Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal Of Prisoners For Deportation Order 2025) (First sitting)

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms McVey. As the Committee knows, when this Government came to power we inherited a prison system in crisis. From January 2023 to September 2024, the adult male prison estate routinely operated at over 99% capacity. Had we exceeded maximum capacity, the consequences would have been unthinkable: with nowhere to put new prisoners, the police would have stopped making arrests and courts would have suspended trials. It could have led to the total breakdown of law and order, with criminals running amok in our streets.

The Government carried out a series of emergency prisoner releases to prevent that disaster. At the same time, we launched the independent sentencing review with one clear goal: to make sure we never again run out of prison places. David Gauke and his expert panel published their recommendations on 22 May and the Government responded the very same day, accepting the majority of them in principle.

One specific area we asked the review to look at was how we tackle the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons. They currently account for about 12% of our prison population and cost British taxpayers millions of pounds every year. The Government have made it very clear that foreign nationals should be in no doubt whatever that the law will be enforced, and where appropriate, we will work with the Home Office to pursue their deportation. I am pleased to say that in our first year, we have removed more foreign national offenders than in the previous 12 months or in any other July to July period, but we must go further.

The draft order implements the sentencing review’s recommendations to reduce the minimum period that foreign national offenders have to spend in prison to 30% of the custodial term, and to increase the window in which they can be removed from prison for the purpose of immediate deportation. As the Committee will be aware, the Secretary of State has the power to remove eligible foreign national offenders—those serving a determinate sentence who are liable to be removed from the UK—from prison for the sole purpose of immediate deportation. That is referred to as the early removal scheme. Foreign national offenders serving indeterminate sentences—life sentences and sentences of imprisonment for public protection—are outside the scope of the scheme, and rightly so. Prisoners serving any type of sentence for a terrorism-related offence are also excluded. The power to remove a foreign national offender under the scheme is discretionary, and prison governors can refuse to remove individuals in certain circumstances, for example where there is clear evidence that the prisoner is planning further crime or dealing class A drugs in custody, or there are serious public safety concerns regarding early removal.

Under the current rules, eligible offenders can be removed up to 18 months before the earliest release point of the sentence, provided they have served one half of the requisite custodial period. This statutory instrument amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow foreign national offenders to be removed up to four years before the earliest release point of their sentence, subject to having served one third of the requisite custodial period. That means that eligible offenders can be removed from prison earlier.

At current removal rates, we expect that the change will free up approximately 500 prison spaces a year. Not only will that help to safeguard prisons from collapse, with all the risks that poses to the public; it will also prevent taxpayers’ money from being spent to keep foreign nationals in this country any longer than absolutely necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the Opposition spokesman for those closing comments. I wish him and his colleagues, you, Ms McVey, and, indeed, all members of the Committee well for the forthcoming recess. I am sure that he was referring to potential reshuffles among the Opposition rather than anywhere else. I am grateful to him for recognising that this Government are going much further than the Government whom he supported did over their 14 years in office. Much as I like him, I do feel that often his contributions to debates such as this are rather like the arsonist turning up at the fire, blaming the fire brigade for the fire and adding more things to the fire while he is there.

The proposed changes in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025 will enable the Government to remove foreign national offenders for the purpose of immediate deportation earlier in their sentence. We are agreed across this House that that is the right thing to do, and I am grateful for the support of all members of the Committee on that. It will help to ease the prison capacity crisis inherited from the last Government, keep the British public safer and ensure that less of their tax money is spent on those who come to this country and abuse our hospitality by committing crime. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Imprisonment for Public Protection Sentences: 2024-25 Annual Report

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

My noble Friend the Minister of State for Justice (Lord Timpson) has today made the following statement:

“Today, I am laying before Parliament the HMPPS annual report on the IPP Sentence 2024/25, pursuant to Section 67 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

This report sets out the activity taken across HMPPS for the financial year of 2024/25 to support those serving the IPP sentence in prison to work towards a safe release, and those in the community, towards the termination of their licence. The revised action plan sets out where we intend to go further, including increasing access to release on temporary license, expanding the approved premises pilot to improve resettlement support, and enabling swift re-release following recall through risk assessed recall review when it is safe and appropriate to do so.

The latest published statistics show that as at 31 March 2025, there were 1,012 unreleased and 1,532 recalled IPP prisoners, compared to 1,180 unreleased and 1,616 recalled IPP prisoners on the corresponding date in 2024. As at 31 December 2024, there were 1,376 offenders serving IPP sentences in the community and 233 prisoners in hospital for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983, compared to 3,018 offenders in the community and 241 prisoners in hospital on the corresponding date in 2023. In 2024, 602 recalled IPP prisoners were released, the highest number in a single year. A revised action plan is included as part of this annual report, which sets out planned HMPPS activity for 2025/26, including for the first time actions with measurable targets. The Government are determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for all those serving the IPP sentence and an eventual end to their sentence, but only in such a way that does not put the public and victims at risk.”

[HCWS844]

Draft Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister, anybody who feels the need to remove clothing—within reason—please do so.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. As the Committee will be aware, in December last year my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made a written statement to the House concerning the independent domestic homicide sentencing review, which announced the Government’s plans to implement two of the review’s outstanding recommendations. In opposition, we welcomed Clare Wade KC’s approach of updating the sentencing framework for murder to reflect the seriousness of domestic homicides, while balancing the need to ensure that any changes do not unduly punish abused women who kill their abuser. We did, however, call for more of the review’s recommendations to be implemented, which is precisely what today’s draft instrument is intended to achieve. Its measures are central to the Government’s mission to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls.

In case it is helpful to the Committee, I will set out some of the background to this issue. Our current sentencing framework for murder, as specified in schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, was first introduced more than 20 years ago. Since then, multiple piecemeal amendments have been made to it by Governments of all colours. In recent years, particular concerns have been raised regarding gendered disparities for murders committed in a domestic context. Clare Wade KC, an experienced barrister specialising in murder, manslaughter and serious sexual offences, was commissioned by the previous Government to review sentencing in domestic homicide cases. She was tasked with establishing whether the law in this area and related sentencing guidelines were fit for purpose.

I pay tribute to Clare Wade for her thorough and considered work on this review, and to those whose campaigning led to the commissioning of it. They include Carole Gould and Julie Devey, founders of the Killed Women network and mothers of two young women, Ellie Gould and Poppy Devey Waterhouse, both of whom were tragically murdered by their former partners. Having met members of the Killed Women campaign to hear their harrowing experiences at first hand, I recognise just how important this legislation is. I know that colleagues will join me in commending their courage and commitment to campaigning for change.

Clare Wade KC’s review was published in March 2023, and the previous Government responded in July of the same year. Some of the recommendations were accepted and implemented by Ministers in that Administration, but a number remain outstanding. Today’s instrument implements two of them. First, it introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders connected with the end of a relationship. In over a third of the cases analysed by the review, the murder occurred at the end, or perceived end, of the relationship, and in the majority of cases, this appeared to be the catalyst for the killing. The perpetrator was male in all these cases. As the Committee will be aware, a murder involving resentment or jealousy by the perpetrator at the end of a relationship is a significant feature of cases involving controlling or coercive behaviour, and is often the final controlling act of an abusive partner.

