Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on the public safety implications of the Government’s plan to set a 28-day limit on prison sentences for recalled offenders.

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

The Lord Chancellor laid a written ministerial statement yesterday, the background to which are the changes around fixed-term recall in the light of the prison capacity challenges that the Government face. When we were elected almost a year ago, we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. Although we took immediate action to prevent the catastrophe, prisons continue to be perilously close to filling up entirely. Last December we published a long-term building strategy, setting out our aim to open up 14,000 prison places by 2031. That is the largest expansion of the prison estate since the Victorians. We have already committed £2.3 billion to prison expansion, and since taking office we have delivered 2,400 new places.

We also commissioned the independent sentencing review, which will report shortly. The sentencing review will hopefully offer us a path to ending the capacity crisis in our prisons for good, but the impact of sentencing reforms will not be felt before next spring. On our current trajectory, we will hit zero capacity in our prisons in November—we cannot allow that to happen. That is why we have announced our intention to lay a fixed-term recall statutory instrument that will mean that those serving sentences of between one and four years can only be returned to prison for a fixed 28-day period. The measure builds on previous legislation, introduced by the last Government, that mandated 14-day recalls for those serving sentences of under a year.

To be clear, higher-risk offenders have been exempted from that change. If further information relating to an offender’s risk is received after they have been recalled which means they are no longer considered suitable for fixed-term recall, they may be detained for longer on a standard recall if that is assessed as necessary.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick]

“Sorry” seems to be the hardest word today. I see that the Justice Secretary has still not come to Parliament to defend her policy. Yesterday she deliberately avoided scrutiny in this House, because she knows that this decision is wildly unpopular and risks the safety of the public. To govern is to choose. There are 10,500 foreign criminals in our jails and 17,000 people in prison awaiting trial. Combined, those two groups make up roughly a third of the prison population.

The sensible step forward would obviously be to introduce emergency measures to expedite deportations and get the courts sitting around the clock. If the Justice Secretary chose to do that, we would support her, but so far she has not. She has refused to take the judiciary up on its offer of extra court sitting days. It is not uncommon for as many as half the courts at the Old Bailey to sit empty on any given day. Instead, she has decided to let out early criminals who reoffend or breach their licence. There is now no punishment or deterrent for criminals who immediately reoffend or cheat the system. The Justice Secretary says these people will be “in prison outside of prison”—I am sure that hardened criminals will be quaking in their boots at that farcical doublespeak.

There is no two ways about it: this decision has put the public in danger and victims in jeopardy. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, has said that she

“cannot stress enough the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger”.

Is the Justice Secretary or her Minister really telling domestic abuse victims that their abusers will be back on the streets in just 28 days if they breach their licence, and that nobody will even check with the Parole Board? Can the Minister explain to the House who is exempted from the scheme, because right now confusion reigns? Yesterday the Justice Secretary gave the impression that no domestic abusers or sexual offenders would be eligible for her scheme, but her Department has since said that it will include “many” but not all.

The written ministerial statement laid yesterday deliberately concealed the answer to the question of which criminals will be excluded, so will the Minister take this opportunity to tell the House? If he does not know the answer, will he commit to publishing it by the end of the day? Lastly, can he confirm to the House that anyone in breach of a restraining order will be ineligible for a fixed-term recall, because anything else would be an insult to the victims?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Since taking office, we have deported over 1,800 foreign national offenders in custody, securing their early removal from our prisons—15% higher than in the previous 12 months. We have just announced 110,000 court sitting days, which is the highest level for a very long time.

To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, we will exclude anyone serving more than four years in prison; all those convicted of a terrorist or national security crime; and those who are subject to higher levels of risk management by multiple agencies where the police and the Prison and Probation Service work together, which includes certain sexual and violent offenders, including many domestic abusers. If there are ongoing concerns about the risk posed by an offender who is due to be released after the 28-day period, frontline workers can apply additional licence conditions to manage that. If further information related to an offender’s risk is received after they have been recalled, meaning that they are no longer considered suitable for fixed-term recall, they may be detained for longer on a standard recall, if that is assessed as necessary by the HMPPS public protection team.

