Probation Delivery
Jake Richards Excerpts(2 days, 12 hours 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:
The Government are committed to strengthening public protection and ensuring the Probation Service has the tools and capacity it needs to keep communities safe, protect victims and change lives.
Today I am setting out a package of reforms that will deliver tougher, more targeted supervision for offenders who pose the greatest risk, expand the use of electronic monitoring to improve management of offenders in the community, and ensure probation officers can focus their time where it has the biggest impact on public safety.
For too long, the Probation Service has operated under immense pressure. Years of unsuccessful structural reforms, rising caseloads, outdated systems, and chronic under-investment under the previous Government left the service overstretched and without the tools to manage risk effectively. These pressures were exacerbated by the wider criminal justice system challenges we inherited, including the prison capacity crisis.
This Government have already taken decisive action to stabilise the system, including through the independent sentencing review and the Sentencing Act. We are now going further to ensure the Probation Service can better supervise those most likely to reoffend, strengthening protection for victims and the wider public across the country.
The Government are investing up to £700 million into probation and the community by 2028-29—a 45% increase on current funding —which will be spent on measures including tagging, accommodation, and a new commitment to onboard at least 1,300 additional new trainee probation officers in 2026-27. This is on top of the 1,000 brought in in 2024-25 and the 1,300 committed to for 2025-26, which we are making progress on.
A central part of strengthening the Probation Service is professionalising the workforce, building upon its legacy of over 100 years of dedicated service but equipped with skills to reduce reoffending in the 21st century. Later this year the Government will publish a consultation on introducing external regulation for the Probation Service, to gather views on the most effective approach and legislation required. External regulation would aim to strengthen public understanding and provide formal recognition of the status of probation practitioners. This fulfils a long-standing commitment to recognise the professionalism, qualifications, knowledge and skills required for the unique role of a probation practitioner, in providing trusted advice to the courts and protecting the public. Regulation would enhance confidence in the workforce and secure parity with other recognised professions.
The Government are also committed to ensuring that probation staff are safe at work and we are taking action to protect them. We are installing visitor lockers in all probation contact areas to reduce the risk of weapons being brought into interview spaces, and rolling out bleed control kits and defibrillators to every probation office. In addition, we will pilot enhanced safety and security measures in seven probation offices from April 2026, including the use of archway scanners, handheld wands, body-worn video cameras for unpaid work staff, and enhanced personal safety training focused on de-escalation and aggression management.
These improvements form the groundwork for a more resilient and effective Probation Service that enables staff to build the right relationships to motivate change and spot early signs of escalating risk. Building on this foundation, and the encouraging signs of improved performance already emerging across probation regions during recent ministerial visits, the Government are today announcing a set of measures that will significantly strengthen how offenders are supervised in the community.
First, we are significantly strengthening the service’s electronic monitoring capabilities. Performance of the service is now significantly improved and, as part of up to £700 million investment in probation by 2028-29, we will introduce a presumption that all offenders released from prison will be tagged for the period of time they would have been in custody. This is unless probation practitioners deem it unsuitable for that individual. This step alone will mean thousands more offenders are electronically monitored on release. To enable this the Government will invest £100 million to deliver the largest expansion in the use of electronic monitoring in the service’s history to enhance public safety.
The Government will invest £5 million of this £100 million to pilot proximity monitoring within this Parliament, as committed to in the Government’s 10-year violence against women and girls strategy. This new technology—used to different extents internationally in countries such as Spain, the Netherlands, and Australia—enables us to know if an offender comes within a preset distance of a victim, adding a further layer of protection for victims of high-harm domestic abuse and providing a further powerful tool for managing risk.
We are also expanding intensive monitoring for priority groups where technology can provide even stronger safeguards. This includes the national roll-out of our domestic abuse perpetrators on licence (DAPOL) pilot, which will extend from eight probation regions to all 12 across England and Wales. This programme gives probation staff the ability to tag any offender they assess as posing a domestic abuse risk, not only those with a domestic abuse-related conviction. Tags can be used to impose curfews confining the offender to an address between certain times, require the offender to stay away from specific locations such as the victim’s home or workplace, and provide constant whereabouts monitoring to see exactly where they have been. Probation staff working with victims report high confidence in the scheme—83% say that tagging provides victims with greater peace of mind, and 75% say it has improved victim protection.
Further, we are expanding the use of technology to tackle some of the most persistent and harmful offences in our communities. The acquisitive crime pilot, already operating across 19 police force areas, sees burglars, robbers and thieves required to wear GPS tags which map their movements against the locations of recent unsolved offences. Any matches are shared with the police to support their investigations. This acts as a strong deterrent to reoffending with our impact evaluation suggesting that the pilot has cut reoffending by this group by 20%. From autumn 2027, the pilot will be rolled out further, being made available to all 43 police force areas by the end of this Parliament.
We are also improving the way electronic monitoring data is shared. The new electronic monitoring data insights tool will provide probation staff with quick access to electronic monitoring and behavioural information. Timely sharing of behaviour patterns—such as licence condition violations—will help staff make better decisions and support rehabilitation through earlier interventions, while easing their workload by replacing inefficient data collection processes. A small pilot will start in June 2026, and we aim to fully roll out by autumn 2026.
Alongside expanding tagging, we are taking steps to improve offender supervision. Persistent pressures on the Probation Service have meant that staff have not been able to deliver the levels of face-to-face supervision expected with all offenders. Between 2023 and 2025, 31% of target probation appointments did not take place due to unmanageable workloads. The position has been improving—the proportion of target appointments not completed fell from 35% in 2023, to 31% in 2024, and 27% in 2025. However, the system remains under significant strain. We must take further steps to ensure our most dangerous offenders receive the frequency and quality of supervision required to manage their risk effectively.
We are therefore making a number of key changes to ensure staff time is focused where it has the greatest impact on public safety. First, we are changing the way staff assess overall offender risk, integrating the use of statistical tools to the risk assessment processes. These tools will support practitioners when making their clinical assessments by providing information on an individual’s reoffending likelihood. Secondly, we will ensure we can deliver the face-to-face expectation with our highest-risk offenders through an overall rebalancing of staff time away from lower-risk offenders. This rebalancing will help us to set out expectations for probation supervision which are genuinely deliverable for staff, and which will protect the public by ensuring those most at risk of serious reoffending receive the most supervision.
There are two core safeguards we have considered in the design of these measures. First, practitioner judgment remains at the heart of the risk assessment process—those identified as posing the highest risk of reoffending and harm by probation staff will always receive the strictest supervision. Equally, in keeping with this Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, offenders we know have a history of domestic abuse will never be eligible for our lowest levels of supervision. These measures will help us to strengthen public protection practice, protect victims, and strengthen probation supervision by targeting it to where we can have the greatest impact.
Taken together, this package of reforms represents a major shift towards a more resilient, better-targeted and modern Probation Service—one that harnesses the expertise of its practitioners, makes full use of modern technology, and enables staff to build the right relationships to motivate change and spot early signs of escalating risk. By focusing probation’s resources where they are needed most and ensuring closer oversight of offenders who pose the greatest risk, we will strengthen public protection, support long-term reductions in reoffending, and give victims greater confidence and reassurance.
[HCWS1424]
Oral Answers to Questions
Jake Richards Excerpts(4 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
This Government are focused on removing foreign national offenders so that they are no longer a burden on the taxpayer. Strengthening prisoner transfer arrangements is a priority, and we are actively engaging with a number of countries to do that, so that more offenders can be removed and serve their sentences in their home countries.
Tessa Munt
I am not sure that that really answers my question. Let me set out the details of what I am asking about.
One of my constituents was murdered by a foreign national, which robbed her mother of her daughter and her mother’s grandsons of their much-loved mother. Her mother is very distressed to discover that the murderer is being repatriated a short while into his sentence, which was over 14 years, at which juncture she will lose what remaining input the family has into his parole arrangements, which was promised to her when the man was sentenced. What can the Minister say to reassure my constituents that, as victims, they will not see him released early in the country where he was born? What voice will victims have in situations like that in future?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member raises an important point. This Government are committed to ensuring that, where possible, foreign national offenders serve their sentence outside this country. To do so, we have to engage in bilateral negotiations with countries to achieve proper and rigorous prisoner transfer arrangements. That is why I have had discussions with colleagues in Ghana, Nigeria, Albania and Poland in the last few weeks; indeed, last month we signed a new arrangement with Italy. We are working at pace to ensure that those agreements are as rigorous as possible. On the individual case that she mentions, I am very happy to meet her, and indeed her constituents, to discuss the details.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to look at the flip side of this issue—specifically, what happens to those detained overseas who return to the UK? The Government are preparing to resume deportations of Syrian foreign national offenders, while the Syrian Democratic Forces have called on countries to repatriate their own citizens. In recent months, several ISIS-linked individuals have been returned to this country from the al-Roj camp. Will the Minister confirm whether these ISIS-linked individuals will return to custody in the UK, given their direct links to a proscribed terrorist organisation, or are those individuals now free in the UK, having faced no consequences for their terrorist affiliations?
Jake Richards
When foreign national offenders are deported from this country and are able to return, they should be detained and dealt with appropriately by law enforcement agencies. I would expect that to happen in every single case.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that this important matter falls under the remit of the Home Secretary, with whom I am in full agreement that the right to peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy. However, peaceful protest does not extend to unlawful behaviour. Should a protest contravene the law, the police have the powers to respond, and such behaviour will be met with appropriate consequences.
Steve Witherden
Proposals to restrict the right to protest based on “cumulative disruption” are causing great concern. It is absurd that a march by an anti-racist group one week could be blocked because an anti-abortion march occurred the week before, and that this power could be extended across large parts of a city. Such a significant change demands proper scrutiny. This House must have adequate time to debate and vote on this issue. Can my hon. Friend the Minister guarantee that?
Jake Richards
As my hon. Friend knows, this is a matter for the Home Secretary. If my hon. Friend seeks parliamentary time for a debate, he should come to business questions on Thursday morning.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly, the Home Secretary has the power to ban marches but no power to deal with static protests. This weekend we had the annual al-Quds hate demonstration, at which individuals regularly chanted antisemitic slogans, but the police could take no action. Will the Minister have discussions with the Home Secretary on what can be done to police and ban static demonstrations that will clearly lead to a contravention of the law? The big problem in London is that police are being sucked into the centre of the city and taken away from the boroughs where they should be doing their policing work.