Secondly, the instrument introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders involving strangulation. In recent years, strangulation has been recognised as a method of exerting power and control, particularly in the context of domestic abuse where female victims are assaulted by physically stronger males. Nearly a third of the murder cases analysed by Clare Wade KC involved strangulation, all carried out by a male perpetrator with a female victim. The intention of the instrument is to recognise those factors expressly in statute, to ensure that domestic murders and the particular harms that arise in these cases are given specialist consideration in the framework.

Alongside this important legislation, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has also invited the Law Commission to conduct a review of homicide law and sentencing. The sentencing framework for murder was first introduced over 20 years ago and has never been subject to wholesale review. This contrasts with the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines, which are regularly reviewed and updated, with any changes subject to thorough consultation. While Clare Wade KC’s review and today’s legislation go some way towards ensuring that the sentencing framework for murder reflects a modern understanding of domestic abuse, more fundamental reform is also required. The intention of the Law Commission review is a complete reconsideration of the sentencing framework for murder, with a view to making recommendations for a new schedule 21. The review will also consider the law relating to homicide offences, including full and partial defences to them.

We anticipate that the Law Commission review will take some time to complete. We will then need to consider the recommendations and bring forward any necessary legislation. This is the right course of action for such a complex area of law, but it is not a swift one, which is why we are taking more immediate action in the short term by introducing the measures in the instrument. This is part of our crucial work to deliver on our missions to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am grateful that the spokesman for His Majesty’s Opposition recognises that the draft regulations build on the work of the previous Government in a right and proper way, taking those decisions forward. It is disappointing that he does not recognise some responsibility for the situation that we inherited in the prison estate with overcrowding, and in the courts with people having to wait so long to have their trial. That is why we are having to address these issues in the round. But that is not pertinent to this statutory instrument, which speaks for itself, and I am grateful for his and his party’s support on this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

While it is quite a short point, I think it is important. What was previously thought to be useful in terms of consultation is now regarded as being of secondary importance. It seems to me that proposing to establish or expand a secure 16 to 19 academy is a big decision—a big step—and that it should be the subject of the consultation as originally set out in the Academies Act 2010.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) focuses on the specific question of why this change should be made. It is very much a technical change. We have one secure school, the Oasis Academy in Kent, which I have visited. These secure schools are for young people who are sentenced to custody; they join the rest of the youth custodial estate, which includes three young offenders institutions and a secure training centre, as well as a YOI in Wales and some secure children’s homes.

It is a very discrete landscape. There is no competition with alternative provision or any other provision locally, because it would be inappropriate for a young person who was sentenced to custody to go into alternative provision, as they have to go to secure provision—that is, a young offenders institution or one of the other secure provisions, one of which is the secure school.

It was a bit of an oversight in the original legislation to use the term “consultation” about whether it should go ahead, because there is no competition in the locality. A more useful consultation would be about how, because there are issues about working with other partners, including partners that might provide alternative provision, and that is the most appropriate way of doing that.

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) has brought this Bill before us today. It seeks to make more sense of the legislation, so that it will be more effective for these particular young people and these particular places.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am so grateful to the Minister. What a breath of fresh air that a Minister has actually answered my challenge and given an explanation! In the light of those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for the excellent work she has done in bringing forward this important Bill and navigating us to this point. I am also grateful to the shadow Minister for his support and for his comments. I assure him that we will take forward the issues he rightly raises in due course.

In answer to the welcome scepticism from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), I can confirm that I wrote to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and indeed copied in the rest of the Committee, pointing out that Oasis Restore had agreed to the rationale for reducing the notice period from seven years to two and for this change to be applied to their funding agreement. As a result, there will be no financial impact on the taxpayer. I picked up exactly the point that the hon. Member for Christchurch rightly raised; it has been dealt with.

Academies were first introduced by the Government of Sir Tony Blair, but the issues raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch about academies generally are matters for the Department for Education rather than me. I commend the Bill to the House and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for bringing it forward.

Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment would exclude an amendment to paragraph 8(1A) of schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It would reduce the Bill from covering four areas, to covering only section 47 of the Family Law Act 1996, section 9 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009.

Why am I concerned about removing provisions relating to local government? Well, I have been instrumental in discussing, in the House and elsewhere, the costs and burdens of council tax ever since it was introduced, consequent upon the failure of the legislation for community charges. I was privileged to help take through this House that legislation on the community charge in the late 1980s. I still meet people who think it was a big mistake to abandon the community charge, which would have ensured that everybody in receipt of local government services, if they were over 18, would have made a contribution. That is all history. It was changed. We introduced council tax, and with it council tax administration and enforcement regulations.

It is those regulations that would now be altered by clause 4 of the Bill. Instead of what is already set out on the ability of the courts to deal with council tax administrative and enforcement problems, it is suggested that those court hearings should be able to be held remotely. In other words, there would not be any proper ability for people to see what was going on. In my view, the deterrent value of such hearings would be lost, because they would be remote hearings, rather than in-person hearings in the local magistrates court.

Let me also mention the extent of the problem we already have with the enforcement of council tax arrears. They are now in the order of £6 billion, as the Minister will know—some £6 billion in council tax arrears. I think almost 10% of that total is attributable to just four local authorities. It will not surprise hon. Members to know that those local authorities are Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and Brent. Between them, those four local authorities are responsible for more than 10% of the £6 billion in council tax arrears at the moment.

What are we doing? Why are we trying to reduce the pressure on council tax payment miscreants by enabling them to hide behind remote hearings instead of having to face the music in a proper court of law, where justice can not only be done but be seen to be done? Why should a council tax debtor not be required to attend a court hearing in person? The court can then make inquiries about the person and discuss means of payment. It can all be done with witnesses. The magistrates can see aspects of the demeanour of the defendant in person and take those into account. Most importantly of all, they can ensure that the court process acts as a deterrent against people thinking that paying their council tax is essentially a voluntary activity.

A real debt crisis is building in this country, and not just on council tax. I serve on the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee; we have heard evidence that the arrears on energy payments are now £4 billion or more. Why are we seeking in this Bill to reduce the pressure on people who almost make paying council tax seem voluntary? Why do we not put more pressure on the local authorities responsible for a lot of the council tax arrears?

I am lucky enough to live in the New Forest district council area; it is 286th in the council tax arrears league table; that amounts to about £69 per council tax payer. By contrast, in Liverpool the arrears are £194,721,000, which means that for every council tax dwelling £869 is owing. What is being done to put pressure on Liverpool city council to do something about the situation? The same applies to other councils, including in the area that I am privileged to represent. BCP council is 109th in the league table with more than £45 million of council arrears, amounting to £249 per council tax dwelling. Dorset council, in the other half of my constituency, has £53 million in council tax arrears, amounting to £290 per council tax dwelling. I have tabled the amendment to ask the Minister this: why we are proposing to facilitate remote hearings for issues relating to council tax?

The council tax administration and enforcement regulations enable a council to issue a reminder notice and a final notice. If the debt remains unpaid for more than 14 days after a reminder notice is sent, the council can apply to the magistrates court for a liability order. There will then be a hearing, and if the magistrate finds that the taxpayer has failed to pay council tax, they will order the taxpayer to pay the outstanding sum as well as the council’s costs—that is set out in regulation 34. Once a liability order is granted, the council can use several different enforcement methods to collect the debt. It can instruct an employer to deduct money under an attachment of earnings order, it can make deductions from benefits, it can take control of goods, or it can issue a charging order. In extremis, the council can even initiate bankruptcy proceedings, and ultimately, it can apply to commit the taxpayer to prison if bailiffs have been unable to find goods belonging to the taxpayer that cover the debt.

