Prisoner Early Release

Debate between Jake Richards and Liz Saville Roberts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

As I have said, there was an inquiry into these issues, which was begun by the last Conservative Government. The chair of that inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, said that their response was

“inconsequential, insubstantial, committed to nothing.”

Victims waited years for action and got nothing. There were briefings that it was “hysterical and half baked”, and highly emotional, and the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that money spent on child sex abuse inquiries was being “spaffed up the wall”. I will not take any lessons from the right hon. Lady or the Conservative party on this issue.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Lefarydd. Richard Tung of Penisa’rwaun, Caernarfon, is in prison after being found guilty of historical rape and sexual offences against a child in Nottingham. He was reported to Nottinghamshire police in 2022, but his first police interview was not until June 2023. Concerns have been raised with me that Tung remained at liberty and free to work in a restaurant in my constituency until he was sentenced to 12 years in prison on 17 April this year—four years later. Will the Minister advise me on how to find out why Tung was not remanded to custody prior to the court case and, given that this is a cross-border police force issue, what child protection and public safety measures should be put in place between Nottinghamshire police and North Wales police?

[Jake Richards]

As the right hon. Member knows, questions as to whether a defendant should be remanded are a matter for the judiciary. I am happy to look into the particulars of this cross-border issue and the matter of local protective agencies working together to keep the public safe, and will get back to her.

Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour

Debate between Jake Richards and Liz Saville Roberts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jake Richards]

I accept the principle that too often there are attacks in all sorts of prisons, but of course there are more acute settings where that risk is greater. I accept that we have to take protective measures in all sorts of prisons. I do not think that I can go as far as the right hon. Gentleman may want me to in accepting the second part of his premise—I can see that he is trying very hard to get me to, but I think it is more complex than that, and I hope I can set out a bit why that is in the short time that we have.

As I said, rolling out protective body armour—as we have committed to, and I am proud to be serving in a Government who are committed to doing what the last Government did not in the high-security estate—is not just about having equipment; it requires thoughtful planning. There needs to be secure and accessible storage so that officers can access their kit quickly while also preventing unauthorised use. There needs to be clear guidance on how to handle and check the armour, and regular inspections and proper replacement schedules so that equipment remains effective. Compatibility with other equipment is also vital. Protective body armour must work seamlessly with body-worn video cameras, radios, batons and PAVA—the synthetic pepper spray. It must fit within existing uniform requirements and the regulatory environment around that. We also need to consider the impact on other staff who are prisoner-facing, but who may not be equipped with protective body armour. Making sure that their safety is not compromised is also vital.

While protective body armour is important, the Government do not feel that it is an instant silver bullet. It is one part of a broader package to improve staff safety. Officers in the adult male estate already have access to PAVA spray, which is used to prevent serious assaults. We also have over 13,000 new-generation body-worn video cameras. Work on that began under the last Government and has been continued under this Government, and it means that every officer in bands 3 to 5 can wear one during their shift. They provide high-quality evidence to support prosecutions and include a pre-record function to help capture the often crucial lead-up to incidents.

We are also going further. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term and high-security estate with tasers. That will improve safety and enhance frontline capability in the most high-risk environments.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) raised how key performance indicators for safety would be one particular driver that the Government could bring in immediately, which would enhance all the factors that the Minister is mentioning. Does he agree that another critical KPI could be staff retention? That is the canary in the mine, because where staff are happy, they stay—and they stay with all their expertise.

[Jake Richards]

I reassure the right hon. Member that details on violence in both the adult and the youth estate are seen by Ministers, and the Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister, on a regular basis. This is a key concern for all Ministers and the whole Department, and we are doing everything we can to clamp down on it. The same is true for staff retention. I am happy to call it a KPI, but it is absolutely at the top of our concerns about our prisons in this country. There is a long list of reasons why there are issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The key point is what is measured publicly. I appreciate that Ministers will have the information, and I am delighted that they do, but the sense of what is measured and the standards by which our prisons are held to account—that the public are aware of—are key drivers in creating change within a culture that we know has needed to change for 12 years or more.

[Jake Richards]

Forgive me; I misunderstood the original question. I am very happy to look into what data is published and what is not, and to make sure that appropriate data—where it is safe, secure, quality assured and everything else that comes with that—is available to hon. Members. I will look into doing that in due course.

As I said, we are going further. HMPPS is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term high security estate with tasers. Violence against any prison officers is totally unacceptable. Perpetrators will face the full consequences of their actions, and measures are being taken to extend the punishment for such offences.

Prison officers do a valuable job in our prisons. They keep us safe, and we must do the same for them. Deploying protective body armour in high-risk areas and a wider roll-out is an important step. We will make sure that frontline officers have the tools to do their job safely. This is also part of our broader approach to reducing violence, strengthening control and, above all, upholding the safety and dignity of the staff who serve with dedication every day.