Jake Richards
The hon. Member raises an important point, as I know he has repeatedly in the past, and I will raise the issue with the Home Office. I put on record that the incidents of antisemitism we saw over the weekend were wholly disgraceful, and this Government will do everything we can to stamp them out.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Government’s relentless clampdown on the right to protest has been disgraceful. However, the High Court’s ruling that the proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful is a victory for the National Council for Civil Liberties, which is now challenging policies that suppress and criminalise peaceful protesters. Does the Minister agree with me that our so-called justice system is being weaponised to intimidate and shut down legitimate protests, and that this Government’s assault on our fundamental right to protest has failed?
Jake Richards
No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The Home Secretary has been very clear that that judgment will be appealed in the courts. We have been absolutely clear as a Government that the right to peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy, but those rights are balanced, and it is crucial that, where peaceful protest contravenes the law, the law stands firm.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
People should have the right to protest, but that needs to be coupled with responsibilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned, it is outrageous that fringe groups feel emboldened to protest in support of terrorist ideology, contrary to basic British values. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that these people are under no illusion about how they will end up being prosecuted if they openly support fundamentalist Islamist ideology, and that if they have no right to be here, they will be deported?
Jake Richards
As I have said, this is a matter for the Home Secretary. She has made it abundantly clear that, although there is a right to protest in this country—an important right that should be protected—where incidents such as those the hon. Gentleman has identified occur, those individuals should face the full force of the law.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
This Labour Government are committed to halving knife violence. We have introduced reforms to ensure that every child caught with a knife receives a mandatory plan to prevent reoffending. There is still much more to do, and we will set out a cross-Government plan to reform the youth justice system over the coming weeks.
Adam Thompson
In December 2024, 18-year-old Noah Smedley from Ilkeston in my constituency was killed when he was stabbed by a 17-year-old armed with a Rambo knife. For a young man to lose his life this way, murdered by another teenager, was absolutely devastating to our community. There was a very deep public outcry of grief in this tight-knit town with a strong local identity. Noah’s death hit the town profoundly. Could the Minister outline the work that the Government are doing to protect young people, especially teenage boys, from the horrors of knife crime?
Jake Richards
Each case is an absolutely tragedy, and Noah’s is no different. On behalf of the Government, I send our commiserations and thoughts to his family and, indeed, the whole community, which suffers when these events occur.
In the past 18 months of this Labour Government, we have seen an 8% reduction in knife crime, which is a start. Very recently, we invested a further £15 million in the turnaround programme—a specialist programme aimed at early intervention, working particularly with young people and teenagers. We have set out a three-year funding settlement for youth justice services, offering for the first time in a generation that stability and certainty. We have taken tens of thousands of dangerous knives off the streets, and have invested in violence reduction units, young futures hubs and young futures panels. There is a lot more to do, but this Labour Government are getting on with the job of tackling knife crime.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of knife crime, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson). Every incident of knife crime is taken seriously and has a devastating effect on the victim, their family and the community. As I said, knife crime is down 8% under this Labour Government. That is a good start, but we have also just announced record investment in early intervention services, whether that is the Turnaround programme or youth justice services more generally. In the coming weeks, we will publish a cross-Government strategy for tackling knife crime, which will involve work by colleagues at the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. That is the best way of ensuring that we tackle the causes of knife crime.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Jake Richards
The practicalities of that case are for colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that human rights in a health setting are incredibly important. Specific tribunals deal with that issue, and I would be very happy to deal with that case in writing if he writes to me.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Unlike in category A prisons, prison officers at HMP The Verne and HMP Portland are not routinely issued with protective body armour—namely, stab vests. Protecting our prison officers from harm is essential in all prisons, as has been made abundantly clear to me by local branches of the Prison Officers’ Association. With that in mind, will the Minister work constructively with me and Lord Timpson to introduce appropriate body armour for all prison officers, regardless of the category of prison in which they serve?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. The Government have invested £50 million to ensure that our brilliant prison officers, who do incredible work, are fully protected. I believe that I am meeting my hon. Friend tomorrow to talk about an issue in his constituency, and we can put this matter on the agenda, too.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Grooming gang survivors have told us that they were trafficked between England and Scotland. Police were aware of those allegations of abuse but failed to do anything about them. Will the Minister explain how the grooming gang inquiries on either side of the border will work together to ensure that the perpetrators, and those responsible for the cover-up, are held to account?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have met the academics behind the University and College Union reports on the prison education service, which highlighted the real challenges around the wellbeing and mental health of educators, as well as their safety, especially with the racism they have been experiencing. Will my hon. Friend look at carrying out a complete review of the prison education service to ensure it is fit for purpose and able to do the job it was designed for?
Jake Richards
Lord Timpson and I are looking at this issue in the round. We are ensuring that where prisons have education contracts, they are being given full effect, which often is not the case. My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are working on it, and we will keep her informed.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
While it would be inappropriate to speak of a live case, I am mindful of the McNally family from my constituency, who are currently sitting through the trial of a man accused of murdering their daughter—truly heartbreaking. There was another murder in County Fermanagh recently. This demonstrates how unsafe society is for women, particularly with social media and online abuse. Will the Minister outline what efforts she is making with online platforms to do more?
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
First, I thank Ministers for inviting me to a meeting yesterday on unduly lenient sentences. My constituent, Tracey Hanson, and other campaigners like her continue to raise powerful points on the need for victims to have parity with offenders on rights and support. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government intend to achieve that parity during this Parliament?
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his attendance at yesterday’s meeting. The testimonies given by his constituent, Tracey, and other victims there were truly powerful. I said this at the meeting in private and I am happy to say it again at the Dispatch Box: we are working at pace to look at all the solutions. We will contact his constituent, and indeed him, as and when we have our position.
Women in the Criminal Justice System
Jake Richards Excerpts(5 days, 12 hours 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:
"I wish to update the House on the Government’s work to improve outcomes for women in or at risk of contact with the criminal justice system, and to set out next steps following the publication of the women's justice board report today.
Although women account for only a small proportion of those in custody and serving community sentences, they face distinct and complex challenges. Evidence shows that women in custody are more likely to have experienced domestic or sexual abuse, trauma, mental ill health and substance misuse. They are also more likely than men in custody to be primary carers. Reducing the number of women entering custody is essential to breaking cycles of harm that affect families and communities.
The women’s justice board was established to support the Government goal of enabling more women offenders to be managed in the community. At the request of the Deputy Prime Minister, and at my request, members of the board have produced a report offering recommendations to reduce the number of women in prison, and to ensure women receive the support they need across the system to turn their lives around.
A key recommendation in the report is the need for sustainable, long-term investment in women’s specialist services for delivering gender-specific, trauma-informed support. In line with this, I am delighted to announce that the Government will provide an additional £10 million in funding for women’s community and voluntary organisations over the spending review period, bringing total funding over this period to £31.6 million. This uplift will strengthen diversion pathways and build capacity within the women’s community sector—supporting the sustainable, resilient services called for by the women’s justice board.
I am very grateful to members of the board for their leadership, expert judgement and unwavering commitment to improving women’s justice.
As we move from strategy to delivery, the women’s justice board will now come to an end. To support this next phase of work, we will transition to a new women’s justice advisory group. This group will act as a distinct advisory forum, providing external insight, expert advice and constructive challenge to support implementation.
Improving outcomes for women in the criminal justice system remains a priority for Government. We are now going to consider carefully the recommendations in this report and how we are best able to deliver reform in this vital area.
I will deposit a copy of the report, ‘Women’s Justice Board recommendations for reducing women’s imprisonment’, in the Library of the House.”
[HCWS1401]
Youth Justice System
Jake Richards Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Today I have published a policy statement setting out the first stages of the Government plan to modernise and reform the youth justice system so that it is fit for the future.
The youth justice system in England and Wales has seen considerable success in recent decades, with significant reductions in first-time entrants, proven offences, and the number of children in custody. This reflects the dedication of our frontline professionals and volunteers who make up that system.
However, the children who come into contact with the system today often present with increasingly complex needs and face significant barriers to rehabilitation. To continue protecting the public and prevent further victims, the system must evolve.
Our statement sets out the Government first phase of reforms to modernise how youth justice services are funded, governed and supported. It focuses on strengthening early intervention, reducing unnecessary use of custody, ensuring accountable and supportive governance, and providing frontline services with greater confidence in their funding, in return for stronger outcomes.
This publication lays the groundwork for further reforms, which we will set out the Government vision for a reformed youth justice system.
We are proud to be introducing more dependable funding arrangements for youth justice services. From this financial year, multi-year funding settlements will give frontline services the certainty they need to plan ahead and manage their resources more effectively. We will provide £281 million over three years for the youth justice core grant, alongside extended, multi-year investment for the successful turnaround programme—a further £46 million over three years—enabling youth justice services to continue their vital work diverting vulnerable children away from crime.
In the light of the evolving youth justice landscape, the statement also outlines reforms to oversight structures. These include refocusing the youth justice board towards supporting the frontline in a continuous improvement role, while transferring responsibility for the development, funding and monitoring of youth justice policy to direct ministerial oversight in the Ministry of Justice.
This Government are committed to a youth justice system that embraces the latest technology and data. As part of our wider plan for this, we will establish an expert advisory council to support the responsible use of analytics and artificial intelligence to strengthen early intervention and improve outcomes.
Ensuring custody is used only as a last resort for children remains a central priority of this Government. Too many children are detained in custody on remand but then receive a community sentence, an experience which can be damaging to the child’s life outcomes and at high financial cost to local authorities. To reduce unnecessary custodial remands, we will change the way annual youth remand funding is distributed, supporting local authorities to take a regional approach to develop stronger community remand and bail support options. We will invest a further £5 million through regional remand partnerships to create community remand placements, with particular focus on specialist fostering.
In addition, I have established a new departmental board to drive improvements to standards in youth custody. This statement outlines some of the initial steps we are taking to improve safety, education, time out of room and staffing in the youth estate.
This statement lays the foundations for further reforms that will be announced in the spring. These proposals, taken together, will offer the most significant reforms to the youth justice system in a generation, supporting this Government’s clear missions to make our streets safer and to break down barriers to opportunity for the most vulnerable children.
The full policy statement will be laid before the House and it will also be made available on gov.uk.
[HCWS1334]
Youth Knife Possession
Jake Richards Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), and I have published new Government guidance on child knife-possession offences.
This guidance, applying to all police forces and youth justice services throughout England and Wales, sets a clear expectation that children who break the law by carrying a knife should receive a swift, robust and evidence-based response, including tailored support and high-quality interventions delivered by youth justice services.
Knife crime has destroyed far too many lives, and this Government have set an ambitious but essential target to halve knife crime over this decade. We are already making tangible progress.
Since the start of this Parliament, knife crime has fallen by 8%, meaning 4,229 fewer offences. Knife homicides are down by 27% and hospital admissions for stabbings have fallen by 11%. We have banned dangerous weapons such as ninja swords and zombie-style machetes, and we have taken nearly 60,000 knives off our streets.