Given that local authorities possess all those powers under the council tax administration and enforcement regulations, why are they not being used effectively? Why do we think that creating remote hearings is going to improve matters? That seems absolutely ludicrous to me. If ever there were a good use of a magistrates court’s time, it is to ensure that conscientious payers of council tax in the area covered by that court do not have to subsidise people who do not pay their council tax, resulting in the enormous arrears to which I have referred. That is why I am concerned about this proposal.

Remote hearings were introduced during the pandemic and have been used in other circumstances, but the consequence of a remote hearing is that the press and the public are in the dark. One of the best deterrents to council tax non-payment would be for people who are in receipt of liability orders in the local magistrates court to have their names and addresses published in the local paper. That is going to be made much more difficult if the Bill contains references to council tax when it becomes law, so on behalf of all those people who are suffering as a result of the more than £6 billion owed in council tax, I urge the Government not to proceed with this particular part of the Bill. That is why I have tabled my amendment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) raises important concerns, but this Bill is not about reducing the pressure on miscreants—it is about dealing with them as effectively and efficiently as possible. The Bill does not mandate the use of video; it allows the courts flexibility. Instead of the police being used as taxi drivers, moving people around when they should be dealing with other miscreants, cases will be able to be dealt with in a much more effective way when a magistrate or a judge needs to be found at short notice. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this measure will benefit justice, and will assist in dealing with the miscreants that he and I are both concerned about. The current situation makes it more difficult to do that.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I thank the Minister for his response. Perhaps the logic of what he says is that, instead of my amendment to remove the provisions relating to council tax, we should add to the Bill a provision about shoplifters and fraudsters, so that they are subject to remote hearings, on the basis that this will assist in the administration of justice. I was too slow to table amendments to such an effect in order to draw out the Minister further, but it is implicit in what I have said that I do not accept the explanation he has given. Were that explanation to be correct, I urge him to add categories to the Bill when it reaches the Lords, so that justice can be done, as he would see it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Madam Deputy Speaker, it will not surprise you that, in the light of the Minister’s response to my amendment, I am very unhappy about the Bill. Unamended, it incorporates the provisions on local government non-payers that I described on Report. I cannot get my head round the argument put forward by the Minister, and it is replicated in the explanatory notes on the Bill, which say:

“This Bill creates a more efficient process for handling these matters, removing the need to move people from police cells to courts and for judges/magistrates to travel to attend courts in person to hear the cases at the weekend or public holidays.”

That certainly does not refer to cases involving local government debts. It may well apply to some cases relating to other aspects of the Bill.

The explanatory notes also say:

“The use of remote link in Criminal proceedings is relatively common and has delivered significant benefits. It is also common in Civil and Family proceedings. In those proceedings, the appearance of a defendant by remote link is permitted at the direction of the court, including cases of far greater sensitivity or gravity.”

Of course, family proceedings are in camera anyway, so Joe Public of the local Daily Echo will not get access to that. I am not suggesting that they should, but if they cannot access information about who is in council tax arrears and is being brought before the court, that will become much more difficult.

The explanatory notes go on to say:

“The lack of legal power to order that these cases are heard by remote link means that all arrested defendants must be transported from the police station to court”.

Earlier, I went through all the stages that people have to go through before they find themselves threatened with imprisonment for debt. If they go through all those stages, surely it is important that they should be brought to court, and we should not be concerned about the fact that they will have to be transported from the police station to court or that the judge may have to travel to court. Of course, all that has been made more difficult because we have closed so many magistrates courts that the travelling distances are longer.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

indicated assent.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I see that the Minister agrees. We have so few courts now compared with before that people have to travel further, with all the inconvenience that that leads to.

The explanatory notes continue:

“This leads to delay in dealing with the case and is not an effective way of using resources.”

I just do not think that that applies in the case of the council tax provisions. If there were a sunset clause, and we could see whether putting more pressure on councils to take action against those who do not pay council tax reduced overall arrears, then we might be getting somewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

3. What steps she is taking to ensure that private contractors delivering justice services are held to account.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

We inherited a set of contracts from the previous Government, some of which are not performing as we would like, particularly in the areas of maintenance and electronic tagging. The Prisons Minister in the other place is gripping this situation and driving progress, with regular meetings to review performance.

[Mr Reynolds]

In 2013, Serco was fined £68.5 million for overcharging the Government for electronic tagging, but it was still awarded the new £200 million contract in 2023. Given the Secretary of State’s comments in March that the performance of Serco was “not good enough”, can the Minister explain what a private company actually needs to do for the Government to see it as unfit to hold a contract such as this one?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

While the performance of Serco has been unacceptable, as the hon. Gentleman says, we have made progress, and performance is improving. We have imposed fines for poor performance, and will not hesitate to employ further contractual remedies or other measures should they be required, but this is a contract that we inherited from the Conservative party, and we are doing our best to make it work.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that response, and this Government are doing their best to make things work, but Channel 4 has revealed that the contract with Serco was fundamentally failing. In the answer to my written question in June, Serco’s performance was still deemed to be unacceptable, so where are we with bringing Serco around to perform properly? If it does not do so, will the Government consider cancelling that contract and bringing those services back in-house?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

All options are always under review, but as I have said, performance under that contract is improving. The Prisons Minister in the other place is gripping this issue, and we will get to where we need to get to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

5. What progress she has made on reviewing terms and conditions of service for prison officers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I pay tribute to the essential work that our prison officers do, day in, day out. This year’s pay award delivered another real-terms pay rise for our frontline prison staff. We are committed to effective training and development of existing staff, as delivered through the Enable programme, alongside the provision of extensive wellbeing services.

[Seamus Logan]

I was in correspondence with the Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending last October, but he sits in the other place. In January, I was advised by the Minister in this place that the Secretary of State was awaiting advice about the range of terms and conditions issues for prison officers. I was also advised later in the spring, again from the Dispatch Box, that it was right that the situation was being “kept under review”. I thank the Minister for the thoughtful and sincere way in which he has engaged with me in recent months, but given that I have been asking about this issue for nine months, can he provide an update today on progress with the advice, and on exactly what is being reviewed?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member and I had a useful meeting a short time ago to explore all these issues, and I can reaffirm that the Lord Chancellor and the Department are fully engaged with the Prison Officers Association on this and other issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

There has been a spate of attacks on prison officers in recent months by Islamist terrorists. One study even revealed that terrorists inside prisons are teaching organised criminals how to make bombs. It has got so bad that former governors believe that the threat posed to frontline staff by radicalised Islamists is now intolerable. Can the Minister tell us what his assessment is of the threat from Islamist gangs, and what on earth he is doing about it?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We are working hard to enhance security and ease crowding in order to curb violence, including through a new £40 million investment to stop contraband, which puts our hard-working staff at risk. Assaults on staff and the other issues that the right hon. Gentleman mentions are unacceptable. That is why we are firmly and securely taking action. We are mandating the use of protective body armour in the highest-risk units and on the long-term high-security estate, which hold some of the most dangerous prisoners. We are taking action, while the previous Government failed.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of lowering the pension age of prison officers on prison officer morale.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

Prison officers benefit from the civil service pension scheme, which offers excellent public sector terms, low employee contributions and a 28.97% employer contribution, but we recognise that pension age is an important issue for prison officers. That is why we are fully engaged with the unions on this issue.