We know how important it is that victims are kept informed. All those eligible for the victim contact scheme will be notified about an offender’s release and will have the opportunity to make representations about victim-related licence conditions. Although there are certain exclusions for serious offenders, changing recalls for fixed-term offenders is necessary. It would be even worse to run out of space, which at this stage would mean the managed breakdown of the criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor said rightly that that would be unconscionable. No Government should leave that challenge as a legacy to their successors, as the right hon. Gentleman’s Government did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

We should never forget that the crisis in our prisons that the current Lord Chancellor is seeking to resolve was created over 14 years by the irresponsible mismanagement of the previous Government. Although today’s announcement makes sense in the short term, subject to safeguards, we must consider the whole way in which recall has developed, from 100 cases 30 years ago to more than 13,000 today—over 15% of the prison population—with less than 30% of recalls being for further offences. Will the Government consider the way in which recall operates? Without the freeing up of space in prisons, rehabilitation is impossible, overcrowding reaches ridiculous levels and we run out of space altogether.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right: the recall population has doubled in just seven years and we need to address that. The independent sentencing review will report shortly, and I hope that there will be recommendations to which we can respond in that report.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

There is no doubt that the Conservatives plunged our prisons into crisis. [Interruption.] They chunter from a sedentary position, but what else would they call it? It is clear that the Government have failed to step up and tackle the sheer scale of the problem. Across the country, victims and survivors are worried about what this will mean for them. If there were a specific domestic abuse offence, dangerous offenders could be excluded from early release, but the Government have taken no action at all since the Liberal Democrats raised that solution with them last autumn. Will the Minister finally commit to giving victims and survivors the protections that they deserve by creating new domestic abuse aggravated offences, and will he go further to protect our communities by introducing a clear plan to reduce reoffending, which is the only way to solve prison crowding once and for all? If the Minister will not listen to me, will he listen to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who has just warned that lives are now at risk?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member will know that his colleague, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), is working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), on getting things right for victims. That is something we take very seriously, and it needs to be done properly, with victims, in order to get it right. I hope that the independent sentencing review report will contain things that give us confidence about moving forward and about the way we work with victims.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

The Conservatives appear to have forgotten quite a number of things, and I think it might be a good time to remind them. Former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s disastrous partial privatisation of the Probation Service was overturned in 2019 after the number of serious offences—including rape and murder—committed by those on probation skyrocketed. Does the Minister agree that we are seeing the long tail of Conservative failure, which overshadows everything that we must do now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the chaos and turmoil that the Conservatives applied to our very important Probation Service when they were in government. We are putting probation back together. We have already brought 1,000 new probation officers on board, and we are committed to a further 1,300 in the coming year.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, to pick up on your statement, for which I think the whole House will be grateful, I am sure that my Committee will take up your clear urging for us to look at the issue with regard to the ministerial code.

I know the Minister will agree that domestic abuse cannot be an issue to which lip service is paid in this House and then policies seem to neglect. I make no apologies for returning to the views of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, who issued a severe warning to the Lord Chancellor yesterday, commenting:

“I cannot stress the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger because of this proposed change.”

Why does the Minister think the commissioner, with all her expertise and knowledge, has arrived at that conclusion?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We have great respect for the Victims’ Commissioner. What would be letting down victims is if we allowed the prison system to get to a place where we cannot lock prisoners up—that would be unconscionable. That is why it is important that we have taken these steps. I remind the hon. Member that we are excluding those prisoners who pose the most risk and are managed under MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—levels 2 and 3. That means various agencies working together. The exclusion also includes all those convicted of terrorist and national security crimes. Proper action can be taken where agencies identify risk to move from a fixed-term recall to a standard recall.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell me whether I am correct that when we entered office, there were fewer than 100 spaces left in our prisons—a terrible failure from the Conservative party? Does he agree that instead of empty words and false promises to build prisons, this Government are getting on with the job?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is quite right. We faced a real emergency when we came into office. It is unconscionable that any Government would do that to an incoming Government. The previous Labour Government added 28,000 prison places in 13 years. In their 14 years, the Conservative Government managed to add 500. In 10 months we have already delivered 2,400 prison places.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Has the Ministry of Justice conducted an impact assessment for this policy? If so, will it release that to the House as soon as possible? If not, can the Lord Chancellor confirm how she knows what impact the policy will have on victims and the wider public?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We are always alert to the need to assess how policies apply to the wider public and victims. That is important.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

This situation is one of the most egregious examples of state failure and a consequence of the worst chaos and incompetence of the last 14 years. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that, given current levels of demand, we cannot build our way out of this crisis. Does the Minister agree that we have to be honest and do something different to ensure that we never again run out of prison places, including improving the existing prison estate and investing in the Probation Service, so that we can reduce reoffending and thereby reduce the pressure on prison places?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We are improving the prison estate and investing in probation, and there will also be actions coming forward from the independent sentencing review. I agree with everything my hon. Friend said.

