Criminal Law

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your new role.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024, following the Lord Chancellor’s statement on prison capacity last week. This statutory instrument is significant, so it is right that we have the opportunity to scrutinise, challenge and call on the Government for clear answers to a number of vital questions. Although the SI is comprised of only five clauses and a schedule, its impact should not be underestimated. It reduces the automatic release point for criminals on standard determinate sentences from 50% of their sentence to 40%, subject to limited exclusions.

As the shadow Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), has set out, we recognise the challenges and significant pressure facing prisons and the criminal justice system, as well as the need to ensure that they continue to function effectively. Those pressures were well known to the then Opposition—they are not sudden news.

In government, in order to protect society, we took the decision to toughen sentences for those who commit the worst crimes. In parallel, we set in train the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era, with thousands of additional places delivered, and five of the six new prisons either built, in construction or with planning permission granted. However, what had a huge impact on the prison population was our taking the right decisions not to mass release prisoners in the pandemic, and not to scrap trial by jury during the pandemic, meaning that the number of remand prisoners awaiting trial or sentence increased from around 9,000 to around 16,500. Those decisions, which, if I recall correctly, were not opposed by the then Opposition, were the right decisions, and the now Government cannot credibly claim they did not know about them.

Public protection must always be central to what the Lord Chancellor does. We have grave public protection concerns about the Government bringing forward this statutory instrument to reduce capacity pressure in prisons. When the shadow Lord Chancellor pressed the Lord Chancellor on a number of our key concerns last week, the Lord Chancellor was unable to provide the reassurance and commitments that we sought. Today, as we debate the detail of the instrument, I must press her again, and I hope that she will respond in her wind-up.

By way of context, can the Lord Chancellor confirm the number of places available in the adult male estate as of this morning—I believe that the figure was around 700 when she made her statement—so that the House might understand the rate of attrition in prison places? She failed last week to set out her criteria for ending the effect of the statutory instrument after 18 months. More importantly, why does the statutory instrument not contain a sunset clause? I realise that she touched on that, but given the significance of the powers, surely it is reasonable to sunset such a measure. Rather than us giving her a blank cheque, she could always return to the House to seek its agreement to renewing the measure, if needed. The SI and supporting documents suggest that the Lord Chancellor has not put in place any exclusions to prevent the worst, persistent repeat offenders who receive shorter sentences from benefiting. Is that correct?

The SI sets out that prisoners may benefit from the changes if their sentence is under five years. Is she aware that under the sentencing guidelines, a section 20 grievous bodily harm wounding offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—a serious offence—would attract a sentence of up to five years? Would those who have committed that offence benefit from her prisoner sentence reduction scheme?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Matt Vickers]

There will be an opportunity to respond to me later.

As we know, many offences linked to dreadful domestic abuse and domestic violence do not appear to be among the Lord Chancellor’s exclusions, as the offence prosecuted would be, for example, a section 20 GBH or common assault. What does she say to victims of domestic abuse who are worried that the way in which the measure has been drafted risks allowing their attacker to benefit from her early release scheme? What percentage of those who are released when 40% of their sentence is served, rather than 50%, will be recalled back into prison for breaches? What steps is she taking to mandate the imposition of GPS tagging or other strict conditions on those who benefit from the measures? Again, there is no detail in the SI.

What additional resources are being made available to probation by September, when this early release scheme is due to start, over and above what was already put in place by the previous Government? The Lord Chancellor stated her plans for next March, but what about this September, when her scheme comes into play? How many additional staff will be in place in offender management units by September, to meet the demands of sentence and release-point recalculation? What additional funding is the Ministry of Justice making available to local authorities and other housing providers to meet the short to medium-term increase in demand for suitable accommodation in the coming months?

Last week, the Lord Chancellor confirmed her intention to temporarily fully close HMP Dartmoor. Where does she intend to find the places lost? More broadly, she asks the House to support the open-ended measures in the SI, but is yet to set out any detail of a long-term capacity plan—either how she will pay for and build more prison places over and above those we already committed to, or whether she will reverse the changes we made to toughen sentences for dangerous criminals. Which is it? What is the plan?

While we recognise the need to address immediate pressures in the prison system, we are deeply troubled by the lack of detail in this statutory instrument and its supporting documents, and by the huge gaps that appear to exist, which I have set out. A blank cheque is being asked for, and there is no sunsetting of this significant measure, and no ability to amend the instrument to include a sunset provision. I have highlighted examples of serious offences that appear not to be excluded, offences that can often be linked to domestic violence or wounding. The absence of such measures, and of clarity, mean that this instrument is drafted in a way that is deeply troubling. I look forward to the Lord Chancellor’s response and reassurances during her wind-up remarks.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

I call Bambos Charalambous.