[Brian Leishman]

The last Government hiked up prison officers’ pension age to 68, and then walked away from negotiations that were set up to partially reverse that unfair and unrealistic policy. This devastated morale, which is now worse than ever, especially with violence against staff at record highs. Are this Government prepared to do what it takes and clean up yet another Tory prisons mess? Will Ministers finally get back around the table with the Prison Officers Association to negotiate a fair pensions deal for its members?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the fact that this is yet another Tory mess that we have inherited. As I have said, we value the work of the POA, and we recognise the significant work of prison officers and the strength of feeling on this issue. We will continue to engage with the POA and others to try to find the best way forward.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

There is a problem in our prisons across the United Kingdom. It is a two-spectrum problem, in that there is an increase in turnover, with prison officers leaving early, while the problem of the pension continues. Can the Minister increase the intensity of discussions with the POA to try to reach a more satisfactory outcome to which the Department and the prison officers concerned are amenable?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We need to make progress on this issue, and we are determined to do so.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

8. What steps she is taking to support victims of violence against women through the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to increase prison capacity.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

We took immediate action to prevent the collapse of our prison system. The last Government added just 500 places to our prison estate over 14 years, whereas the previous Labour Government added around 28,000 places over 13 years. We intend to match the ambition of the last Labour Government, not the last Conservative Government, which is why we are committed to building 14,000 new prison places. By the end of this Parliament, we will have more people in prison than at any time in our history.

[Tom Hayes]

Every week brings new concerns about crime in Bournemouth, and I will pick up this issue with the police and crime commissioner for my area in my Boscombe office on Friday. Increasing prison spaces keeps dangerous people away from the public, and punishes serious crime. Increasing prison spaces stops reoffending, and I thank Tim from Athelstan Road for his creative suggestions to achieve that, which I have forwarded to the relevant Minister. Can the Minister outline the steps that he is taking to stop reoffending, especially where it applies to violent crime?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right. Public protection is our No. 1 priority, but we are also tackling reoffending, with proper programmes in place in prison. We also need to support people when they come out of prison, and probation is part of that solution.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

In the light of the pressure on prison places, what assessment has the Minister made of the Government’s early release scheme, under which nearly a quarter of those released reoffended again within just one year? Does he believe that the criteria used to determine eligibility were fit for purpose, and will he share them with the House?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Due to the circumstances that this Government found when we came into office, we had no option but to introduce a temporary change to the law to allow prisoners serving an eligible standard determinate sentence to be released on licence. This had many more constraints to it than the early release scheme operated by the previous Government, which was rushed out just before the election. Actually, the data has not yet been published, so the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to support probation officers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

Me again, Mr Speaker. We are determined to back our hard-working probation staff by investing up to £700 million, which is a 45% increase in funding. We have already exceeded this year’s target by recruiting over 1,000 trainees. We will recruit another 1,300 more probation officers in 2025-26.

[Warinder Juss]

An effective Probation Service is crucial for the rehabilitation and resettlement of prisoners to reduce reoffending. Although I welcome the number of new probation officers to be recruited, Napo reports that probation workloads are unmanageable, staff turnover and sickness are high, and probation officers are often managing cases belonging to colleagues, when evidence suggests that prisoners on licence are less likely to be recalled if they have had the same supervising officer from the day of their release. Can the Minister please outline the steps being taken to address these issues, so that morale is improved and probation officers have sufficient time for and attention to give to individual cases?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that prison officers have the time to do the job they came in to do, which is to spend time with offenders and turn their lives around. In addition, we have invested an initial £8 million in technology and launched a new programme to develop a sustainable work process that will allow probation staff to focus on the work they joined the service to deliver.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for that answer. I had the opportunity a few months ago to visit the probation office in Newtownards to get an idea of what it does. I was very impressed, first, by the quality of the staff; secondly, by the fact that they are involved in restorative justice issues relating to perpetrators and victims; and, thirdly, by the importance they give to ensuring that young people have opportunities. Can the Minister tell us, from his discussions with the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, what has been done to ensure that what happens here also happens back home and that what happens back home also happens here?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. As he knows, we have regular discussions in the five nations group to ensure that good practice is shared, issues are addressed together and we learn from each other.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking to improve prison security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to support the rehabilitation of people convicted of knife crime offences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

Halving knife crime is a moral mission for the Government. Every young person caught with a knife is referred to a youth offending team, and Turnaround is very successful in diverting youngsters on the cusp of crime away from offending. Alongside that, the Government will roll out prevention partnerships and Young Futures hubs.

[Imran Hussain]

I welcome the Minister’s answer. Knife crime ruins lives and devastates communities; rightly, those responsible must be held accountable. If we are serious about preventing reoffending, however, we also need structured, credible rehabilitation, the focus of which must be on prevention and diversionary activities. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on boxing, I have seen how grassroots boxing clubs offer something different—structure, community and hope—that is of particular benefit to young people. I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss how boxing can be a key part of successfully rehabilitating offenders.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the range of diversions that can help the rehabilitation of young offenders, including boxing clubs. I am happy to meet him.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

16. What steps her Department is taking to restore the Legal Aid Agency's digital services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

18. What steps she is taking to ensure she can refer Parole Board decisions in cases of serious offenders to the High Court.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

Work to implement the power to refer cases to the High Court is well advanced, and we expect to be able to fully update the House later this year.

[Danny Kruger]

The Secretary of State is declining to take the power to refer to the High Court on unduly lenient Parole Board decisions in cases of manslaughter, like that of Robert Brown, who killed the best friend of my constituent, Hetti Barkworth-Nanton. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this decision and explore how we can ensure that the Secretary of State has all the powers necessary to ensure that violent killers like Brown are not released early?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

That was a horrific case. My thoughts remain with Joanna’s family and friends, specifically Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, who I met last year, and who the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), met this week. The previous Parliament carefully scrutinised the referral power and the offences that should be in scope. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

With the case of one of the killers of James Bulger, Jon Venables, coming to the Parole Board again, the need for the voices of victims’ families to be heard in the justice system is coming right to the fore. My constituent Sue, who is in the Gallery today, is being supported by the James Bulger foundation. Her son died needlessly; he was not supported by the people with him, who could have offered him aid and got him medical help. Will the Minister meet me and Sue to hear the tragic details of this case and discuss the options for changing the law to ensure that victims’ families are properly represented in the justice system?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend draws attention to another horrific case. I think the best way of proceeding is to take up his offer of a meeting.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

19. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of deporting all foreign criminals on prison capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

20. What steps she is taking to improve the quality of prison education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

Ensuring that prisoners have access to education is essential for rehabilitation in order to ensure that prison produces better citizens, not better criminals. New prison education service contracts will be launched later this year, which aim to strengthen the quality of delivery and provide consistent assessment of prisoners. Last week, I held a roundtable bringing together experts to drive improvement and strengthen current education provision in young offenders institutions.