But for too long, children found in possession of knives have not faced swift and sufficiently robust consequences to prevent reoffending. Young knife carriers have been given empty warnings and, in some cases, simply have been required to write letters of apology to their victims. Our estimates suggest around 1,000 children who are currently caught in possession of a knife face no meaningful consequences or intervention. These are inadequate responses to child knife-possession offences, which do not result in a meaningful intervention to address the offending behaviour, or a penalty. We are changing this.
In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring that every child caught in possession of a knife would be referred to a youth justice service and receive a mandatory plan to prevent reoffending. This marks an important milestone in the Government’s mission to halve knife crime within a decade and to make our streets safer.
The guidance brings about greater clarity and consistency to operational partners and will require a step change in the way that the criminal justice system responds when a child is found in possession of a knife. This guidance makes clear our expectation that the response to knife possession should always be swift, robust, evidence-based and thorough. Police will swiftly refer every knife possession case to youth justice services— multi-agency, local authority-based teams working with children at risk of offending—who will then design a targeted action plan for each child.
Specialised plans will address the root causes of the child’s offence, whether that’s exploitation by criminal gangs or childhood trauma. Targeted action could include mentoring schemes or support to remain in education, giving children the foundations they need to turn their back on crime and keep our streets safe. Repeat offending or refusal to engage with a mandatory plan will be met with robust action, including criminal charges.
The guidance will be accompanied by more comprehensive data collection, which will provide a clearer picture of which interventions are most effective at preventing reoffending. In addition, local scrutiny and independent inspections by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation will ensure the guidance is being implemented.
We thank all partners across policing and youth justice services for their expert support in developing this guidance. This is an important step in strengthening the police and youth justice response to children who carry knives.
The guidance will be made available on gov.uk.
A copy of the guidance will also be deposited in the Library of the House.
[HCWS1330]
Oral Answers to Questions
Jake Richards Excerpts(1 month, 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)
Prison education builds skills for life, including reading and numeracy, alongside work-focused training. We are expanding prison apprenticeships and prison industries, providing work-ready skills to support rehabilitation.
Lauren Edwards
I thank the Minister for the work he is doing in prisons to improve literacy, but last week the Government confirmed to the Justice Committee that core prison education provision has been cut by a quarter nationally under retendered contracts. The independent monitoring board recently raised concerns about the impact that that will have in prisons, including Rochester prison in my constituency, on prisoner rehabilitation. We know that stable work is one of the top factors in preventing male prisoners from reoffending, so education and training are therefore key to reducing our prison population in the long term. How will the Minister ensure that this will remain a priority?
Jake Richards
It was fantastic to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency with her just last week to visit a facility in the youth custody service, and I look forward to visiting Rochester prison with her in the future. She is right to raise this issue. There are real fiscal pressures when the two twin strategic objectives for this Department are dealing with a prison capacity crisis inherited from the previous Government and pressures in our courts, but that does not mean that we are going to overlook the importance of educational work in the prison system. We are looking at working with the third sector and the private sector to ensure that we can provide adequate provision while maintaining our two strategic aims of stabilising the prison system and solving the backlog.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Next year, the Government will spend more money on education in prisons, yet they will actually commission 25% less education by way of quantity of service. Why are they doing such a poor job of commissioning education on behalf of the taxpayer?
Jake Richards
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who asked this question last week as well. We are raising the quality of the provision of education, but he is right to identify some issues with the contracts that the last Conservative Government entered into, which we are having to look at and deal with. As I said to him last week, it is important that we look at alternatives to those contracts. As I have just said, that includes working with the third sector and looking at how we can get more private sector provision. It also includes, as he said last week, working with governors individually to ensure that they have more autonomy and power to bring in educational facilities from local colleges and universities where it is possible and safe. I am getting to work to do that this week.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
We recognise that parole hearings can be traumatic for victims, and victim liaison officers can support them throughout the process. We are launching a victims’ code consultation, which will also give victims the opportunity to provide input as to what more can be done.
Anneliese Midgley
Members of James Bulger’s family are my constituents, and they are yet again facing the agony of another parole hearing for Jon Venables, an ordeal that continues to retraumatise them more than 30 years after James’s horrific murder. While Parole Board decisions are rightly independent, the system must command public confidence, so will the Minister give the Parole Board an overarching assessment of Venables’ current risk and tell the House what reviews of the automatic two-year parole hearing cycle are being considered?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is a fine champion for her constituency, and has raised this case with both me and other Ministers on numerous occasions. Baroness Levitt, who is responsible for Parole Board hearings, will meet Ralph Bulger and his legal advisers this afternoon to discuss this very issue, and I am sure she will be able to offer some more substantive answers to my hon. Friend’s constituent’s question. I put on record my thanks to Ralph for his campaign, and am very happy to meet him or anyone else on this issue in due course.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
There is an 82-year-old man who has been in prison for 38 years. He was convicted of murder, and the trial judge in 1989 said that this was “not a violent process” and gave him a life sentence with a 15-year tariff, which expired over 22 years ago. He is repeatedly described as an exemplary prisoner. Because he has maintained his innocence over the past 38 years, he has not attended the prerequisite courses that would require an acceptance of guilt, so the Parole Board assesses his risk to the public if he is released as “unmanageable”, which seems ludicrous. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Parole Board’s repeated response to this situation and whether there should be some sort of system for those who maintain their innocence for a great number of years?
Jake Richards
As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, I am unable to talk about the specifics of that case, but if she writes to me, I will make sure I get back to her with any details I am able to share.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Decisions on remand and sentence length are made by judges independently of Government, and it would be wholly wrong for a Government to intervene in a judicial matter.
Siân Berry
I am disappointed that the Minister has not acknowledged the real harm and suffering that is going on, which is an obvious consequence of the escalation by Ministers of the number of crimes with which people taking protest action are being charged. Does he not agree that incarcerating people for long months and years without trial for offences that are in essence political has no in-principle place in a democracy such as ours?
Jake Richards
I do accept that there are issues with remand, which are caused by the huge backlog in the court system which this Government are trying to fix. I look forward to seeing the hon. Lady and her colleagues in the Green party support our proposals when they are introduced next month by the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman).
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Members on both sides of the House share my deep concern about the Government’s amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which has already been dealt with in Committee and which would restrict the right to protest on the basis of “cumulative disruption”. Does the Minister not agree that, given the significance of that proposal and its serious implications for our fundamental right to protest, it is essential that the House has sufficient time in which to scrutinise, debate and vote on it? Can he give me that assurance?
Jake Richards
That piece of legislation is going through the House, as it should. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck between the important right to protest and the protection enabling communities and groups to lead their lives with no trepidation or stifling, and I believe that the amendment strikes that balance.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise reoffending. It is why the Government are making a record £700 million investment in our Probation Service—a 45% increase—to try to fix a service that the last Conservative Government broke completely. That is the best and only way we will deal with the prison capacity crisis and clamp down on reoffending.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Jake Richards
This is utter nonsense, Mr Speaker—the hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands how our legal system works. The Government understand that lawyers have to represent all sorts of people all the time, and we will stand by that. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the shadow Attorney General, while serving on the Tory Front Bench, is currently representing Roman Abramovich, a sanctioned Russian oligarch. There is no word from the Opposition Benches on that issue at all.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I very much welcome the fact that Llanelli, along with the rest of Wales, will be in the pilot expansion of the victims’ right to review scheme. However, as the Minister will know, it is often very difficult for children who have suffered neglect and abuse, or adults who suffered it as children, to report such incidents. Will the Minister agree to meet me to look again at extending the six-month time limit for summary offences, which leaves survivors with no redress and allows abuse and neglect to go unpunished?
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State instruct his officials who are putting together construction plans for a new mega-prison adjacent to HMP Grendon to actually listen to local voices, rather than insisting from a distance on traffic management plans that will put thousands of heavy goods vehicles down totally inappropriate rural roads?
Jake Richards
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; when we are building new prisons, we have to think about the local area and ensure that we listen to local people’s views. I would gently say that the Conservative Government promised 20,000 new prison places, but managed just 2% of that—I think we are starting to see why.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government were making great strides on imprisonment for public protection sentences, yet after my constituent, who was held for nearly two decades, had a minor infringement—he missed an appointment—he ended up back inside. That cannot be right. We need to ensure that people get proper support outside. Will the Government review what happens to IPP prisoners post release?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the sale of Government land around HMP Wealstun. Were neighbouring residents given advance notice of the auction details so that they could express an interest?
Jake Richards
If the right hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will get back to him on those details.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation found that weaknesses in risk assessment, information sharing and planning in domestic abuse cases are leaving victims at greater risk of harm and without consistent safeguarding across Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps his Department will take to ensure that the changes identified in the report are implemented and that victims of domestic abuse receive effective support through the criminal justice system?
Jake Richards
I will look at that report and personally make sure that we consider what the recommendations are and how they can be implemented. This Government have put record investment into our probation services. We are also harnessing technology to ensure that probation officers can do what they are trained and want to do, which is to work with offenders to rehabilitate them, rather than be bogged down in paperwork. I will look at that specific case and come back to the hon. Lady.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) asked about the two-year parole cycle when she raised the appalling case of James Bulger. James’s dad, Ralph, is now a constituent of mine, which is why I am following up. Will the Secretary of State consider changing the rules around the two-year system, given the family’s re-traumatisation when reliving what happened to James every two years?
Prison Capacity: Annual Statement
Jake Richards Excerpts(1 month, 3 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)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on prison capacity.
Today, the Government are publishing the second annual statement on prison capacity, a copy of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The statement reflects this Government’s determination to be open and honest about the state of our justice system—not to hide the problems or downplay the pressure, but to face reality and act decisively.
Today’s annual statement sets out the latest prison population projections and supply forecasts, and the picture that it paints is clear: our prisons are still under severe strain. The risks that we inherited from our predecessors have not vanished overnight, and the figures show that, without this Government’s action, which was opposed by the Conservatives and Reform every step of the way, our law and order system would be in crisis today, with criminals allowed to roam the streets, and victims failed. For the first time in a very long time, we are no longer forecasting a chronic deficit in prison places. When the impact of this Government’s landmark sentencing reforms is taken into account, supply is now expected to keep pace with demand in our central projected scenario. That is real progress, but let me be absolutely clear: this is no time for complacency. The system remains under considerable pressure, the margin for error is slim, and the work to stabilise it is far from finished. The statement only furthers the Government’s determination to fix the system fundamentally.