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

Victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and stalking are now in fear, particularly those who live in rural areas, where tagging does not always work. What particular measures will the Minister put in place to support victims in rural areas who are distant from probation officers and the police?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Anybody subject to a fixed-term recall will be recalled for 28 days, and if their risk is assessed as greater, they will be transferred to a standard recall. The reality is that anybody affected by this has already served their time in prison; they are on licence, being properly monitored and effectively managed by the Probation Service.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

The prison capacity crisis has been years in the making. Does the Minister welcome the news that Wayland Prison in Norfolk has been granted planning permission just this week, by Breckland council’s planning committee, for a 25% increase in capacity, with 247 extra places? That application alone represents 50% of the total places created under the last Government in 14 years. Does he agree that this is further evidence of the Government delivering after years of inaction?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right to point to that planning application going forward. It is excellent news, and shows that we are cracking on with the job.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Although the Government should have volunteered to defend their position, I accept, having held ministerial responsibility for the prison estate, that they had no good options at this point. Does the Minister accept that the problem with what he is choosing to do is that the return to prison for breach of important licence conditions is there to be a deterrent, and if we reduce that deterrent, we run the risk of more people breaching licence conditions, which would make the overcrowding problem worse? If he chooses that path, will he consider increasing the deterrent effect by ensuring that, following a 28-day return to prison, there are other restrictions on a prisoner’s freedom, such as electronic tagging?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I certainly hope that all those things will be looked at by the independent sentencing review. The mandating of the 14-day fixed-term release was a measure taken by the previous Government. We are extending that to 28 days for sentences of up to four years because of the situation that we face, to ensure that we do not run out of prison places in the interim.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

Like me, many residents across Filton and Bradly Stoke were rightly appalled last summer to discover the real situation left behind by the Conservative party. When it comes to prisons, does the Minister agree that this is an opportunity for the Conservative party to apologise?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the House will have heard it.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Minister and the Secretary of State have often used the word “emergency” to describe the state of the prison population, and I have asked the Secretary of State how long it will take to deport all the foreign criminals clogging up our jails. This is a moment for the Secretary of State to say, “Yes, this is an emergency,” and to deport the lot of them, freeing up about 10,000 places, which would help overcome this crisis.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We have deported more foreign national offenders in 12 months than the last Government did in the previous 12 months, and we are continuing to work hard with the Home Office to deport foreign national offenders. We will never be able to do that on the scale necessary to address the challenges that we face in our prisons at this time.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

On a recent visit to Featherstone prison near Wolverhampton, I came across several prisoners who had been recalled, and who were waiting up to a year to have their cases progressed. Does the Minister agree that limiting the recall sentence, making greater use of technology to punish offenders in the community, and making the Probation Service more effective will result in better rehabilitation of prisoners, reduce reoffending, and ease the prison overcrowding caused by the previous Government?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend points out the actions that we must take to address the challenges that we face in the system, and to make the system work better for victims and protect the public.

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

Many domestic abusers will, given their nature, welcome the opportunity to give another twist of the knife at the cost of a mere 28 days. Has the Minister just presented them with a practical opportunity?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I have carefully gone through the exclusions from this measure, and emphasised the importance of good professional bodies continuing to apply proper risk assessments. When risk assessments say that a standard recall is more appropriate than a fixed-term recall, that will happen.

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

It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to be critical when they left the criminal justice system in total meltdown. Does my hon. Friend agree that tagging is an important resource for protecting the public from criminals? Perhaps he saw the Channel 4 programme “Dispatches”, which showed that the contract given to Serco by the Conservative party was totally and utterly failing. Does he have confidence in Serco to deliver that contract, and if not, will he remove it, and bring that service back under public control?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

It is clear that tagging technology has huge potential. A recent study has shown a 20% reduction in reoffending by offenders wearing curfew tags, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to concerns about the contract. Serco’s performance is improving, but it is still not acceptable. The reporting in the “Dispatches” programme was from last year, when we knew that there were serious issues, and we issued financial penalties to Serco, which was given the contract by the previous Government. If Serco’s performance drops again, all options will remain on the table.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