[Kim Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his response. However, 82% of prisons and young offenders institutions have been rated as “requires improvement” or “inadequate” by Ofsted on education, skills and work provision. Despite that, the prison education service still outsources the same poorly performing contracts to poorly performing providers, and prison educators are paid less than educators in further education settings, causing a crisis in recruitment and retention, according to the Education Committee. When we will see the greatest insourcing in a generation, and will the Minister consider insourcing prison education with proper pay, terms and conditions for prison educators?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

All options are on the table. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service introduced a head of education, skills and work into every prison to ensure that, across the estate, a senior member of prison staff is responsible for improving the quality of education provision. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to Ofsted reports, but there has been an increase in the overall number of “good” ratings achieved through the inspections. This is work in progress. We need to do better, as she says, and that is what we are determined to do.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T1.   If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

T3. PeoplePlus has just won the contract for prison education in Scotland and England. PeoplePlus was sold to Talent International, a subsidiary of swipejobs, in which US and Australian-based venture capital firm Clearsign Capital has a 40% stake, according to the University and College Union. Can the Minister explain why venture capitalists are making money out of educating British prisoners?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

My hon. Friend asks a good question. In England, prison education contracts are awarded following a rigorous commercial process that awards providers on merit. I understand that PeoplePlus has been awarded education contracts for Scottish prisons, but that would be a matter for the Scottish Government.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

T5. I wish to raise the case of my constituent whose 89-year-old father was subject to serious abuse through a lasting power of attorney. It took two years and significant legal costs to get the power of attorney removed through the Court of Protection. The father tragically died, homeless and penniless. Does the Minister believe that the current LPA protections are sufficient to prevent such abuse, and will the Government consider an urgent review and reform of the system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T6.   I recently met Ruby Hamill—a young activist who nearly died in a Government-run prison when her severe eating disorder was ignored. Ruby is not a constituent; she wanted to talk to me because I chair the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group. Will the Minister meet me and Ruby’s family to ensure that there are eating disorder guidelines in all prisons, and that the guidelines are appropriate and implemented across all prison healthcare providers?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am sorry to hear of the case that the hon. Member outlines, and I would be very happy to meet her to explore the issue further.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. In a recent report, the Victims Commissioner said that she feared that the delay in victims getting justice “will drive some victims to give up on seeking justice altogether—a second injustice compounding the first.”This is completely unacceptable, and at Ipswich Crown court the backlog of open cases has more than doubled since 2016. What are Ministers doing to reverse the harm inflicted by the Conservatives not only on the justice system itself but on victims’ confidence that justice will be served at all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

T8.   My constituent Andy from Offerton often plays a caring role for his adult son, as his son has serious mental ill health. During his son’s recent stay in prison, Andy struggled to get quality information from the prison about his son’s health situation and living conditions. What more will the Government do to ensure that parent carers such as Andy get the information they need and deserve during a child’s stay in prison?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Lady is right: it is important that parent carers get the information they need that helps with rehabilitation and getting things to the right place. If she wants to write to me about that particular case, I will look into it and write back to her.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Survive is a York-based charity providing specialist services and trauma-specific interventions to survivors of sexual violence and abuse. However, it has had to close its waiting list because it does not have the capacity to meet the demand. Will the Minister look at providing additional funding, so that we can get those vital services to survivors and victims now and they do not have to wait?

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s efforts to reform sentencing following the sentencing review. I am confident that those steps will end the chaos left behind by the previous Government. I am particularly interested in rehabilitation as a priority in sentencing. A troubling statistic remains: studies have shown that 30% of prisoners in the UK are diagnosed as dyslexic, and there are probably many more who are undiagnosed, meaning that the numbers are much higher. Will the Minister tell me what steps are being taken to support dyslexic people in prison and to prevent reoffending following release?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of rehabilitation in the panoply of things that we do in the criminal justice system. She is also right to highlight the number of prisoners and people in the criminal justice system who have dyslexia, which is one of the many neurodiverse conditions in the prison service. Every prison has a neurodiversity officer who co-ordinates activity to address that in each prison, but if she wants to write to me about the issue, I would be happy to respond in more detail.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the deeply troubling revelations over the weekend of the so-called Halal bride website. Does she agree that such practices have absolutely no place in Britain?

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

When I visited HMP Onley, the nearest prison to my constituency, I had the great privilege to be given a tour by the governor, Mark Allen and to see the excellent work of the staff. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would comment on the importance of offerings by organisations and companies such as Greene King which provide cafés and restaurants so that prisoners can be rehabilitated while they are in prison.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Greene King does outstanding work, as do other organisations in our prison service. They are important partners in delivering better justice.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor rightly rejected murderer Alan Jermey’s Parole Board request for open conditions, for which his daughters and I are extremely grateful. I understand that Mr Jermey is now legally challenging the decision, so will the Lord Chancellor revisit my request for a meeting with her about this issue?

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.

I thank the hon. Members who have contributed so far. On the issues just raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, they are for the Bill as it makes progress. Assuming that it does progress, however, I am happy to write to him with an answer to those points, as they are pertinent.

I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I add my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for promoting the Bill. I thank the Opposition and Liberal Democrats spokesmen for the pertinent remarks that they have made, which are helpful.

A sad reality is that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty to protect the public. In line with our safer streets mission, the Government’s responsibility is to ensure that children who find themselves in the youth justice system receive the support that they need to turn their lives around.

Secure 16-to-19 academies, otherwise known as secure schools, offer an opportunity to transform the experience of children who are detained after having been sentenced or remanded to custody by the courts. Secure schools allow children to gain skills and qualifications that will help them to turn their backs on crime for good and, crucially, to protect the public from their reoffending in the future.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

We have had Borstals and approved schools, neither of which were particularly successful at reforming those who were in custody in them. Is the Minister confident that this new architecture, this new arrangement, will be more successful?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The proof of the pudding is always in the eating, and we are at the start of a new venture. The former chief inspector of prisons, Charlie Taylor, was enthusiastic about this line of development. The previous Government, to their credit, over a period of time developed the first 16-to-19 academy, which is now established in legislation. The first ever secure school, Oasis Restore, opened in Kent last autumn. I was pleased to visit the secure school in September last year to see it for myself. The school is not yet where we or Oasis aspire for it to be, but I am encouraged by the commitment and passion of those involved. We need to ensure that it works as described in the appropriate challenge of hon. Members.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The provision of 16 to 19 secure schools to ensure that young people have an opportunity to develop skills to prevent reoffending is absolutely something I welcome. Given that, however, I should declare my interest: I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth-form education. Given that 16 to 19 education now includes a lot of off-site learning for young people—such as through T-level placements or BTEC provision—can the Minister say how young people in a secure setting will be able to access the same educational opportunities as their equivalents in mainstream education?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased that he chairs the APPG for sixth-form colleges, a group I previously chaired, relating back to my time leading a sixth-form college before I came to this place.

I had a roundtable with external providers on how to challenge our system in youth-offending institutions. The Oasis Restore school was represented, as was the Oakhill secure training centre. It is important that we ensure that the best practice available outside our youth custody estate is levered into what we do, so that we can get the very best for the young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is right to press me and the Government on that point.

The Bill is necessary to ensure that specific provisions in the Academies Act 2010 are tailored to reflect the unique nature and needs of secure schools. The Government support the Bill on the basis that those amendments will provide for better and more integrated services. The Bill will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and to have more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider.

We also have the opportunity to remove any unnecessary administrative burden and to help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. Engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection process for new custodial sites. The Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage their local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process on how the secure school should work with local partners.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to all those Members who have contributed to the debate, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for her promotion of this important Bill. I confirm the Government’s continued support.

[Emma Foody]

I thank the Minister for those remarks and for the support of the Government. Similarly, I thank Members from across the House for their constructive remarks and for their support of the Bill. I also take the opportunity to thank all the Clerks and officials who have helped in the preparation and progress of the Bill. I thank you, Mr Mundell, for chairing this sitting.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

It is a complete joy to serve when you chair, Mr Dowd, and a pleasure to respond to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) to set out this very important matter. I will do my best to answer her eight questions.