Let us remember where we came from. This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. At one point in 2024, there were fewer than 100 places left across the entire adult male estate. Had we allowed prisons to overflow—a risk the Conservative party was happy to take—courts would have been forced to suspend trials, police would have been unable to make arrests, and criminals would have been left to run amok on the streets of this country, as we would have been forced to release thousands of offenders as an emergency measure, the previous Government having left no proper plan in place. We were just one bad day—a protest turned ugly or a surge in defendants in custody awaiting trial—from a total collapse of the criminal justice system. This is not alarmism; that was a dangerously real possibility, and it was the direct legacy of 14 years of neglect by the previous Tory Government. In more than a decade, only 500 prison places, net, were added, while demand surged relentlessly.
The shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), whom I welcome to his place, had a role in this sorry mess. In 2016 and 2017, when he was chief of staff to the then Prime Minister, his Tory Government closed 262 more prison places than they opened. Now, in opposition, they oppose every action to fix the problem that they caused. In short, doing nothing—as advocated by the Tories and Reform—would have risked the total breakdown of law and order in this country. We know that the previous Government chose to stick their head in the sand and not face up to the crisis that they had created, but we cannot ignore this. The alternative—doing nothing—would have been a reckless gamble with public safety, which no responsible Government could countenance.
That is why, in September 2024, when we were faced with the immediate risk of gridlock, we took decisive emergency action. We changed the automatic release point for certain standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40%, to ease the intolerable pressure on the system. That was not an easy decision, but it was the responsible one. Emergency action bought us time, and, in December 2024, we set out our 10-year prison capacity strategy—the most ambitious prison-building programme since the Victorian era. We committed up to £7 billion towards the delivery of 14,000 additional prison places by 2031.
Today’s statement shows that that commitment is not just rhetoric, but a reality that the Government are driving forward. Since July 2024, we have delivered around 2,900 additional prison places, including by opening HMP Millsike in March 2025, and a new house block at HMP Fosse Way in December. Around 5,000 more places are now under construction, including new house blocks at existing prisons, and a brand-new prison in Leicestershire, HMP Welland Oaks, is due to open in 2029. [Interruption.] Major infrastructure projects always carry risk, but based on the latest assessments, the Government have retained our delivery target of 14,000 new places by 2031 —[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am interested in hearing what the Minister has to say, as are our constituents.
Jake Richards
I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We cannot just build our way out of this problem. Without further reform, the prison population is projected to rise by around 3,000 people every year, outstripping supply even while the largest prison-building programme in generations is under way. That is why wholesale reform is essential. This Government had the courage to act. First, we launched the independent sentencing review, led by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke. Secondly, thanks to that work, we delivered the landmark Sentencing Act 2026, which will ensure that punishment works to cut crime and protect the British public.
Those reforms are about being smart, responsible and honest about what works. They will keep dangerous offenders off our streets, end the revolving door of less serious offenders going in and out of prison, and put victims first, with tougher and more credible punishments outside prison. The provisions in that Act include a presumption in favour of suspending short custodial sentences for less serious offenders, which we know do not work in many cases. Almost 60% of those jailed for less than a year reoffend within 12 months—that means more crime and more victims. This reform is expected to have a particular effect on women in prison. Nearly 80% of women who receive custodial sentences spend mere weeks in prison, which causes huge problems for their prospects of rehabilitation and costs the taxpayer millions. We can do much better.
For offenders who do go to prison, their release will depend on their behaviour while inside. Release at the earlier point will be theirs to lose, and those who behave badly can be kept in for longer, right up until the end of their sentence. That model is based on the one used in Texas, where crime is down, prisons are being closed and the taxpayer is saving money. When offenders are released, they will face a strengthened licence period, with swift recall to custody if they step out of line. New strict licence conditions, such as banning alcohol-fuelled offenders from pubs or keeping troublemakers away from football matches, will be tailored to risk. More offenders will be forced to pay back their debt to victims and the communities that they have harmed, through financial penalties or unpaid work. Taken together, those reforms are expected to reduce the prison population by around 7,500 places by 2028, while improving outcomes for victims and keeping the public safe. To take that further, the Act will also make it quicker and easier to deport foreign national offenders from our prison estate. We have already seen a dramatic increase in the number of foreign national offenders leaving our country under this Labour Government, and the Acts that we have passed will expedite that ambition.
Let us be abundantly clear: today’s figures also show that the Labour Government will keep more prisoners behind bars than ever before by the end of the Parliament—a sustainable system keeping the public safe. We cannot solve this capacity crisis if we do not support our Probation Service, which lies at the heart of these reforms. Probation officers supervise some of the most complex and challenging individuals in our justice system. If sentencing reform is to work, probation must be strong, professional and properly supported. That is why the statement also sets out the state of probation capacity—caseloads, workforce and the action that we are taking to strengthen it. The Government are investing up to £700 million more in probation and community services by the end of the Parliament—a 45% increase on current funding, and the largest ever investment in community justice. In so doing, we are delivering on Sentencing Act provisions, workforce growth and expanded electronic monitoring. At least 1,300 trainee probation officers will be recruited in 2025-26. By September 2027, probation officer staffing levels are expected to have risen to around 6,500.
There is no disguising the challenge ahead. There is an inevitable time lag before new officers can carry full, complex caseloads independently, but the Government are committed to rebuilding probation for the long term, and we are using innovative solutions to assist us. More than 30 digital and artificial intelligence initiatives are under way, including Justice Transcribe, which has already reduced the time spent on note-taking by around 50%, allowing officers to focus on the vital face-to-face work that turns lives around and protects the public.
As we promised in last year’s statement, the Government have, through the Sentencing Act, made the publication of this annual statement a statutory requirement. That locks in transparency, forces evidence-based decision making, and holds future Governments to account. Those steps mark a turning point. This landmark reform was never a choice; it was a necessity—doing nothing was never an option. We are increasing capacity, strengthening accountability and tackling problems in our criminal justice system that have been ignored for far too long. The Government are determined to ensure that Britain never again faces a situation in which there are more prisoners than prison places. Only this Government have been willing to take the tough decisions, invest at scale and reform the system to protect the public. We are facing this challenge head-on, and we will see it through. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Nick Timothy
That is true. But I agree that those numbers remain too low, because we should be deporting all the foreign criminals in our prisons. Can the Minister confirm that that is also his aim, and can he tell us how he will stop the European convention on human rights getting in the way? The Opposition are clear that we will leave the ECHR. Will he condemn the actions of his boss, the Justice Secretary, who in opposition actively campaigned against the deportation of foreign rapists?
Finally, I want to ask the Minister a question of principle. He told a journalist this week:
“a pretty big chunk of the overall population… shouldn’t be in prison”.
His colleague Lord Timpson says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. These are my most important questions, and the Minister needs to answer them clearly: is it true that only a third of prisoners should definitely be behind bars, and will he say very clearly that he agrees with me that prison works?
Jake Richards
I welcome the new shadow Justice Secretary to his place; I hope he can do a better job than his predecessor. Let me deal with his last question first. If he had read what I said in that interview carefully, he would know that I was talking about the Youth Custody Service; I was not talking about the adult estate. I urge him to go back and read that interview and perhaps come to the House to correct the record.
On the issue of whether prison works, prison can work. I was abundantly clear in the statement that at the end of this Parliament, under this Labour Government, there will be more criminals in prison than ever before, so prison can work. But I gently urge the shadow Justice Secretary to delve a little deeper and look at short-term sentences, for example. Is it the Conservatives’ position today, which it was not by the end of their time in government, that short-term sentences should not be reformed at all? It was proposed in legislation put forward by the Conservative Government in their final year in office that never saw the light of day because of the general election to make exactly the same changes we are making now—but now they oppose it. I am afraid that the Conservative position on sentencing is all over the place.
When it comes to prison building, the Conservatives expect to get some praise for panicking in their last year of government, realising that they had not done anything for 13 years, that they had underfunded prisons and that places were not keeping up with demand, so they started doing something about it. But none of those places was delivered under a Conservative Government. Unless I am hallucinating, I have been to these sites— I opened them; I put the shovel in the ground. It is a Labour Government who are delivering where the Tories completely failed.
On foreign national offenders, I do not accept the figures that the hon. Gentleman set out today. Foreign national offender deportations are up under the Labour Government. Through the Sentencing Act 2026, which the Conservatives opposed, we are making it far easier to deport foreign national offenders.
The Conservative Opposition have a real problem. They oppose every single step this Government are taking to solve the crisis they created, and then they step up and moan about it. They should support us. We are getting on with the job—we are reforming sentencing, building prison places and making sure the prison system is fit for the future. They should support us, rather than moaning from the sidelines.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The prison population is comprised in significant part of cohorts of prisoners who, for a variety of reasons, should not be there in current numbers. That includes prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, foreign national offenders, remand prisoners and, according to press reports today, record numbers of recalled offenders, only around 20% of whom have committed new offences. What more can the Government do to reduce the numbers in prison without any threat to public safety? Should the annual statement not also include statistics on rehabilitation, as the Justice Committee called for in its recent report? In the long term, stopping reoffending is the surest method of controlling prison numbers, so will the Minister comment on the hugely disappointing news in his response to our report that core education in prisons—one of the keys to rehabilitation —is being cut by an average of 20% to 25%?
Jake Richards
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Let me deal with the education point up front. There has not been a cut to the overall education budget, but it is right to say that there are challenges because the cost of the contract has increased. We are looking at making proposals about how we can ensure that education provision has the appropriate amount of resource. We will make further announcements in due course, and of course, we have an ongoing dialogue with the Select Committee.
On my hon. Friend’s central point about the number of people in prison who some people feel do not need to be in prison, as the provisions in the Sentencing Act—which received Royal Assent just last week—come into force, they will have an effect on some of that population. We have had a regular dialogue about IPP prisoners. Lord Timpson in the other place is leading on that issue and continues to take that cohort under review.
On foreign national offenders, as I have just said to the shadow Justice Secretary, this Government are taking more action than the last Government, and the legislation we have just passed will make it easier to take further action. We have conversations all the time with other nations about prisoner transfer agreements, which will make it far easier and safer to deport foreign national offenders. This is not the end of the way; the Sentencing Act is just the beginning. As I set out in my statement, we continue to work hard to ensure we are never again in the situation we were in 2024.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
This Government inherited a justice system in a shambles after years of Conservative complacency and mismanagement. Overcrowding, administrative failures and cuts to vital services mean the Ministry of Justice too often appears to be moving from one crisis to the next as it tries to fix an entire justice system that has been broken for a long time. We in the Liberal Democrats welcome the long-term provisions the Government have made to reduce pressure on the system, such as the presumption against short sentences and investment in capacity. It is clear from today’s statement that those provisions in the Sentencing Act will have a meaningful impact on demand for prison places in coming years, but I have some questions for the Minister.