This announcement is a further illustration of why this House should legislate to remove all impediments to the deportation of foreign national offenders. In his reply to the shadow Justice Secretary, the Minister said that victims who are affected by this policy should be kept informed about release, yet he refused to say whether the Department has conducted an impact assessment. What new information is he today willing to commit to publishing each month, so that victims are indeed kept informed?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Victims absolutely need to be kept informed, and we continue to work with victims’ groups and the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure that they are.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

In separate cases, two families in my constituency lost loved ones when they were murdered by offenders who were out on remand but should never have been. Will the Minister meet me and, if they wish, both families, so that they can have some assurance that lessons have been learned from these cases, and so that other families are not placed in the same horrendous situation?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am very sorry to hear about the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend. I am happy to meet him to take the matter further.

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

The Victims’ Commissioner has warned that freeing prisoners early who have been shown to pose a reoffending risk to the public will

“place victims and the wider public at an unnecessary risk of harm.”

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has said that it is “simply unacceptable”. What discussions did the Government have with those two commissioners before making the announcement?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We speak to the Victims’ Commissioner regularly; the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), is speaking to them later today.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary could have chosen to deport more of the thousands of offenders in our jails, maxed out court sitting days, repurposed buildings or procured temporary facilities to hold offenders. Why has she instead chosen to release serious offenders, including domestic abusers, from jail early, with no consideration for the victims?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

This is not about releasing people from prison earlier.

[James Wild]

Yes, it is.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

No, it is not. This is about people who have already served their sentence in prison; they are out in the community. If they breach a condition of their licence, they are returned to prison. The hon. Gentleman might as well ask why the Government he supported did not take any of the measures that he mentions. Our Government inherited the mess that his Government left us, and we are taking decisions to address the unconscionable threat of having a prison system that is not able to lock up dangerous people.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Ministers seem to have been deliberately vague about the number of domestic abuse offenders who will be eligible for release, and the breadth of their offences. Given how big the announcement is, the Government and the Department will have done a lot of work looking at who will be eligible. Will the Minister set out to the House the exact number of domestic abuse offenders who will be eligible for this scheme?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s question, and I will write to him.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The first duty of government is to keep the public safe. I recently met a constituent whose convicted ex-husband is serving a prison sentence, having raped her twice. Despite being in prison, he continues to have indirect access to their children. My constituent thinks that is wrong, and I agree. Does the Minister agree that convicted violent and sexual offenders should serve maximum possible custodial sentences, and lose parental access rights?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Victims and Courts Bill is about to go through Parliament, and that is the sort of issue that we will look at during the Bill’s passage.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

One of the reasons why our prisons are so full is that we have more than 10,000 foreign nationals in them. What steps is the Minister taking to deport them?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I say gently that we have deported more foreign nationals in the first year on our watch than the previous Government did in the years on their watch. He is right that we have to roll up our sleeves and continue to get on with the job.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Minister has been slightly equivocal in answering this question, which I have asked on two previous occasions; third time lucky! Prior to announcing this policy change yesterday, did the Government meet and consult the Domestic Abuse Commissioner about it—yes or no?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The commissioner has been spoken to by the team. To be clear, the impact assessment will be published when we come to consider the statutory instrument.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The new measures announced by the Justice Secretary suggest that the Government have learned nothing from the furore and loss of public confidence that followed last year’s early release debacle. That same Justice Secretary, along with the Victims Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who is in her place, signed the protest letter that led to the convicted child rapist Fabian Henry being removed from a deportation flight. The Prime Minister signed that letter, too. Why do the Justice Secretary and her Ministers appear to have such scant regard for the impact that their management of prison releases will have on the victims of crimes? When will she implement measures that act as a deterrent to recidivism, rather than as a minor inconvenience to the continuation of a criminal career?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We are committed to getting this right. The early release scheme that the previous Government put in place did not have the same exceptions as our early release scheme did for the sort of offenders that the hon. Gentleman draws attention to, but these matters are very difficult. The most important thing is ensuring that we have a criminal justice system that works. We need to be able to lock up dangerous people, and those who do really bad things. When we came into government, the situation was that we might not be able to maintain that ability. We have had to take actions that we would far rather not take in order to keep the system going.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is a very decent person, and he and I have been friends for many years, but I must ask this question, which I hope I can put in the way that I wish to. I really struggle to understand the rationale behind allowing a criminal to consider their options and work out whether what they intend to do is worth an additional 28 days in jail, or allowing a person to weigh up whether breaking a restraining or non-molestation order is worth a month in prison. Criminals need to fear that if they break the law again, it will be worse for them. How do the Minister and the Department think that the policy will disincentivise repeat offending?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I have made clear the exceptions that apply to this tight, fixed-term recall alteration. The management of people in the community will be risk-assessed, as always. If the view is that a different approach needs to be taken, it will be taken.