I thank all Members, on both sides of the Chamber, for their considered contributions to today’s debate. This has been a measured and helpful discussion underscoring the importance of recognising and responding to the needs of neurodivergent offenders, including those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. There is a huge prevalence of neurodiversity in our prisons: studies have estimated that at least half of the offenders in our jails have some kind of neurodivergent need, though the figure is likely to be even higher, with about a quarter of prisoners thought to meet the ADHD diagnostic criteria. As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, NICE calculates that figure as up to 25%, including 41% of women. As the inspectorates have highlighted, for these offenders prison can be particularly difficult and distressing, leading to challenging behaviour that could result in their being unnecessarily sanctioned or disciplined.

Prison is rightly first and foremost a punishment, but it must also reduce reoffending. Offenders deserve the opportunity to turn their lives around so that they can play their full part in society on release. We need to make better citizens, not better criminals. Above all, we want to ensure that every offender gets the rehabilitation they need to protect the public. That relies on ADHD and other neurodivergent needs being picked up quickly, and on offenders getting the support that they need so that they can engage with support, treatment and education. There is a great deal of good work already under way.

I will answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. On what measures are currently in place and what we plan to offer in way of support and continuity of care to neurodiverse prisoners on their release, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) rightly identified the key role of probation. There is guidance and training for probation staff to help them to understand ADHD, how needs can look different for different individuals, and that some needs are not visible. Probation staff are skilled at taking a strength-based approach in assessments for pre-sentence reports and sentence plans. Together, that can help our practitioners to adapt the work they do with offenders, whether that is in a one-to-one context, such as supervision appointments, in group settings in a behaviour programme, or in unpaid work placements.

In addition, the Probation Service has commissioned neurodiversity specialists in five probation regions: Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west, the west midlands, the south-west, and Wales. Those services offer direct support to people who are diagnosed with or suspected to have a neurodivergent condition; supporting engagement with their orders or licences, they provide briefings to probation staff designed to help them to identify factors that may be related to neurodivergent conditions, and give guidance on how best to support the rehabilitation of these individuals.

The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills asked about neurodiversity support managers. We have neurodiversity support managers in all our public prisons, and they have a whole-prison approach to neurodiversity. That includes: improving processes to identify and support prisoners with neurodivergent needs; providing training and guidance for prison staff; and ensuring that neurodivergent prisoners can access education, skills and work opportunities within the prison.

Neurodiversity support managers also ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to prison environments to make them more supportive of neurodivergent needs. They are frequently recognised in His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons reports for their positive impact in prisons, with recent reports from HMP Kirklevington Grange and HMP Warren Hill highlighting their support for prisoners as an example of good practice.

The 2021 joint inspectorate neurodiversity review of evidence, which the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills cited in detail, suggested that at least 50% of prisoners have a neurodivergent need, although many will not be diagnosed. In response to the review, the previous Government published a cross-Government neurodiversity action plan in July 2022, with updates in the January and September of 2023. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that we will publish a final update to the action plan later this year, which will respond directly to the joint inspectorate’s report and set out a cross-system strategy to further improve outcomes for neurodivergent people, building on the vital work of the ADHD taskforce.

I welcome the publication of the ADHD taskforce’s interim report. It is a timely and important piece of work that outlines the systemic challenges in ADHD services across the country and sets out both short and long-term recommendations to improve support for people with ADHD. Many contributions made by Members highlighted the issues in other services, which is why the report is important. I am grateful to colleagues across Departments who have worked collaboratively to shape the recommendations.

The report rightly makes clear that no single Department can resolve the challenges alone. ADHD, when left unsupported, can lead to a cascade of negative outcomes: school exclusion, unemployment, substance misuse, involvement in crime, and, tragically, sometimes suicide. We will continue to work with the taskforce and together across Government to achieve the report’s aims.

In youth justice, youth offending teams are increasingly tailoring interventions to children’s specific needs, including those with neurodiverse conditions, with 95% of practitioners reporting that assessments and planning now take into account individual vulnerabilities. Where children are detained in youth custody, all children receive a comprehensive health assessment that screens for a range of needs, including mental health and neurodiversity when they first arrive. All education providers across the three public young offender institutions also have a special educational needs co-ordinator who, in collaboration with NHS England, conducts assessments for children who may have undiagnosed needs, including ADHD. We are having a roundtable later today with education providers to look at alternative education providers outside of the youth justice estate to look at ways of bringing their expertise into the youth custody system so that we can learn from others and improve the way we do business in the youth custody service.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) drew attention to focusing on and analysing needs. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service takes a needs-led approach to supporting people in prison, including those with ADHD. This ensures that needs are identified as early as possible so that appropriate reasonable adjustments and support are provided throughout custody. To improve current screening processes, HMPPS is procuring a new needs assessment tool. I am pleased to confirm that Do-IT Solutions has been awarded the contract for this tool, which will be introduced as part of the new prisoner education service. The tool will identify individual strengths and additional learning needs, including those associated with autism spectrum conditions and ADHD.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the tool be used for every entrant to the prison estate or is it for those who might be suspected of having some sort of neurodiversity?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My understanding is that it will be, but I will write to the hon. Lady to confirm the details.

To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), data on prisoners with ADHD may be held locally by prison healthcare providers, but is not held centrally by NHS England. Where it is known, 55% of prisoners who took an initial assessment via the prison education service and then enrolled on a course had a learning difficulty or disability. We continue to work to improve our data collection and information sharing. This includes plans to integrate screening results and any information relating to additional need into digital learning and work plans to support prisoners’ education, skills and work progress through custody. But this area needs more work.

On the issue of women, the Prisons Minister in the other place, Lord Timpson, leads on the Women’s Justice Board—indeed, he chairs it. It is a passionate area of interest for him and the Lord Chancellor. I will write to Lord Timpson to flag the issue of ADHD, but I am sure it is already on his radar and in his work plan. If it is not, it will be soon. There is a neurodiversity support manager in every female prison and they have all had specific training on women with ADHD.

Mr Speaker, I am grateful once again to the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, who led it. I am very happy to meet her at a later date to further explore the matter. As the ADHD taskforce has rightly pointed out in its interim report,

“ADHD, when unsupported, is a potent route into educational failure, long-term unemployment, crime, substance misuse, suicide, mental and physical illness.”

We have made significant progress to support neurodiverse people in the criminal justice system, including those with ADHD, but there is still much more to do, which is why this debate and the interest and commitment of the hon. Lady and other hon. Members is so valuable and helpful to all of us. I look forward to continuing to work with the taskforce and colleagues across Government to ensure that neurodiverse offenders are given the support they need to turn their backs on crime for good.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister for his largesse and for promoting me to Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. The Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. The last Government added just 500 net places to our prison estate, while at the same time sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and outstripping supply. When we took office, we were left with no option but to introduce a temporary change to the law that allows prisoners serving an eligible standard determinate sentence to be released on licence after serving 40%, rather than 50%, of their sentence in custody. That enabled the end of the dysfunctional and unmanageable end-of-custody supervised licence scheme, but we knew that it was just a first step.

Since taking office, this Government have delivered almost 2,500 prison places, and in the most recent spending review, we committed a further £4.7 billion to open 14,000 more by 2031. That will be the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era. That longer-term investment is necessary but not sufficient in itself to avoid the capacity issues that have faced the criminal justice system for so many years. In May, the Lord Chancellor announced that the adult male prison estate in England and Wales was projected to run out of places in November of this year, and that, alongside our long-term building strategy in sentencing reform, urgent measures to change the use of recall would be needed to ensure that we do not run out of cells, and so avoid a breakdown of law and order.