The proportion of female prisoners serving less than 12 months is four times that of the male population. Given the presumption against custody introduced by the Sentencing Act, can the Minister outline what, if any, work is being undertaken to consider the capacity that may be freed up in the female prison estate?
The report outlines the Government’s ambition to secure new land for the provision of future prison builds. Can the Minister outline a timeline for that, and for when prison places that are currently under construction will come online?
The Minister laid out plans to increase the number of probation officers to 6,500 by 2027. The retention of officers has been a long-standing issue within the probation system, which has been compounded in recent years by the uptick in less experienced staff. Will he set out what measures the Department will take to improve retention, and whether the Government will meet the HM Prison and Probation Service staffing level of 7,114 officers by the end of this Parliament?
The Minister rightly said that reducing reoffending is key to easing long-term pressure on the system. Education is central to that ambition, as it provides prisoners with the skills they need to rejoin society after their sentences end and avoid making the same mistakes again. Yet prison education is being cut, not strengthened, as the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), said. In fact, last month the independent monitoring board wrote to the Prisons Minister outlining the impact that real-terms cuts beyond inflation rates were having on education. Will the Minister before us please explain how the Government expect to deliver a rehabilitative system and reduce reoffending while prison boards are being forced to make dramatic cuts to education budgets?
Jake Richards
I welcome the hon. Member’s questions. As I set out in the statement, the issue of short-term sentences disproportionately affects female prisoners. As I recall, the average sentence that a female prisoner faces when they are sentenced to less than 12 months is around seven weeks, which is often completely absurd and can affect the prisoner and her family detrimentally and not lead to rehabilitation. Our policies on short-term sentences are a massive part of what we trying to do around that cohort. Lord Timpson is leading on the women’s justice board, which is looking at provisions for us to assist that particular cohort, who often have very particular needs.
On prison places, of course there is always market volatility. As the House knows, the Government are trying to build 1.5 million houses, and we have a commitment to invest in infrastructure. That is always complex. It can be too difficult at times, and we are trying to change that. Part of the reason for having this annual statement is to make sure that any Government are held to account for the prison places to which they have committed. We have committed to building and delivering 14,000 by 2030, and I am confident that we will do that.
On probation officers, the hon. Member is right to raise the issue of retention. We are having regular conversations with the relevant trade unions, and of course meeting probation officers on a regular basis is a very important part of my job and that of all Justice Ministers. That work is ongoing and we hope to be able to update the House on it shortly.
I understand the hon. Member’s point on education. We are undertaking a lot of work in this area, often working with the third sector. There is no point in pretending that there is no fiscal pressure in the justice system at the moment. Our twin focus is on ensuring that we solve the prison capacity crisis and deal with the court backlog, but we will make sure that we support educational provision in our prisons wherever possible.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) about there being too many people in prison who should not be there. Part of the problem with prison capacity is that our laws on joint enterprise mean that someone can be convicted of a serious crime without having made a significant contribution to that crime, often leading to multiple people serving mandatory life sentences when only one person was guilty. Locking up multiple people results in a lack of prison capacity, so does the Minister agree that we need urgent reform of joint enterprise laws so that only those who make a significant contribution to a crime can be found guilty?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend has been a champion on this issue for a long time. I am very happy to meet with her and the group to discuss the complexities of the issue, because it is very complex. I will get my office to arrange that in due course.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. He said that the release of prisoners will depend on their behaviour while inside. Can he confirm that his definition of good behaviour will include mandatory attendance at education and training, which should result in reduced reoffending, and can he advise the House how he will achieve that, given that the Government will commission 25% less education in the coming year? He says the reason for that is that the price has increased. Well, that is because the Government only contract very large quantity contracts. Were he to delegate those budgets to prison governors and give them the freedom to use local suppliers, rather than relying on two or three enormous providers that have the Government over a barrel, the price would fall.
Jake Richards
I am sympathetic to the argument that the hon. Member makes. We need to look at how we involve third sector and private sector organisations wherever possible, and we are looking at that. Clearly the adjudication process will be developed and implemented over the coming months, now that the Sentencing Act 2026 has received Royal Assent, but to my mind it is a welcome reform, based on the Texas model, which showed that it was possible to close prisons, reduce crime and save the taxpayer billions of dollars. We hope to achieve a similar outcome.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I remind Members of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the POA.
I want to back up what the Minister said in retaliation to the shadow Justice Minister. Prison can indeed work, but words alone are not enough, and when a party is in office, it has to back them up with action and actually run the prison estate properly. I cannot convey in words just how dangerous the overcrowding got leading up to July 2024. I, for one, will never forget it, as I have said in this House many times. I think it is pretty brazen to come to this Chamber now and claim that all these places were a result of decisions taken in the Conservatives’ last year in office. [Interruption.] Those decisions should have been taken a decade before. Having rushed them in the last year and literally left prisons at the point of collapse, the Conservatives have no jurisdiction to talk on this matter in the House today. [Interruption.]
I thank the Minister for his statement and ask whether he will meet me to discuss what more can be done to increase safety for staff in our prisons. I welcome the decision to introduce PAVA into the youth estate—another decision that was delayed by the Conservative party. I also ask him to look at the national care leavers strategy, because they are grossly overrepresented in our prison system. If we are to reduce the population, we need to look at that in the next 12 months.
Jake Richards
I always welcome my hon. Friend’s contributions on this issue. I gently say to Conservative Members that perhaps when a former prison officer, who has worked on the frontline, is speaking in the House, they should listen rather than chunter and shout. [Interruption.]
I welcome what my hon. Friend said about PAVA. She will know that the former Justice Secretary introduced PAVA into the youth estate, it was challenged in the courts, and the High Court gave a judgment on that last week. There are absolutely no plans to change the current position, which under statute we will review in the summer of this year in any event. I am very happy to meet her to discuss care leavers and prison leavers, and how we can make sure that the system properly supports offenders as they re-enter society.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Almost one in six of the prison population is on remand, and more than 2,500, which is the population of all three prisons in Dorset plus the prison in Wiltshire, have been on remand for more than the custody time limit, including my constituent Liam. Many of them are not a flight or reoffending risk, and some may be innocent. Dealing with the backlog will help, but that will take time. Curfews and tags can be used for some of these people, which will create space more quickly but will require court capacity to hold more bail hearings. Will the Minister look at that option?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member will know that decisions on individual cases about remand and bail are for our independent judiciary. She is right that fundamentally this is about the backlog in our Crown courts. I look forward to the Liberal Democrats supporting legislation that will solve that issue in due course.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for updating the House with this important annual statement. Unfortunately, the Jailhouse Café, which is a fantastic rehabilitation initiative for both prisoners and ex-prisoners on Portland, is set to close its doors in the next few days. Expia, the brilliant charity that runs the café, is currently not in a financial position to carry out essential repair works. The funding that it needs to fix up the café requires a 10-year occupancy agreement for the café building, which so far it has been unable to secure. I know that we can find a practical solution to this, so will the Minister work with me and Expia to find a simple solution that supports the Jailhouse Café to reopen later this year?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for his constituency, and in particular for its cafés, including this one—he has been telling me all about how important it is to the local community. I am very happy to meet him, and we will do everything we can to keep that café open.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
A Crown court judge in Shropshire recently referenced the county’s “shoplifting epidemic”. Page 6 of the Minister’s statement says that
“more credible punishments outside prison…include a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences for less serious offenders—because we know these do not work.”
Does the Minister accept that shoplifting is a crime; that it is not victim-free; and that in many circumstances, a custodial sentence might still be relevant? Despite the Sentencing Act 2026, the retailers and shopkeepers of Shropshire should know that when they go to work in the morning—getting up early, working hard and going to bed late at night—the profits they make are not going to walk out of the door with somebody who is shoplifting, getting away scot-free and getting a free pass from this Government.
Jake Richards
I was going to say that I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but he sort of ruined it at the end. Shoplifting is a crime, and the Home Secretary made an announcement earlier this week about ensuring that we prosecute it. There is a presumption against short-term sentencing, but clearly we are not banning short-term sentences; they are vital in lots of cases, particularly in domestic abuse cases and for prolific offenders, which many shoplifters are.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. He has said that the number of extra prison places created since July 2024 is 2,900, but can he say how many cells have been temporarily or permanently closed due to fire safety concerns and other maintenance issues? Can he also state what his Department anticipates will be the result of the Leveson review? Will the Justice Committee—on which I sit—receive his updated modelling, which includes these reforms, and will he come and speak to the Committee about these things?
Jake Richards
I am very happy to come and speak to the Justice Committee as and when invited. The hon. Member raises an important point about fire safety; I do not have the exact figures to hand, but there are definitely issues with fire safety across the prison estate—of course, safety is the primary focus, but that has an effect on capacity and maintenance more generally. I am happy to write to her with those figures. As for the effect of part 1 of Leveson’s report and the forthcoming part 2, the modelling and assessments will be set out as and when the legislation comes before the House, and I am sure they will be sent to the Justice Committee as well.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Regarding prison capacity, my understanding is that none of the 14,000 prison places that are planned is category A. Can the Minister confirm how much remaining capacity there currently is within the prison system at category A, and is he confident that there will be enough going forward?
Twelve prison projects, including the new prison in Buckinghamshire, were due to be delivered by ISG Construction Ltd before it went into administration, and both the major project portfolio programmes it was working on are red-rated within that. Can the Minister confirm that all 12 of those projects have recommenced, and that a new contractor is now delivering them?
Jake Richards
I will write to the hon. Gentleman on his last question—I just do not have the details, and I do not want to mislead him or the House on that particular case. As for high-security prisons, there is an ongoing workstream within the Department to look at the future of that estate, and we will update the House in due course.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he accept that in their rush to free up space, the Government have missed the rehabilitation aspect that is essential to any real reform? How can the Government show prisoners a different way, teach them new skills and give them confidence in their ability to change when sentences are cut regardless of where they are in the rehabilitation process? Bearing in mind that Northern Ireland is similar to England and Wales, reoffending there is significantly higher among those serving short sentences, with approximately 51% of adults released from sentences of less than 12 months reoffending within a year.
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He said that there was a rush to free up space —that was because we absolutely had to. If we had not freed up space in our prison system, the criminal justice system would have collapsed, so there definitely was a rush.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned rehabilitation. This Government are absolutely committed to rehabilitation —that is a thread throughout the Sentencing Act, which has just received Royal Assent. Thinking about my diary over the next few weeks, I am going to visit a literacy project in Doncaster and colleges that are linking up with prisons. We have to look at this issue creatively and holistically to make sure we have the services and resources in our prisons to offer educational and work programmes. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), there is no point pretending that there are not fiscal pressures in the criminal justice system at the moment. There are, and we have to think a bit creatively and work with partners to overcome those pressures.