Speaker’s Statement: Ministerial Code

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Once again, I have had to grant an urgent question on a matter that was briefed extensively to the media in recent days. I recognise that a written ministerial statement was issued, but I am surprised that the Government did not think that Members would want an opportunity to question Ministers on a very important issue.

On Monday, the Home Secretary was unapologetic about the fact that details of the immigration White Paper were given to the media, starting on Sunday morning, before it was laid before this House and long before she came to make a statement. I note that those who now occupy senior ministerial roles were not slow to complain when the previous Government made major policy announcements outside this place. I will continue to uphold and defend the rights of this House—the rights of Back Benchers—to be the first to hear the most important announcements of Government policy and the rights of hon. Members to question Ministers on those announcements in person. That was my position under the previous Government and it has not changed under this Government.

It is clear to me that the general principle set out in paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code is being disregarded more often than it is observed. I will write to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to invite that Committee to consider the issues in more detail. If the Government are not going to take the ministerial code seriously, who will?

I do not like doing this. I believe that I am here to represent all Back Benchers, and Back Benchers have the right to question Ministers first. I am not interested in Sky News, the BBC or political programmes; I am here to defend you all, and I will continue to defend you. I say to the Government: please do not take MPs for granted. It is not acceptable. I know it is not the fault of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is about to respond to the urgent question, but the message has to go back loud and clear: when you are in the wrong, apologise to Members.

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

Mr Speaker, I hear your words very clearly. I very much respect the role of Parliament and I am pleased to be here today to follow up the written ministerial statement that was laid yesterday by the Lord Chancellor.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me gently say to the Minister: you would not be here at all if I had not granted the urgent question. That is the thing we should remember. You are only here because I have decided that you should be here. Please, do not try to take advantage of a situation that is not of your own making.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I will certainly apologise, Mr Speaker. I was not trying to take advantage. Clearly, it also took the action of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), laying an urgent question. That is how Parliament works, and rightly so.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not want to labour the point—but, no, this is not the way we should be acting. The statement should have been brought here on the day the plan was announced. Let us get this very, very clear: this is not about having to grant an urgent question; this is about the Government doing the right thing, rather than somebody else having to drag Ministers here. That is not how we should be working.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sorry for any misinformation that I have given in trying to respond.

[Mr Speaker]

You are a good Minister and a nice person.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We respect each other, and I respect very much that you are standing up for Parliament, which is exactly the right thing to do. I applaud that.

Protection of Prison Staff

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on the failure of the prison estate to protect staff from serious and sustained violence by high-risk inmates.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am shocked and saddened to hear about the serious assault against a prison officer that took place on Thursday 8 May at HMP Belmarsh. My thoughts are with the family and colleagues of the brave, hard-working prison officer at this time. We will not tolerate any violence against prison officers. Prisoners who are violent towards staff will face the full consequences of their actions.

The incident at HMP Belmarsh is subject to a police investigation. As such, we are unable to comment further in any level of detail at this stage. The Prison Service has also commissioned an investigation, and its terms of reference are being finalised. It will include details of what happened and why, as well as recommendations to prevent recurrences. We will provide updates to Parliament in due course. Separately, on 22 April we announced to Parliament an independent review of the recent terrible incident where staff were assaulted by Hashem Abedi at HMP Frankland; we will make further announcements in the coming days.

Our prison officers are some of the hardest working and bravest public servants this country has. We are committed to ensuring that they are safe at work and are able to keep the public safe. We announced at last the Justice oral questions that the Prison Service has commissioned a rapid review of access to and use of self-cook areas across the prison estate, including their use in special units. The review will report back with recommendations in June. We recently announced a review of conducted energy devices—also known as Tasers—and there is a trial involving a small number of national operational response and resilience unit staff.