Last October, we commissioned the independent sentencing review, led by the former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, to find sustainable policy solutions and ensure that no future Government are ever again in a position where there are more prisoners than prison places, and are forced to rely on emergency relief. That is not an acceptable position for any Government to find themselves in. The review suggests that recalls should be rare and that, as a last resort, we should replace standard and short-term recalls for those on standard determinate sentences with a 56-day fixed-term recall. The Government have in principle accepted that recommendation, which requires primary legislation to be implemented. A Bill will soon be introduced to implement many of the review’s recommendations.

While the sentencing review offers us our path to ending the capacity crisis in our prisons for good, it will take time to take effect. The impact of the sentencing reforms will not be felt before next spring, so we remain in a critical position until then. This Government are not prepared to stand by while we run out prison places. That is what the Conservatives did, and we will not make the same mistake. That is why we are taking targeted action on recall, which remains a significant driver of prison demand. The recall population has more than doubled since 2018, from 6,000 to 13,000 prisoners in March of this year, without a corresponding growth in offender rates. With more people in prison and supervised in the community serving longer sentences, recall rates are naturally higher.

When recalled, offenders serving standard determinate sentences can currently receive either a standard or a fixed-term recall. The length of fixed-term recall is set out in primary legislation, and it is set at 28 days if the sentence is 12 months or more, or 14 days if the sentence is under 12 months. It remains the case that the Probation Service will undertake an individualised risk assessment before any offender is released under this measure, regardless of the offence they commit, which includes the risk of physical, emotional, psychological or sexual harm, to inform their risk management plan and licence conditions.

Offenders face recall to prison if they breach licence conditions, such as tagging, curfew, protective orders or exclusion zones or if their risk escalates. Those not suitable for a fixed-term recall may currently receive a standard recall, under which they remain in custody until the end of their sentence, unless re-released earlier by the Secretary of State or Parole Board. Our latest data shows at least 48% of all recalls are fixed-term rather than standard.

The draft order will mandate the use of fixed-term recall in specified circumstances. It will apply to adult offenders serving standard determinate sentences of less than 48 months. I want to be clear: we are excluding from this policy offenders who pose a higher risk to others. That means the measure will not apply to offenders who are convicted of terrorist or national security offences, pose a terrorist risk, are managed under the multi-agency public protection arrangements levels 2 or 3—which includes certain violent and sexual offenders—are recalled in connection with being charged with an offence, or are under 18 at the point of recall. Those offenders can continue to receive a standard-term recall, with release subject to Parole Board or Secretary of State decision.

In all other applicable cases, a fixed-term recall must now be imposed. That would mean the provision of around an additional 1,400 prison spaces, thereby allowing us to avoid a critical capacity crisis in November, and the serious risk to the public that that would bring, until the new measures from the independent sentencing review come into force.

I know that concerns have been raised by Members of this House and important bodies such as the Victims’ and Domestic Abuse Commissioners about the potential impact of this measure on victims—particularly survivors of domestic abuse—and public safety. I assure the House that those serious concerns have been at the forefront of our considerations. The worst possible outcome for victims of crime is if we run out of prison spaces, as predicted for November. That would mean new dangerous offenders would not be able to be locked up, as the police would have to halt their arrest. This policy is designed to prevent that happening. The exclusions we have established are purposefully designed to capture those assessed as posing a higher risk, thereby ensuring that those individuals can remain subject to standard recall procedures.

Let me be clear: victims are central to the Government’s work. We are determined to support victims now and reduce reoffending so there are fewer victims in future. Current or potential risk to victims is always considered as part of release planning. Probation will impose appropriate licence conditions, such as tagging, curfews and exclusion zones. Any offender who breaches those conditions, or whose risk is considered elevated, can once again be recalled to custody. Victims who have opted into the victim contact scheme will still be notified and retain their statutory right to make representations in relation to the licence conditions imposed. For those not eligible for that scheme, established public protection practices remain, and police may still issue disclosures where there is imminent risk. Measures in the Victims and Courts Bill will enhance victims’ access to information about an offender’s release, strengthening confidence in the system.

If further information is received following a recall that the offender has been charged with an offence, or they are a terrorist, pose a terrorist risk or would be managed at MAPPA levels 2 or 3 on release, they may be detained for longer on a standard recall at the discretion of the public protection team at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Their re-release would then be determined by the Parole Board or the Secretary of State.

I assure the House that we do not take this decision lightly and we have made every effort to ensure that it is appropriately targeted, proportionate and mitigated. The extent of the draft instrument and its territorial application is for England and Wales. An impact assessment has been prepared and published for the draft instrument. It concludes that there will be an increase in demand for various services, including probation, community accommodation and electronic monitoring services. We have been working closely with partners nationally and regionally to ensure the impacts of the measure on services are well understood and manageable, and to ensure that they are sufficiently resourced to respond to the immediate and longer term. However, it also concludes that by taking action we avoid the catastrophic consequences of doing nothing. We avoid a situation where trials would halt, arrests would be deferred and police forces strained.

I recognise that there are concerns about how an increase in the number of offenders being managed in the community will impact probation services. The Government inherited a Probation Service on its knees, and from day one, we have been hard at work getting a grip on the crisis.

It is vital that the Probation Service is properly equipped and resourced to deliver this change effectively. We are already making progress to rebuild the capacity of the Probation Service. We are committed to recruiting 1,300 trainee probation officers in 2025-26 to help meet additional demand, having exceeded our ambition to recruit 1,000 trainees in 2024-25. We are also reducing the administrative burden on probation officers by investing an initial £8 million in pilots of new technology. That will allow probation officers to focus more of their time on higher-risk offenders, for whom closer supervision is needed to reduce the risk they pose.

The Government have committed up to £700 million of additional funding to probation services by the final year of the spending review period, which is a funding increase of around 45%. That will mean thousands more tags, more staff and more accommodation to ensure that offenders are supervised and supported more closely in the community. Probation capacity will continue to be closely monitored as the new measures are introduced across the service. The Ministry of Justice carefully considers any policy changes with operational colleagues and workforce modelling teams. A transformation programme is also under way that aims to ease workload demands and to streamline processes for probation staff.

The draft order is necessary to avoid an imminent capacity crisis. It will free up enough prison places in as safe as possible a way to ensure the criminal justice system can continue to operate effectively until the implementation of longer-term reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank both speakers for their contributions to the debate. First, let me pick up on the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who was right to say that the criminal justice system crashed under the previous Government’s watch. That was our inheritance.

The hon. Member was also right to raise his concerns about the response being appropriate and safe. I can assure him that, given the alternatives we face, this will be a safe and appropriate way of proceeding. It is worth reminding ourselves that the recall population was 6,000 in 2018 and is now 13,600; it has grown exponentially. There is a need to create space in prisons in a safe and secure way so that we can lock up the dangerous people who need to be locked up. That is why we are taking this measure now, and it will be carefully and appropriately managed.

Where there are any issues of risk from individuals, they can be recalled at that point, and it is for the Probation Service to identify that. There are proper and sound bases in place to tackle the issue, but I thank the hon. Member for his constructive approach to this issue and for recognising that it is a challenge. It is a challenge that this Government are determined to meet in a safe and proper way that ensures that we can continue to lock dangerous people up.