Prison Capacity: Annual Statement
Jake Richards Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Today, I am publishing the second annual statement on prison capacity. This marks the second annual statement delivering the Government commitment to transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system.
This annual statement sets out updated prison population projections and supply forecasts. It shows that, when the impact of sentencing reforms is factored in, supply is expected to keep pace with demand in the central scenario. This is a significant step forward, but there is no single quick fix. The prison estate remains under pressure, and we will continue to take bold action to protect the public and restore confidence in the criminal justice system.
This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. At one point in 2024, fewer than 100 places remained in the adult male estate. Had prisons overflowed, courts would have been forced to suspend trials, the police to halt arrests and public safety put at risk. That was the legacy of years of neglect, during which only 500 net places were added to the estate in over 14 years.
That is why we acted decisively. In December 2024, we published the 10-year prison capacity strategy, setting out plans for the largest expansion of the prison estate since the Victorian era. We committed up to £7 billion between 2024 to 2025 and 2029 to 2030 to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031. This year’s statement shows the significant progress we have made. We have already delivered over 2,900 places and around 5,000 more are under construction, meaning we are on track to meet our target.
However, prison building alone is not enough. Without further action, the prison population is projected to rise by an average of 3,000 annually, outpacing supply even with our build programme.
That is why we launched the independent sentencing review and will deliver reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026. These reforms—including a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences, the extension of suspended sentence orders, an earned progression model, tougher community-based sentences, changes to recall and remand, and earlier removal of foreign national offenders—are expected to reduce the prison population by around 7,500 places by 2028, while keeping the public safe and improving outcomes for victims.
The Probation Service is central to the safe and effective operation of the criminal justice system, to the delivery of the Sentencing Act 2026 and managing demand on the prison estate. The statement therefore outlines key information of probation capacity, including caseloads and workforce. It also sets out progress to date and the steps being taken to strengthen probation capacity over the coming years. This includes investment of up to £700 million in probation and community services by 2028 to 2029, continued recruitment, and ongoing digital transformation to free up capacity and improve performance.
The new Sentencing Act 2026 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament and publish an annual report on prison capacity. This fulfils a promise made in the previous annual statement to commit to making publication a statutory requirement, to ensure future decisions on prison demand and supply are evidence based and transparent. These steps mark a turning point: increasing capacity, strengthening accountability, and building a safer, fairer system for the long term.
[HCWS1291]
Sentencing Bill
Jake Richards ExcerptsTuesday 20th January 2026
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Act 2026 View all Sentencing Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - large print - (20 Jan 2026)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 7.
Lords amendments 1 to 6 and 8 to 15.
Jake Richards
I begin by putting on record the Government’s welcoming of the new shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), to his job. We look forward to working with him; he is somebody of some intellectual heft, and in any event, he is in the lucky position of having extraordinarily small shoes to fill. Of course there will be policy disagreements, as there should be, but my hope is that the new shadow Justice Secretary treads more carefully on issues relating to the independence of our judiciary and respecting our legal profession—perhaps there will be fewer vitriolic social media videos and more thoughtful analysis.
As for the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—or, as he likes to call himself, the “new sheriff in town”—we welcome that the inevitable has now happened, confirming the fact that Reform is little more than a backwater for failed Tory politicians with an ego. I spent five minutes—five minutes that I will never get back—reading the memo that the former shadow Justice Secretary left lying about. It says,
“Use humour—one of your best skills—don’t be afraid to be self-effacing or have a laugh.”
It certainly got us laughing. His memo also contains the memorable line,
“Don't ‘think’. You ‘know’ things to be true! Get out of the habit of saying ‘think’”.
I happen to think that he should get into the habit of thinking a little more.
The right hon. Member for Newark says that he has joined Reform to be “part of a team”. We are still unclear whether he will remain speaking on justice issues, and he is not in his new place today. Over the weekend, it was said that there would be a mini-reshuffle at Reform—a rather depressing game of musical chairs. Whether its justice spokesperson remains the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), or whether the right hon. Member for Newark takes over, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has a go, or the hon. Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) or for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) join in, the story is the same: failed former Tories who cannot be trusted with our justice system, let alone our country.
The Sentencing Bill will make sure that we are never again in the position that this Government inherited, with prisons at risk of running out of places entirely, leaving us with nowhere to put dangerous offenders; police without the capacity to make arrests; courts unable to hold trials; and a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times. That is why this Bill is vital. It does not kick the can down the road, and it does not shy away from making tough decisions to keep the public safe. Instead, it will end the cycle of crisis once and for all.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is making a powerful speech. He will recognise that the Bill is of huge concern to residents in my constituency, because many victims of crime who are waiting for justice to be served are waiting years for the person responsible to face trial. Does the Minister agree that it is really important that this Government get on top of the backlog and get people in front of courts as quickly as possible?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is a fine champion of this agenda and for his constituents in Harlow, and as he knows, the Bill does more than just fix the crisis we inherited; it will confront reoffending and keep our communities safe.
As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out during the very first debate on the Bill in this House, it takes us back to the fundamental purpose of sentencing, which is punishment that works. Punishment must work for victims, who deserve to see perpetrators face retribution; it must work for society, which wants criminals to return less dangerous, not more; and it must work to prevent crime. We want better citizens, not better criminals—that is what will deliver safer streets and protection from crime. The Bill will restore victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system. I reiterate that nothing is worse for victims than prisons running out of places and crimes going without punishment, which is the situation we inherited when we came into government in the summer of 2024.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister has outlined very clearly what the Government, and he in particular, are trying to achieve. There is a perception among the general public—this is certainly indicated in the press and the media—that the Government are going to be a bit soft on those who carry out crimes, but I am very much in favour of rehabilitation, as I think is the Minister. Can he please outline what will be done to enable those who leave prison to be rehabilitated and to ensure that they do not reoffend? The rising number of those who reoffend is incredibly worrying.
Jake Richards
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Over the course of this speech, I will set out what the Government are doing more generally to increase rehabilitation and crack down on reoffending. The hon. Gentleman states that there is a suggestion that this Bill is somehow soft on crime. I say gently to him that by the end of this Parliament, there will be more offenders in prison than ever before, so I completely reject that assertion.
I want to briefly pay tribute to the campaigners who have informed large parts of this piece of legislation and the amendments we are discussing. We are introducing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders instead of the movement of victims. The new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that victims can move freely elsewhere. This was campaigned for by Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation. Once again, I pay tribute to them and all those who have campaigned for this crucial change.
Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which will enable probation services to identify abusers early, track patterns of behaviour and put safeguards in place. I must pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, and in particular to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his tireless campaigning and willingness to work across parties to deliver this crucial change, which I know all Opposition parties support.
More generally, it is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of the independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary, David Gauke. [Hon. Members: “Great man.”] “Great man”, the Conservatives say, but they are voting against every single one of his proposals. I take this opportunity to thank him again for all his work—it was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work.
We are determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible—there is an urgency to this process. I remind the House that alongside this legislation, the Government are building prison places at a faster rate than ever before. In our first year, we opened nearly 2,500 new places, and we are on track to add 14,000 by 2031. In the next four years alone, we will spend £4.7 billion on prison building, but we cannot simply build our way out of the crisis we inherited from the Conservatives. The pressures on the system demand that we reform sentencing, but I remind the House that nothing in the Bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes who are serving extended determinate sentences or life sentences.
The Bill delivers vital reforms to our probation services. We are rebuilding the service that the last Government decimated, increasing investment by up to £700 million by 2028-29—a 45% increase. We are also recruiting; in our first year, we hired 1,000 trainee probation officers, and we are on track to hire 1,300 more this year. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all the hard-working probation officers in our country. They deserve full credit for what they do, and it has been important for us to find the extra resources to put into this service, to grow the numbers and the support available.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
In government, the Conservative party oversaw a disastrous privatisation of probation, which ended in a £500 million bail-out by taxpayers. Our Probation Service plays a critical role in the rehabilitation of offenders and in keeping our communities safe, so can the Minister further set out how the Bill will ensure that our probation systems are strengthened and fit for purpose?
Jake Richards
I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I will come on to the issue that she raises shortly.
While we cannot support Lords amendment 7 as drafted, we fully support the intention behind it of promoting transparency and improving the experience of victims. We agree that robust processes are required to ensure the accuracy of transcripts, but placing a statutory duty on the judiciary to approve the release of all Crown court transcripts could significantly increase workload and undermine efforts to drive down the Crown court backlog.
However, I am delighted to say that we have tabled a Government amendment that will expand the provision of Crown court sentencing remarks. They will be provided to all victims who request them, free of charge. This new clause puts victims firmly at the centre of the process. The new clause delivers a major step forward for transparency, enabling victims to digest sentencing remarks outside the pressures of a courtroom setting, and without charge.
The details on timeframes and processes will be set out in due course, but I can confirm to the House that our intention is to specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. That timeframe will support applications made under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I can assure the House that we are considering the Opposition’s amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would extend that deadline to 56 days, extremely carefully.
I am grateful to Members for their engagement on this issue. This change represents a profound step forward for victims, and for transparency in our justice system. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) have been campaigning on this issue for some time. They deserve great credit, particularly the hon. Member for Richmond Park. For the first time, every victim whose case is heard in the Crown court will have this important right of access, free of charge.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
A comment often made to me and my colleagues when I was policing was that as soon as I left the police station in full uniform, I was a sitting target, every single day. Does the Minister agree that the proposal for mandatory whole life sentences for those who murder police officers, prison officers and probation officers sends a clear and unequivocal message that those offenders will be met with the harshest and most serious penalties on offer to the courts?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his service, his contribution, and his support for Lords amendment 1. As I said when I had the great privilege of meeting Lenny’s parents last week with the shadow Justice Minister and Lord Timpson in the other place, this is not just about the technical mischief that the amendment solves; thankfully, these cases are few and far between. This is about sending the signal to the brilliant prison and probation officers that the work they do is respected by people in this place and the country at large. I hope that this small change goes some way to doing that. Indeed, since we have announced this change, I have met prison officers who have intimated their gratitude to Lenny Scott’s parents, and to this place for hopefully making this change, and that is welcome.
Lords amendments 2 to 5 relate to the Sentencing Council. Through the amendments, we have sought to clarify what is expected from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice when they are considering any requests from the Sentencing Council for approval of its business plans and sentencing guidelines. Broadly speaking, the amendments do three things. First, if the Lord Chancellor decided not to approve a business plan, amendment 2 would require them to notify the council. It also requires them to lay a document before Parliament as soon as is practicable, stating the reasons for that decision. Amendments 3 and 4 make similar provisions under different guises.