Body-worn video cameras, batons, PAVA spray and rigid bar handcuffs are currently available for use by staff, and protective body armour is already worn by specialist prison staff and officers in cases where there is planned use of force or where safe systems of work for the management of high-risk prisoners dictates. We have also announced a review into whether protective body armour should be made available to frontline staff, and that review will report in June. I repeat: the safety and security of our frontline prison staff is our No. 1 priority.

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me place on record our sympathies to the prison officer injured at HMP Belmarsh. We wish them a full recovery and thank all prison officers for their courage in the face of growing danger.

Let us be clear about what is happening in our prisons. Violence against officers has spiralled out of control. In just the past month, two of Britain’s most dangerous terrorists—Axel Rudakubana and Hashem Abedi—have launched vicious attacks on officers in two of our supposedly most secure prisons. The Secretary of State ordered a snap review into the attack at HMP Frankland, but three weeks later we have no answers and no action. Every day it goes on, the safety of officers is at risk, so I ask the Minister, when will this review conclude? Why has every prison officer exposed to dangerous inmates not already been provided with a stab vest—not in June, but today? I have spoken to officers who say that attacks with boiling water are not uncommon. Will the Minister commit to ordering the removal of every kettle from high-risk prisoners—not in June, but today?

This goes deeper than one review. Men like Rudakubana and Abedi glorify violence and dream of martyrdom, and still governors pander to them. I could not care less if Rudakubana never had a hot drink again—nor would the British public. This culture of appeasement and protecting the rights of convicted terrorists and criminals over the safety of our officers must end now. If that means keeping them in cells with just a bed, so be it. If it means no contact, no privileges, and certainly no cups of tea, so be it. Let segregation truly and finally mean segregation.

I want to say this as clearly as I can. I warn the House now that if the Government do not get a grip, a prison officer will be killed. We have had enough reviews. We need action. That is the least that prison officers deserve.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We are managing the most complex people in the most complex system. Our prison staff have to manage extremely dangerous people, and they do it with real bravery. We will do whatever it takes to keep them safe. That is why we have already taken the actions that we have.

All prisons carry out regular risk assessments and implement associated safe systems of work. If a risk is identified regarding kettle use or intelligence is received that one might be used in an assault, the kettle will be withdrawn. Frankly, kettles were used for 14 years under the previous Government’s watch, as they rightly trusted the professional skill and expertise of those running and working in our prisons. That is what we are doing now.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Last week, the Justice Committee visited Wandsworth prison and noted improvements, but from a very low base. We heard that the poor reputation of some prisons, including rising violence, makes recruitment more difficult. That is the legacy of 14 years of starving prisons of resources. What are the current Government doing to improve the recruitment and retention of prison officers?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is completely correct: we inherited a prison system in crisis, where prisons were on the edge of collapse. Reducing violence in prisons is a key priority. That is why we have taken the actions we have in building new prisons and in the sentencing review: to ensure that we always have prison spaces to lock dangerous people up.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

No prison officer should go to work in fear that they may leave in an ambulance. I therefore send my sympathies and those of the Liberal Democrats to the officer injured at HMP Belmarsh. Assaults on prison staff have doubled since 2015—a reality for which the Conservatives should hang their heads in shame.

The Government must now get a grip. The Prison Officers Association, which is holding its conference in my constituency this week, has requested more protective equipment. The Ministry of Justice is reviewing that, but will it accelerate the review to ensure that officers get that support now, not next month?

Recruitment and retention issues also compromise prison officers’ safety, so what are the Government doing to address that? Will not discontinuing prison officer graduate schemes such as Unlocked Graduates compromise safety? How is the MOJ robustly rehabilitating violent offenders to reduce the risk they pose to prison officers and our communities?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Immediately after the incident at HMP Frankland, the Lord Chancellor, the Prisons Minister in the other place and I met the Prison Officers Association. That was a significant discussion, and commitments were made to ensure that things were addressed properly and correctly. The Prisons Minister will be speaking shortly at the Prison Officers Association conference.