That brings me to the speech made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. As always, it was interesting and challenging, but it suggests that there is no recognition of his party’s contribution to the difficulties we find ourselves in. In essence, we have to take the hard decisions that the previous Government failed to take. If we take prisons as an example, 500 prison places were added in 14 years, compared with the 24,000 places added in the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. Already, more than 2,000 have been added in the first year of this Government.

We do not take lectures from the party opposite lightly; however, the hon. Member’s challenge is perfectly reasonable and proper. In the May of their last year in government, the previous Government brought in their parallel measure for the fixed-term recall for sentences of up to 12 months to create space in prisons. That is what we are being forced to do now, in a managed, proper and safe way.

[Dr Mullan]

I have one question for the Minister about the most important impact of the policy, and about the people who the Parole Board would otherwise say cannot be released in order to go home. What proportion of them will potentially be affected by this policy and will be let out?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I do not think that information is—[Interruption.] The reality is that the Parole Board has so much to do that people have to wait a long time to get their parole hearing. That is one of the reasons why the prison system is essentially running out of spaces, and we inherited that from the hon. Member’s Government. We are having to roll up our sleeves and deal with the problem, whereas his Government just abrogated their responsibility. If they had taken the necessary actions, we would not be in the situation that we are now in. Frankly, it would be far better if we did not have to take these actions, but we do, in order to keep public protection in place, to keep people safe, and to be able to lock dangerous people up.

Question put.

Criminal Justice

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I start by thanking the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for his opening remarks and for securing this important debate, and I thank everybody else who has contributed so thoughtfully. I echo his words in paying tribute to everybody who works in the criminal justice system. They do an amazing job to maintain public protection, which is so important. I support the words of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), in highlighting the role that people who have formerly been in the armed forces play in our criminal justice system. There is much for us to agree on.

One of the things we know is that Labour has always been tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. I will give three facts to evidence that. In 13 years of Labour Government, we added 27,830 prison places. In 14 years of Conservative Government, they added 500 net prison places. So far under this Government, we have already added some 2,500 prison places. The figures speak for themselves.

We want a criminal justice system that works for everyone. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) said, and I think everyone in the House would agree. Last summer, our prisons were operating at over 99% capacity. Just days after taking office, we had no choice but to take emergency measures to avoid running out of space altogether. Had we not acted, the result would have been catastrophic. Our courts would have ground to a halt and the police would have been forced to halt arrests. In short, we would have faced a total breakdown of law and order.

We were left in that parlous position because the previous Government, despite all their promises and fine words, delivered only those 500 additional prison places in 14 years. At the same time, sentence lengths rose exponentially. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year. This Government take our duty to protect the public seriously, and that is why we are taking the robust, bold action needed to bring an end to this cycle of crisis, ensuing that the British public are never again put at risk by the failure to have enough prison places.

We are committed to bearing down on the outstanding caseload in the courts, which a number of Members have alluded to, and delivering swifter justice for victims, but we acknowledge the significant challenge facing the Crown court. As part of the spending review settlement, we agreed with the Treasury that we will fund record investment for the courts system by 2028-29, keeping sitting days at record highs over that period. We have 110,000 sitting days in the Crown court just this year.

We recognise, however, that that is not enough given the scale of the challenge we inherited. Even with record levels of Crown court funding and our plans for record numbers of sitting days, the backlog will continue to grow without substantial reform of our criminal courts. That is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to consider the options for longer-term reform, as well as reviewing the efficiency and timeliness of court processes through charge to case completion. I hope that that review will report shortly. We will also fund capacity to speed up the processing of asylum appeals, supporting the Government’s priority to reduce illegal and irregular migration.

Legal aid is a vital part of the justice system, as we have heard from colleagues from across the House. It underpins our plans to build a justice system that works fairly for all parties. In December, we announced that criminal legal aid solicitors will receive up to £92 million more a year to help address the ongoing challenges in the criminal justice system and get justice for victims. Following that, in January we began consulting over a £20 million uplift to civil legal aid fees for lawyers working in the immigration and asylum and housing and debt sectors.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who spoke about the importance of forensic science in addressing miscarriages of justice, as well as prison maintenance issues. We are failing victims if courts cannot deliver swift justice. Prisons run out of places entirely, and crime goes without punishment. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) spoke about that in her contribution. It would have damaging consequences for the criminal justice system if that happened. That is why we are taking the steps to rebuild a justice system that works and that victims can have confidence in.

We are looking at imposing tougher exclusion zones that limit the movement of offenders, instead of limiting the movement of victims, and we are continuing the provision of free sentencing remarks to victims of rape and serious sexual offences. Our reforms will include continuing to expand our application of electronic monitoring to perpetrators of violence against women and girls, and the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, with trained staff to support victims and more co-ordinated management of perpetrators. We will continue to fund services supporting victims and witnesses. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), made some eloquent contributions on that issue, which I heard clearly, and I thank him for that. We are creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing, so that domestic abusers are known to the Prison and Probation Service and their victims are better protected.

Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 prison places. Between 2024-25 and 2029-30, the Government are providing £7 billion to deliver the commitment to build 14,000 new prison places by 2031. That is the largest expansion since the Victorian era.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

During my speech I asked the Minister how much of the extra money allocated to his Department would be spent on higher wage rises, higher national insurance charges and inflation. I am just giving him a chance to respond before he finishes his own speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the budget is being applied and worked through in an appropriate way, but the figures I have just given are the figures on which we will deliver, so he can be confident about that.

While this investment is necessary, it is not sufficient on its own, so to address these challenges and ensure that our prisons create better citizens, not better criminals, the Lord Chancellor commissioned the independent sentencing review, chaired by the right hon. David Gauke. As the Lord Chancellor announced in May following David Gauke’s findings, we will be introducing an earned progression model based on a three-part sentence. On this model, offenders’ release points will be determined by their behaviour. If they follow prison rules, they will earn earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. However, that will not be true for all offenders. For those currently serving extended determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%—it is different for people with earlier releases; we will leave that as it is.

In the second part of the progression model, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision. That will see more offenders tagged and under close supervision by the Probation Service. The supervision will be tailored according to each offender’s risk and crime type, and bolstered beyond the current system with a set of new restrictive measures and a major ramp-up in tagging and probation investment. In the third part, offenders will be monitored in the community by the Probation Service, and can be returned to prison if they breach their conditions.

Alongside the progression model, we are also taking forward the recommendations to introduce a presumption to suspend short sentences. We will be investing in this model and intensive supervision by significantly increasing our probation funding through the spending review settlement. I welcomed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), and also what was said about the contribution of third sector organisations by my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Rugby (John Slinger). Our additional investment will increase up to £700 million by 2028-29, allowing us to increase substantially the number of offenders on tags and to ensure investment in services that address the drivers of offending.

[Tessa Munt]

Following the Leveson report, will there be capacity for more funding for his recommendations?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We await the Leveson report, and when it arrives the Lord Chancellor will update the House. Matters such as that will be rightly dealt with then.

On efficiencies, the spending review has given the Department a settlement, and the Department will ensure that it is good value for money by applying all the appropriate methods.

This Government inherited a system that was creaking under pressure, having suffered chronic underfunding for 14 years. The Justice Committee rightly pointed out that by 2016-17 the day-to-day budget of the Department had fallen by a third in real terms from its peak in 2007-08. That is why we are delivering the ambitious, once-in-a-generation reform of the justice system that the country needs, with public safety at its core.