Secondly, we want to make it clear that a very high bar must be met for any guidelines to be rejected, so amendments 4 and 5 provide that guidelines can be rejected only when that is necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Finally, we have set out in the Bill that any approval requests from the council are to be considered as soon as practicable. Taken together, the amendments represent a significant step by the Government to ensure that these approval processes are surrounded by clear safeguards, transparency and accountability.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
While the Lords have endeavoured to amend the Bill in a number of areas, part 4, which allows foreign national offenders to be deported at any time during their sentence, are important to Northern Ireland. Because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, an assessment has been made that there is a risk that these offenders will not be removed in Northern Ireland, leaving us with a two-tier system in which foreign criminals in Northern Ireland benefit from additional EU-derived human rights protections, rather than being sent home. Will the Minister meet me and a number of my colleagues to discuss this important issue to Northern Ireland?
Jake Richards
This issue was raised, I think on Second Reading and on Report, by one of the hon. Member’s colleagues. The legal advice we have received simply states that there is no discrepancy in Northern Ireland. I am happy to have a conversation with her and any other colleagues on that. It is clearly only right that these provisions apply to Northern Ireland, too.
The Government are committed to greater transparency on prison and probation capacity, and to current and future Governments being held to account. We have demonstrated that by publishing the first annual statement on prison capacity, in December 2024; the 2025 edition will follow shortly. Lords amendment 6 delivers on that promise by making it a statutory requirement to lay a statement on prison capacity before Parliament each year. Legislating on this duty ensures transparency in the long term, and delivers on the Government’s commitment to do so. Never again will we be in the position that this Government inherited after the previous Government overlooked prison capacity for 14 years, leading to the crisis with which we had to deal.
The Government have also accepted Lords amendment 12, which removes the clause that would have introduced a power to publish the names and photographs of those subject to an unpaid work requirement. The purpose of the clause was to increase the visibility of community pay-back, and to ensure that the public could clearly see justice being delivered. We remain committed to ensuring that local communities can see the benefits of community pay-back in their area. However, we have listened carefully to those in both Houses who have raised issues relating to this measure, and, perhaps more important, to the concerns raised by our brilliant probation and prison staff on the ground, and following careful consideration we do not think it appropriate to proceed any further. We are confident that unpaid work, bolstered by wider provisions in the Bill, will continue to be tough and visible without the addition of this measure.
We are pleased to have made further progress on sentences of imprisonment for public protection. We want to do everything we can to enable those who are still serving such sentences to progress to the end of them, but we are not willing to undermine public protection. The amendments made in the Bill strike that careful balance. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 made significant changes to the IPP licence period: the qualifying period for referral to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination was reduced from 10 years after first release to three years for those serving IPP sentences, and two years for those serving detention for public protection sentences who were convicted when they were under 18.
It is over a year since the first of those measures came into force. The licences of 1,700 people were terminated automatically on 1 November 2024, and a further 600 became eligible for referral to the Parole Board on 1 February last year. We have now gone further by giving those serving IPP sentences an earlier opportunity for licence termination, and providing an additional opportunity for license termination to those serving IPP and DPP sentences thereafter. Those serving IPP sentences will be considered for licence termination two years after release, rather than the current three years. That provides suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community, while ensuring that our communities are best protected from harm.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome the amendments that deal with IPP sentences. This is a matter of concern to many Members on both sides of the House. Can the Minister assure us that following the changes to IPP licence termination, these sentences will continue to provide for community rehabilitation, while protecting communities from harm? Will the Minister also commit to continuing to work to resolve the remaining challenges relating to such sentences?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend, a member of the Justice Committee, always makes thoughtful contributions on justice issues, but in particular on IPP. A balance must be struck between public safety and ensuring rehabilitation. The Government think that the Bill has gone some way to doing that, but there is always room for further review and assessment as we proceed, and Lord Timpson, who is leading on this piece of work for the Government, will continue to engage with the Justice Committee on the issue.
I am very grateful for the improvements that have been made to the Bill during its passage in the House of Lords. I hope, particularly given the undertakings that I have given on the provision of sentencing transcripts, that all parties will be able to support the Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 7. They represent a major step forward for transparency and for victims.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
There is no doubt that our justice system faces significant challenges. I have always acknowledged that, and during recent debates on a wide range of issues, from sentencing to prison capacity to probation to jury trials, there has been cross-party acknowledgement that for decades, under a number of Governments of different colours, not enough investment or political priority has been given to our justice system. That, however, should not and must not serve as an excuse for this Government to make changes to our justice system that damage it and fail to address the challenges before us. There are alterations that elements of the Ministry of Justice have always wanted to make. We should not let them use the excuse of the current challenges to finally slip them through the net. That is what we see happening in the Bill, in relation to the proposals on jury trials and, even more clearly, in relation to measures that are to the detriment of victims.
I welcome elements of this Bill, and I will discuss some examples. The Minister mentioned the restriction zones and the domestic abuse markers, but these measures are overwhelmingly outweighed by the fact that at the heart of the Bill is a catastrophic blow to victims’ search for justice: it will let thousands of rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier. The Minister mentioned the independent sentencing review; I remind Members that it gave absolutely no consideration whatsoever to what victims and the public think of the proposals on sentencing. The report is an insult to victims and their families, as many have told me directly.
During the Commons stages of the Bill, every party other than Labour joined the Conservatives in voting against these dangerous proposals, including the Liberal Democrats. In fact, a number of Labour MPs bravely abstained. It should be a matter of deep shame for Liberal Democrat Members that they have since joined Labour in voting to let rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier, especially as they have previously articulated why this is wrong. It is a complete betrayal of victims of serious crime and their families.
This is likely to be my final opportunity to say that I am confident that Labour MPs will come to regret these elements of the Bill, and will find it difficult to explain themselves when victims see perpetrators of crimes such as rape, child sex offences and child grooming leave prison—sometimes having served only a third of their sentence—because of MPs’ support for these measures. I will do whatever I can to ensure that victims know who made those choices, although so many alternatives were available to them. However, I have to accept that this Government’s majority, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, has for now ended the campaign against this change, so we should consider the Lords amendments that are before the House today.
As I know that the public greatly value constructive cross-party working, I will begin with an important issue on which we were able to secure Government support. Lords amendment 1 would ensure that when a police officer, prison officer or probation officer, including a former officer, is murdered because of their service, a whole life order is the starting point for sentencing. This proposal originated from the Opposition, and I am grateful to the Government for accepting the principle, following my meetings and campaigning with Paula and Neil Scott, whose son Lenny, a former prison officer, was murdered because he refused a bribe from an inmate.
Parliament has long been clear that those putting themselves in direct danger by confronting and standing up to the most dangerous people in our society should have the greatest possible protection from our law: a whole life order. We had previously legislated to that effect through the introduction of a mandatory whole life order for those who murder police and prison officers who are undertaking their duties, but the case of Lenny Scott highlighted a gap in the law. Lenny was brutally murdered, years after his service as a prison officer, in revenge for handing in a phone that he found in a prison cell search. He had moved into a new phase of his life, and was enjoying work, the gym, and time with his children and the rest of his family, but he was shot in a car park late at night, simply for doing his job. Lenny’s mum told me that she knew something was wrong when Lenny did not come home that evening. She even went out in the middle of the night to look for him, only to have the police arrive at her door at 1 am with the devastating news.
It has been a true privilege to work with Paula, and with Lenny’s dad, Neil. I extend my sincere thanks to Lord Timpson in the other place, and to the Minister, for taking the time to meet them both, and for agreeing to work with them further to see what else we might do to improve protections for our prison officers. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it was clear from the meeting what decent, moral people they are, which explains the sort of person that Lenny was. I am also very grateful to Lord Timpson for bringing fresh thinking to this area by including probation officers in the measure. They too must work closely with dangerous, violent offenders, and sometimes stand up to them to protect the public. They face the same dangers, so they should get the same protections.
Although our wider focus must always be on preventing crime and protecting the public, it is right that clear gaps in the law should be addressed when they arise. The Opposition therefore support Lords amendment 1 in lieu of our amendment, and I know that Lenny’s parents, family and friends have been delighted to see its progress in the House. In my time working with victims on campaigns, I have learned the pitfalls of naming a law after an individual case—there are always others who might warrant the remembrance of their experiences in the naming of a law—but Lenny’s family have every right to call this measure “Lenny’s Law”.
I will now consider amendments that attempt to deliver much-needed reform, but which are simply insufficient. Lords amendments 2 to 5 all concern the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council. Between them, they provide guidelines for specific scenarios in which the Lord Chancellor does not approve the Sentencing Council’s business plan; conditions for withdrawing consent to the Sentencing Council’s issuing of sentencing guidelines; and conditions for withholding consent to a request from the Sentencing Council to issue allocation guidelines, if it is necessary withhold that consent in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. We saw in the debacle of two-tier sentencing just how far the Sentencing Council has strayed, and these measures will not fundamentally correct that. The official Opposition have made it clear—I will restate it—that our firm policy position is that we would abolish the Sentencing Council, restore power to elected Ministers who are directly accountable to the public, and give Parliament a role when it comes to sentencing guidelines.
The functions of the Sentencing Council in delivering consistency through sentencing are well recognised, and it is not our intention to do away with the functions that will be restored to the Lord Chancellor’s Office, but we believe it is for the Justice Secretary to be responsible for our sentencing guidelines, not a group of unelected individuals with no direct accountability to the public and limited accountability of any kind. Consultation with the public is not the same as accountability to the public, and we are clear that Parliament should have the power to act. Therefore, while these amendments are not a point of contention in the Bill’s progress and we will not divide the House on them, I raise them to point out that they would not be part of a Bill introduced by a Conservative Government, as we would abolish the Sentencing Council entirely and fully restore accountability.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that the Bill will deliver long-term and sustainable reform to our criminal justice system and make sure that we never again end up in the position where dangerous offenders are not being locked up, the police do not have the capacity to make arrests and courts are not able to hold trials. It was a breakdown in law and order like nothing we have seen in modern times, because the last Government increased sentence lengths without reckoning with the consequences of doing so, adding just 500 places during their time in office. That was a dereliction of duty beyond comprehension and something that must not be forgotten in the context of this Bill.
Our prisons were brought to the point of crisis; frankly, they only survived until the 2024 general election because, on the quiet, the last Government released 10,000 offenders early, completely undermining public confidence in our justice system. [Interruption.] Well, it’s true. The shadow Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), is shaking his head. I was working in the Prison Service—I know what went down. I know exactly what happened. While the Bill was born out of necessity, it includes absolutely transformational reforms that Governments of all colours should have introduced in years past.
