies they were suggesting.
Bob Blackman
The fact is that more and more young people are carrying knives, supposedly to defend themselves. That leads to knife crime on our streets—certainly in my constituency, it is a serious problem, particularly between young people. We have now experienced stabbings in schools, which is disastrous. Those who are caught carrying knives should face a custodial sentence, because unless we have a deterrent, people will continue to carry knives and, when threatened, they will use them. Will the Minister take the action required to ensure the message goes out that if you carry a knife, you are likely to end up in prison?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is right that deterrence is an important factor. He raises significant cases from his constituency. In my neighbouring constituency, in Sheffield, a young boy was murdered just last year as a result of knife crime, so the issue is close to my mind in my role as a constituency MP and as a Minister. This is a long-standing problem, one that requires education and early intervention. The hon. Member is right that custodial sentences and deterrence play a part, but it is a much more wide-ranging problem and we need to be careful about those interventions early on, particularly with children who carry knives because they feel they need to do so to protect themselves. I am not convinced that a custodial sentence is the right solution in every case.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Ten days ago, 17-year-old Jamal Coombes was killed in my constituency as a result of knife crime. Every young person deserves to live safely and fulfil their potential. His life was taken too soon. What actions are this Government taking right now to have a more co-ordinated approach with schools, public health and the police not only to prevent such awful tragedies, but to ensure that our young people feel safe and do not feel the need to have to carry a knife?
Jake Richards
On behalf of the Government, I send my condolences to Jamal’s family. Every incident of knife crime is a tragedy. Through our plan to halve knife crime over the next decade, we are undertaking a comprehensive, cross-Government approach to reduce violence and protect communities. That includes measures such as banning dangerous weapons and tightening rules around online sales, which has a real effect. We are funding more targeted enforcement activity, in particular in the 280 hotspots where we know, because the data suggests it, that knife crime is happening. We are making sure that our interventions are focused, but there is a lot more to do. Knife crime is coming down, but we are not celebrating that for a minute. Every incident is a tragedy, and we will continue to work hard to bring the rate down.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I know that you are a great supporter of the Parliamentary Knowledge Foundation. Next Thursday, it will be bringing MPs to Empire Fighting Chance, a boxing gym in my constituency that has been involved in the Government and Idris Elba-led anti-knife crime coalition. Does the Minister agree that listening to youth perspectives is crucial in the battle to reduce knife crime and that we should be commending the young people at Empire Fighting Chance for their involvement in what is often a deeply personal issue for them? They have lost friends and family to knife crime, but they want to be part of the efforts to address it.
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right that community initiatives are at the heart of how we confront knife crime and crime more generally. I credit the boxing gym in her constituency. I know that Dinnington boxing club does great work in my constituency, too, and I have been there on numerous occasions. Just last month we published the youth justice White Paper, and at its heart is ensuring that we involve children’s voices so that our interventions, as policymakers in this place and in government, are tailored to the challenges and issues that children are facing. She is absolutely right, and we are getting on with the job of doing it.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent Afzaal Hussain for the work that he does alongside Adele Webb. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have heard in this morning’s session about the tragic consequences of knife crime, and it is so important that the Government and wider society work together to do anything we can to reduce it.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Jake Richards
That is an absolutely shocking figure, and I pay tribute to all NHS staff and frontline public service workers, who often put their bodies on the line, quite literally. I meet the chair of the Sentencing Council regularly to discuss issues, and I will raise this one with her as well.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Jake Richards
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and her constituent. Lord Timpson set up the Women’s Justice Board, which is considering the issues with the women’s estate. We are determined to bring down the population of women prisoners where it is safe to do so. There is a lot more work to do, but we are making progress.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Jake Richards
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. My thoughts are of course with the family of Phillip Tetley, and with Eve in particular. I know that stretch of road very well, as it is on my commute to Retford station, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and Eve to see if I can do anything to help.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
My constituent was repeatedly sexually abused by a family member, who received four concurrent 28-year prison sentences. He threatened to murder her during the trial. After serving about 10 years, he was transferred to the Netherlands, where he was released immediately. My constituent lives in fear of his returning to the UK and carrying out the threats that he made towards her. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this complex case, and will he commit to reviewing international prisoner transfer arrangements that have the practical effect of allowing dangerous offenders to be released far earlier than the UK courts intended?
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Member for her question. She raises very serious points. I am, of course, happy to meet her, and her constituent. We are determined to bring down the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons. We need to do that safely. We recently agreed a memorandum of understanding with Latvia. We have a similar agreement with Italy, and I have been speaking with officials in the Netherlands to try to pursue a deal there, too. It is important that we do that safely, and I am very happy to have further discussions with her about that.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Street Whyze was set up by Danny Mondesir after the tragic stabbing of Oliver Freckleton in 2021. It undertakes targeted work with young people to prevent knife crime, knife carrying and youth offending. In the light of the new cross-Government knife crime strategy, can the Minister say how such programmes will be used to cut youth knife crime?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, 68 is far too late. When will prison officers achieve a fair, just and—crucially—lower retirement age?
Jake Richards
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued championing of this cause. We regularly meet the Prison Officers’ Association and will continue to do so. Prison officers do incredible work every day, up and down the country, and we will continue that dialogue.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
In their 2024 manifesto, the Government made a promise to set up specialist rape courts in every Crown court location. Two years on, how many have been set up?
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The stalker of my constituent Sophie Hall was arrested and deported. Post deportation, there was no monitoring of him at all. The stalking recommenced, and he is now back in prison in the UK. This Government’s progression model means that he will be released early, and will again not be subject to active probation supervision. Can my hon. Friend, who promised this would not happen, tell me how on earth Sophie will now be kept safe?
Jake Richards
I met my hon. Friend and Sophie at the end of last year, and as a result of that meeting, we made changes to the guidance on deportation of offenders. I have not been kept updated on what has happened since then; I will meet her and Sophie expeditiously.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Will the Minister join me in thanking and paying tribute to Carole Gould and Julie Devey from the action group Killed Women? They are constituents of mine and of my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who unfortunately cannot be here due to ill health. Will the Minister pay tribute to the enormous dedication, persistence and courage that they have shown in trying to get changes to sentencing for domestic abuse?