The reviews that are in place are being done in fast time, but they need to be done properly so that we can learn the lessons and take the appropriate actions. They also need input from the people who know exactly what is going on: those in the workforce and those who manage our prisons.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I confirm my interest as a member of the Justice Committee. Does the Minister agree that overcrowding in prisons is a cause of increased violence towards our prison officers and that that is a direct result of how the previous Government dealt with our prisons system? Will he please outline what steps are being taken to reduce overcrowding in our prisons?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is completely right to say that prison overcrowding makes addressing these issues far more difficult. That is why the Government have pledged to continue building the remaining 20,000 prison places, which the last Government failed to deliver. In 10 months, this Government have already added more than 2,000 prison places. The Conservative Government added 500 places in 14 years.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Surely as a minimum, any prisoner who assaults a prison officer should automatically forfeit any right to early release and all privileges. Does the Minister agree? If so, when will he introduce that change? If not, why not?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The right hon. Member is right to say that anything that happens should be dealt with immediately by the prison authorities, and that is exactly what is happening. That is why these reviews are in place: to learn the lessons so that appropriate action can be taken and appropriate steps put in place for the future, taking into account the issues she raised, among others.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

This Government inherited a violent, squalid prison estate, which makes the job of prison officers much more difficult and dangerous. The privatising of maintenance has contributed to overcrowding and the spiralling of violence towards prison officers, so can the Minister explain why contracts are being retendered? Also, will he release the report recommending more privatisation, so that we can all understand the logic behind this decision?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend raises a question about prison maintenance; that is always under review. Contracts were in place when this Government came into office that needed to be taken forward to ensure that our prisons were kept as safe as possible. Those who are assessed as posing a raised risk of violence are supported through a case management approach that is centred around the individual and addresses the underlying causes of their violence, including specific risk factors and needs, to help them manage and move away from violent behaviours.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I support the shadow Secretary of State’s request for accelerating the supply of stab vests. Can I ask the Minister for a bit more detail on the Government’s thinking on the use of Tasers? There is a long track record of Taser use in the UK, and it would seem that we could also accelerate the use of Tasers in prisons as quickly as possible.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I agree with the right hon. Member that this needs to be looked at as quickly as possible. This summer, an operational trial on Tasers will be launched, involving specialised officers, to help staff respond to high-risk incidents more effectively. The findings of the trial will inform any future decisions about the use of Tasers in the prison estate. We need to learn from what we do so that we can get it right in the future.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. I thank the Minister for the working relationship he has established with the union since coming into office, but could I ask him to liaise with the POA and urgently bring forward a report, prison by prison, about staffing levels and the timescale set aside for training staff, particularly to deal with the violent prisoners they are dealing with at the moment?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am very happy to continue to work with the Prison Officers Association and other staff associations working in the prison sector to try to address the issues that my right hon. Friend rightly raises.

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

The Minister very graciously found time in his busy schedule to meet me and colleagues recently to discuss the “68 is Too Late” campaign. Does he agree that recent events prove the tremendous pressures on our prison officers and staff, and will he give an undertaking to me and the House that, during the course of this Parliament, the terms and conditions of prison officers could be reviewed, especially with a view to the “68 is Too Late” campaign?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the hon. Member for his question and for meeting me earlier in this Parliament to discuss these issues. Yes, these things rightly need to be kept under review, and the conversations taking place with the workforce through the Prison Officers Association and other bodies will continue to make progress on this matter.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Violence in prisons escalated for years under the previous Government, who left our prisons at breaking point. What is the Minister doing to bring down levels of violence in our jails?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right to point that out. A violence reduction training module is available to all staff to help them better understand the drivers of violence and how to mitigate and manage those risks, including the use of a case management model for those at raised risk of being violent. Measures to ease prison crowding are vital for improving prison safety, as we know that crowded conditions can fuel violence. In recent years, prisons have expanded security measures, such as X-ray body scanners and airport-style enhanced gate security, to tackle the smuggling of drugs, mobile phones and other contraband that can drive violence in prisons. We must always be alert and moving things forward because the situation is forever changing.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that the safety and security of our prison officers should always come before protecting the rights of convicted criminals? Will he provide stab vests and Tasers for all officers who request them?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I agree wholeheartedly that the safety and security of our prison staff must always come first and foremost. To address the other part of the hon. Member’s question, I have already indicated that a review is going on. That needs to be done properly and effectively, and we will come back and inform the House in due course.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Violence in prisons rose sharply as investment and staffing fell under the previous Government. I spoke to a prison officer who got an award for his bravery in dealing with one of the many incidents at the prison. He took his daughter to receive the award, and afterwards she begged him to stop doing the job. He no longer was a prison officer after that. What are the Government doing to halt the levels of violence and increase staffing levels?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I congratulate that prison officer for the award he got and the work he did. The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 requires courts to consider the fact that serious offences were committed against emergency workers. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 doubled the maximum penalty to two years, so there are actions in place, but we need to be ever vigilant on this matter. That is why the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was right to ask the urgent question: we need to be ever vigilant and work ever harder with the brilliant people who run and work in our prisons.