It is not that we are not being tough on crime—in fact, it is quite the opposite, because as the Minister has laid out, there will be more people in prison at the end of this Parliament than ever before—but, as has been outlined today, anyone who thinks we can simply build our way out of this crisis is not living in the real world and is not serious about public policy. It is welcome that we are deporting more foreign national offenders and bearing down on the court backlog to reduce remand prisoners. All of that is necessary but not sufficient, which is why this Bill is very welcome.
I want to speak specifically about amendments 1 and 14 and the broadening of whole-life orders. When I was a prison officer, I found it incredibly frustrating how little acknowledgment was given by wider society to the serious assaults and injuries that staff often had to suffer. I will take this issue up with the Minister another time, as I know it does not relate directly to the amendments, but I do think it is important that there is public recognition of how dangerous the job can be, including for probation officers. I pay tribute to Lenny Scott’s family, who have worked tirelessly to advocate for this welcome change. I hope that every Member of Parliament from across the House will support those amendments, which send the clear message that this House backs our police, probation and prison staff, given the particular dangers they face, and that we support them today and every day.
Although the Bill may have been born out of necessity—and, frankly, emergency—at the start of this Government’s time in office, I am proud that it is a Labour Government who are introducing the reform that our justice system has long needed. I am proud to support the Government amendments today.
Jake Richards
Today is a pivotal day. Subject to agreement from this House and from the other place, the Bill will complete all its stages and shortly become law. I want to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin). Although I was the Minister to take the Bill through the House, his painstaking work in developing the policy was fundamental and he deserves great credit.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); at every opportunity, including this debate, she rightly raises her campaign to clamp down on tool theft and she is a fine champion for her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). She brings huge experience to debates on these issues. We are taking measures to give prison staff further protections, but I am happy to speak with her about what more the Government can do.
We have aired the debate on the Sentencing Council before. The Conservative position was developed by the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).
Jake Richards
The hon. Member says, “It was a team effort.” I am not sure about that. The Conservatives’ position is an example of real constitutional vandalism. It has never been the case that this Bill would threaten the independence of the judiciary. Our amendments, and the proposal set out in this legislation, ensure that there is a democratic lock around sentencing and that there is a role for this place, but that the Sentencing Council remains independent. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
I welcome the degree of consensus on transcripts. The Conservative position on this amendment, at the back end of last week and then early this week, seems to have changed a few times. Our amendment in lieu strikes the right balance. If anyone could seek a free transcript of sentencing remarks, we might be in the position where our court staff, who have a big job in getting a grip of the backlog, spend all their time issuing transcripts.
Let me turn to the issues raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). We have to look into the question of what happens with transcripts when victims are either children, deceased or where there is a lack of capacity. It may be that the victims code does that already for us, but we have to get it right and we will ensure we do so as the policy is developed. She mentioned her concerns about exceptions and omissions and asked me to ponder on examples when those exceptions could be engaged. Of course, this may be relevant when there are issues of national security or public safety, but one would hope that such circumstances would be extremely exceptional. It is important, though, that those provisions are in the Bill.
We believe that our amendments will allow for more openness. They are ambitious but also realistic, considering where the technology is at the moment and the pressures on our court system. Do we want to go further when we can? Absolutely. We believe in the fundamental principle of transparency and openness in our justice system, and where we can, we will.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I apologise that I was not here for the Minister’s opening speech; I was chairing the Justice Committee. I do not think that matters, though, because I agree with him on the amendments. They strengthen the Bill considerably. They bring more openness and transparency, and we welcome all the recommendations here, whether in relation to the Sentencing Council, to the prison capacity report, to the transcripts through the amendments in lieu, or to IPP prisoners. They are all welcome improvements on the Bill. We think that they need to go further in some areas, particularly in relation to IPP prisoners, but this is a good step along the way.
Jake Richards
I always welcome an intervention from the Chair of the Justice Committee. As I said following an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), the work on IPPs is an ongoing process led by Lord Timpson in the other place. I know that he is always happy to engage with hon. Members from the Select Committee.
I conclude my remarks by stating firmly that the Bill will solve the mess that this Government inherited and begin to make sure that our prison system is fit for the future. I once again thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. Their expertise strengthens it in many important respects.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.
Jury Trials
Jake Richards Excerpts(2 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)
It will be quite tough to follow that, but here we go.
This has been a very useful debate. Every single contribution, including those from Conservative colleagues, has commented on the crisis in our courts that we inherited from the Conservatives after 14 years. We have heard some suggestions; the gist of the suggestions from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Opposition is, “Let us get more court sitting days.” Would it not have helped if the Conservatives had not closed half of the magistrates courts in England and Wales? Across the entire estate, they sold off more than 40% of all court buildings for far less than they were worth to the communities they served.
As a result of the Conservatives’ vandalism of our court system, there are nearly 80,000 cases waiting to be heard and that number will continue to rise beyond 100,000 without investment, efficiency savings and structural modernisation. Let us be clear: this Government will bring forward a modernisation package that will drag the criminal justice system into the 21st century, ensuring that justice is done fairly and swiftly, that our system meets the challenges that modern criminal cases bring, and that we never again reach a point at which the public’s faith in the criminal justice system is so severely undermined.
The House has heard today a clear and compelling case from my hon. and learned Friend the Courts Minister, who set out the bold but sensible reform we need, bringing down the backlog by the end of the Parliament. It is rooted in evidence, grounded in reality and driven by a simple objective: to fix a criminal court system under unprecedented strain and put it on a sustainable footing for the future.
Dr Luke Evans
When the Courts Minister closed her statement, the principle was not about the backlog: she said that she would have gone ahead with scrapping juries to this extent regardless of the backlog. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Is it a principled position or is it about dealing with the administrative burden?
Jake Richards
We absolutely have to drag the criminal justice system into the 21st century by modernising its structures, but the context in which we operate clearly has an effect on that programme. The fact that we have inherited an unprecedented backlog in our criminal court system affects the urgency and radicalism of that reform.
Let me take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Sir Brian Leveson, who is no shield. His independent review has driven the reforms that we are taking forward; it is rigorous, thoughtful and absolutely clear about the scale of the challenge before us. Let us be very straight: the reforms being proposed, which will be set out in due course before this House, are not plucked out of thin air but the result of intensive, careful work undertaken by the most senior lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary. The modernisation programme will be built on evidence. These are difficult decisions and no doubt uncomfortable for some in the legal profession, but they are absolutely vital for a properly functioning and robust system that we can be proud of to take into the future.
Let me bust some of the myths that we have heard in the debate. Some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested that these changes tear up a historical right to a jury trial. Let me be abundantly clear that they do not. Article 40 of Magna Carta reminds us that we must not
“deny, or delay right or justice”,
giving us the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. Sadly, in this country today, justice delayed has become justice denied for far too many victims. The Government will not cling to mythological tradition at the expense of fairness, effectiveness and public confidence. We will rise to meet the challenge of the day, rather than living in the past.
I have heard on countless occasions the assertion that this Government are scrapping jury trials. That is not true. Everyone has and will always have the right to a fair trial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) made clear in her compelling speech. There has never been an inalienable or unqualified right to a trial by jury.
Let us set out the maths in some detail, because this is very important. Currently, 10% of all criminal cases are subject to jury trial. Some 7% of those are pleas, where there is no trial, so just 3% are subject to a jury trial. The reforms before the House would reduce that number to just 1.5%. These are modest reforms affecting a small proportion of the criminal cases in our country.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I have great respect for what the Minister is saying, but I and many others on the Labour Benches still have questions. Will he agree to meet those of us who think, for example, that the proposals from the Criminal Bar Association deserve closer scrutiny, so that we can discuss those proposals in further detail?
Jake Richards
As ever, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this or many of the other issues he raises in the House.
Let us be very clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) has set out, this is a modest change to jury trials—something that has happened throughout our history. The Opposition were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) that their party has made modest changes to jury trials in the past. It was Margaret Thatcher, one of the shadow Justice Secretary’s various political heroes, who reclassified crimes including taking a motor vehicle without authority and who raised the threshold for criminal damage. Those became summary-only offences in 1988—they were not subject to juries at all. I wonder whether Conservative Members consider Mrs Thatcher to have torn up the Magna Carta or undertaken constitutional vandalism. It is a rhetorical device that Rumpole would be proud of.
We have heard today about what more we could be doing, but let us set out what we are doing. This Government are investing at record levels; this year alone, we have allocated over 100,000 Crown court sitting days—the highest number ever and 5,000 more than the previous Government. I remind the House again that in 2019, the previous Government cut Crown court sitting days by almost 15%—that is their record and their legacy, but Conservative Members did not mention any of that in their speeches today. The Government have committed £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates and £92 million a year for criminal legal aid solicitors, in recognition of their vital role in the justice system and to fix the problems caused by the previous Government’s mismanagement. We are also looking at match-funded criminal barrister pupillages, with a clear focus on opening up the criminal Bar to more talented young people from every background.
Ayoub Khan
The Minister tells the House that an insignificant number of cases will be impacted. If that is true, what is the point? I am sure he has heard the adage that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. It can only been done through jury trials.
Jake Richards
It is a small number of cases, but they take an inordinate amount of time. That is the whole point of what Sir Brian Leveson has put forward, and in due course, when this legislation comes before the House and the impact assessments are put before it, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that for himself.
Others have argued that investment alone, or ironing out inefficiencies, would be enough to deal with the record and rising caseload. We have heard about the problems with getting prisoners to court and about the buildings left with leaking roofs after 14 years of austerity. We are going to fix those too, but Sir Brian Leveson could not have been clearer that that will not be sufficient. Even with record investment, the Crown court caseload is projected to exceed 116,000 by 2029. The demand is simply too great, which is why we are driving forward a full programme of modernisation.
Tom Gordon
The Minister talks about record demand and the pressure on court services. Is he able to outline what assessment has been made of the increase in pressure on the court system as a result of cracking down on the right to protest in legitimate cases?
Jake Richards
We treat all cases the same. The hon. Gentleman can make that point in a debate on that subject at another time.
Let me end where I began. The crisis that this Government inherited has no doubt given rise to a heightened need to deliver a more modern, resilient and flexible model of criminal justice: one that protects what is fundamental—such as jury trials for the most serious offences—but is bold enough to change where change is needed so that it truly serves victims, commands public confidence and is fit for the realities of the 21st century. These changes will provide long-term, stable foundations for the criminal courts system and prevent the caseload from ever again reaching its current levels. That should be our focus—not a narrow debate on the merits of tradition versus the challenges of the day, or preserving a system that so clearly no longer works for the British people.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.