Members have raised other issues about conditions for prison officers. As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I am very happy to meet Members and representatives of the Prison Officers Association, as I have done previously, to discuss these issues in some depth. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), so wisely touched upon, all these issues come back to the stability of our prison system. Fundamentally, that comes back to issues of capacity and staff retention, training and recruitment. This Department’s No. 1 aim is to deal with and stabilise the prison capacity crisis, invest in our prison and probation staff—these two issues are innately interlinked—and make sure that we have a sustainable prison system that can keep the public safe in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jake Richards and Liz Saville Roberts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

2. What his Department’s policy is on the use of the Welsh language in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

In line with our Welsh language scheme, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service offers prisoners, people on probation and members of the public the right to choose whether to use English or Welsh in their dealings with us. We recognise that enabling prisoners to use their preferred language is a matter of good practice —not a concession—as prisoners can express their views and needs better in their preferred language.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Diolch yn fawr. The Welsh Language Act 1993 places a duty on public bodies to treat the English and Welsh languages as equal in Wales. The Minister mentioned the HMPPS Welsh language scheme, which is a new scheme that commits to publishing an annual report on its progress. I have already contacted the Ministry of Justice about that and about adherence to the Act. However, considering that the previous iteration of the scheme failed in that respect—publishing only a single report, and that only following a complaint under the 1993 Act—what assurances can the Minister give that the new scheme will have any real effect?

[Jake Richards]

I thank the right hon. Member for her vital question. She is absolutely right. I will follow up on the correspondence that she sent to the Ministry of Justice—I have not seen that myself. As I set out before, the policy implemented by the MOJ is one that values the Welsh language and will continue to do so.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting)

Debate between Jake Richards and Liz Saville Roberts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jake Richards]

I rise to speak briefly in support of amendment 548, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. I do so fundamentally for two reasons.

First, there may be a lot of support for the principle of assisted dying among members of the Committee and, indeed, Members of the House, but there are also understandable concerns about its implementation. We have been debating all the aspects of that over a lengthy period in Committee, and it is undoubtedly complex. Although my hon. Friend is disappointed that she has had to table the amendment, I commend her for doing so, because it is important to get this right and to be brave by setting longer time limits if necessary. I think that can be reassuring to Members who, while supporting the principle, want to make sure that we get this right. I hope that the amendment will do that.

Secondly, for those people—including those who have been in the Public Gallery today, Committee members and, indeed, other Members of the House—who might be disappointed about the delay, in my mind the amendment is not an obstacle to change. In fact, what we have seen here is the Bill’s promoter working with the Government, who remain neutral on the principle but want to make the Bill deliverable, to come up with a sensible, pragmatic proposal for how and at what speed this profound change is to be implemented. In my mind, that gives a sense of the Executive and the promoter thinking about the practicalities.

I urge those who are desperately seeking this change and have fought for decades to secure it to approach this measure with a sense of optimism. This is serious. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver that change. I hope that, both in the Committee and outside it, they will support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, who has gone to great lengths to build support and to make sure that the Bill is workable. I will be voting for amendment 548 with a great sense of reassurance, but also a great sense of optimism that one day this country will see this change, which is so desperately needed.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise to support amendment 535. I do not intend to say much, because the hon. Member for Richmond Park has made many of the points I wished to make. The amendment recognises that an opinion was stated in a debate in the Senedd in October, which dealt in detail with the principles of this Bill, and that Professor Emyr Lewis told us that one way of recognising that would be to consider different commencement provisions in Wales.

Reference has been made to the different criminal law arrangements in England and Wales to do with smacking children, and during covid there were quite definitely different arrangements between England and Wales. After a quarter of a century of devolution, we have devolution divergence, and we are seeing that in action.

We have already accepted the principle that there are aspects of the Bill that are devolved, responsibility for which must be passed to Welsh Ministers. We are still debating the wording of that, but we are working towards it, and I think we have accepted the principle of it. We should also acknowledge that the Senedd and Welsh Ministers may well be able to make a move that would have the same effect of changing the commencement date, but I support the amendment because it shows that we are acknowledging the consequences and implications of a legislative consent motion. Incidentally, I could often stand up here and talk about the fact that legislative consent motions can be overridden by Westminster, but we are working from the point of view of seeking to respect devolved powers alongside the powers that we have here, so I will be supporting amendment 535.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Debate between Jake Richards and Liz Saville Roberts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jake Richards]

That is an important point, because the change, as drafted in the various amendments, provides for real flexibility. That may cause others some concern, but to my mind it is a reassurance, because it will mean that a weighty figure, the commissioner, will be able to set out rules and regulations for the process to make sure that it is rigorous but is not so burdensome as to be pointless.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I rise to speak to my amendment (a) to new schedule 2. The assisted dying review panel comprises a legal member and the chair, a psychiatrist member and a social worker member. I welcome this third tier of safeguarding and its range of specialities, as laid out in new clause 21.

My amendment (a) would amend paragraph 4, which concerns membership of panels, by inserting a new paragraph 4(3):

“Each member of a panel must have fluent proficiency in the Welsh language if services or functions in the Act are to be provided to an individual in Welsh.”

I emphasise the “if”, because it is in certain circumstances. I have previously touched on the requirements of the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. It appears that the panel can be defined as a legal proceeding and will therefore be required to follow the pre-devolution 1993 Act. Let us consider whether that is sufficient for the level of safeguarding that all Committee members want to provide.

Section 22(1) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 states:

“In any legal proceedings in Wales the Welsh language may be spoken by any party, witness or other person who desires to use it, subject in the case of proceedings in a court other than a magistrates’ court to such prior notice as may be required by rules of court; and any necessary provision for interpretation shall be made accordingly.”

I quote that as the nearest comparator. That means that the 1993 Act, in the situation we are discussing, enables people to speak Welsh and for interpreters to be provided as necessary. That gives people the right to speak Welsh, but it does not give them the right to be heard in Welsh in their own voice. If the legal personnel do not speak Welsh, their decisions will be based on the interpreted communication. The key question is whether we are content to accept the use of interpreters as intermediaries between the individual and the assisted dying panel.

Dr Sarah Davies, a consultant respiratory physician from Colwyn Bay, has written, with 78 other clinicians from Wales as co-signatories, to parliamentarians about their concerns. She states:

“In practice use of interpreters does not provide full communication of appropriate knowledge from clinician to patients. This is because interpreters are often not experienced and confident enough to discuss such complex and legal issues as assisted dying. Even the best possible practice by interpreters cannot match communicating in the person’s own preferred language. Every person whose preferred or primary language is Welsh and who communicates as a family or socially in Welsh should have access to important health information in Welsh. Any necessary assessment of capacity for purposes of consideration of assisted dying, and any assessment of coercion, must be in person and in Welsh if that is the person’s preferred language.”

Dr Davies further states that it is not possible to confidently assess the decision-making capacity of a Welsh speaker in their second language. Superficial conversations in English often fail to demonstrate that a Welsh speaker with significant health problems is confused or does not have a good understanding of their own health condition and treatment options. The presence of confusion or lack of information may become apparent only during detailed conversations with a Welsh-speaking healthcare professional. It can be extremely challenging to detect the presence of coercion, and the nuances of family dynamics will not be apparent to a non-Welsh-speaking professional when the language spoken in the family is Welsh, so it will not be possible to make any assessment of the presence or absence of coercion. That is what Dr Davies says.

The office of the Welsh Language Commissioner believes that there must be provision in the Bill to ensure that a person’s choice of language is considered, recorded and matched with further provisions, including a Welsh-speaking specialist panel. The commissioner’s office agreed that such an amendment relating to the specialist panel is very important. It stressed that a Welsh-speaking panel will be able to provide the same service in English to individuals who are not receiving assistance through Welsh, so the requirement in amendment (a) should not, in and of itself, necessarily mean recruiting more individuals or more panels. None the less, I feel that I must allay fears that it would require every member of every panel in Wales to be able to speak Welsh. It does not. That is not the intention of the amendment, nor is it in its wording. Fluent proficiency is required of all panel members only when the panel is making a decision in relation to a person whose preferred language is Welsh.

So far, the response I have received from Ministers is that this private Member’s Bill does not require specific requirements on Welsh language rights in it and that these rights are already enshrined in law. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and I have written to the Minister as regards discussing how the legislation should operate in relation to Wales and devolution—he had previously committed to a meeting—but we have yet to receive a response. I have withdrawn previous amendments in anticipation of that very meeting, but in this instance—as the provision of interpreters to communicate between the individual and the people charged with being the final guardians of safeguarding is wrong—I will push the amendment to a vote, because I do not believe that the issue is covered in legislation as things stand.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Jake Richards and Liz Saville Roberts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jake Richards]

Q There are some amendments being tabled that would offer further clarification and include more things that have to be considered. I have a similar question to the one I asked the previous panel, when I think you were here in the Public Gallery. Would offering further guidance to your members be welcome, or would you again err on the side of trusting their professional discretion?

Dr Green: As Dr Whitty said, I think simplicity is the key here.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q Dr Green, you mentioned the different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies. What issues have your members raised in relation to this legislation?

Dr Green: In terms of the cross-border issues?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Jake Richards and Liz Saville Roberts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jake Richards]

Well, we have had lots of lists, but Lord Sumption and Lord Neuberger are giving evidence, I believe; Lord Sumption is, anyway. These things can be tested and challenged, so the notion that we need to have others is slightly absurd. We have the law lecturer from Cambridge University as well.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I put it on record that I am very grateful that we will be able to find time for a legal adviser. It will not be a representative of the Senedd, because it has become apparent that the Senedd itself will not provide a Clerk to advise us. That seems to be a weak point in the process of making legislation: I think that as legislators we should be able to receive advice on the issue that is non-political and is perceived as non-political, so we probably need to address that in future. It will not be a representative of the Senedd, but I will seek within the time to get a legal advisor who is recognised as an expert in this field.