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

As co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group, I know that unions have been raising the problem of safety and violence against staff in prisons for years under the previous Government, which underfunded them and let them down. Will the Minister commit to meet unions at the launch in July of the newly updated “Safe Inside” prisons charter developed by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance, a coalition of nine unions representing workers in prisons, and that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will accept the recommendations in the charter?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am happy to meet those unions and the right hon. Member on the charter. Obviously, until we see the charter, it is difficult to know where things are going on that, but I am sure that HMPPS will be proactive in working with all the associations on getting the charter right.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Ministers will recall the horrific attack on prison staff at HMP Frankland in Durham last month. While I was grateful for the Minister for Prisons’ reply to my correspondence, I noted the lack of commitment around the issuing of stab-proof vests on the high-security estate. That is a key ask from the Prison Officers Association. While I welcome the Minister’s words today when he said that it will be looked into, I ask that it is done at pace because too many prison officers are worried about whether they will come out of work in their own vehicle or in the back of an ambulance.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Where an assessment is needed for stab-proof vests now, they can be deployed, but following the recent incident at HMP Frankland, HMPPS has commissioned a review to establish whether it is necessary for prison officers to wear protective body armour routinely. The review will inform any decision on the use of protective body armour on the prison estate and will report in June. June is next month, so it is happening pretty quickly, and rightly so because this is an urgent issue.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

We all understand the need to strike the right operational atmosphere and balance in prisons, but in the interests of the retention and recruitment of prison officers, which is absolutely key if our prison estate is to work effectively, I hope that—irrespective of what the review might advise—the Minister and the Department will move speedily to a position whereby the wearing of anti-stab clothing and the carrying of Tasers and other equipment becomes de facto and routine, rather than merely happening in response to gleaned internal intelligence. Otherwise, there will be a crisis in the retention and recruitment of officers.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

It is crucial that prison officers are equipped with the right protective equipment to do their job safely and securely. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that we get that right.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents work at HMP Frankland, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I met representatives of the Prison Officers Association last week. Two of the concerns they raised were about equipment. They said that during the horrific terrorist attack by Hashem Abedi, they were unable to use batons because the space was too small to wield them, and he was so enraged that pepper spray had no effect on him. They clearly need additional equipment, so what steps are being taken on that? If, as the POA told me, activist lawyers and the courts are insisting that dangerous terrorist prisoners have access to kettles and the ability to use kitchens, will the Government consider changes to primary legislation to enable those privileges to be removed from that category of prisoner?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Let me say straightaway that access to kitchens has been immediately withdrawn. A review of equipment is taking place. The point that my hon. Friend makes about the intelligence he has had from prison officers at HMP Frankland illustrates the complexity around that issue. That is why we need to take our time to get this right while moving at pace and coming back to the House fairly quickly.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Thirty-two prison staff were killed in Northern Ireland by terrorists and their criminal associates. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that our prison officer staff are safe both inside and outside prisons, as we see an escalation in terrorist activity across this United Kingdom? Will he raise that issue at the five nations forum on prisons?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I can certainly commit to ensuring that that is raised at the five nations forum. The hon. Gentleman raises a sensitive and serious issue that needs to be addressed in the right and proper way. I thank him for his question.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I have met constituents who are prison officers. They agree with the former Justice Secretary who said that prison officer cuts were “too much” and led to overcrowding and unsafe conditions. This Labour Government are rebuilding the trust of prison officers with a 5% pay award, whereas the Conservatives ran away from making such an award. What engagement does the Minister have with prison officers to understand what safety changes they want, particularly the use of Tasers and stab-proof vests?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the way in which the Government immediately recognised the need for an uplift in pay, in line with the independent pay report, and took action straightaway. As I said, immediately after the terrible incident at HMP Frankland, the Lord Chancellor, the Prisons Minister in the other place and I met the Prison Officers Association. Lines are open with all the other staff associations across the piece. It is important that we work with them to address this issue properly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers—he always comes to the Chamber with the answers we hope for. It was shocking to read of the violent attack on prison staff by the Southport killer, which highlights the need for greater supervision of, and security measures for, prisoners. What steps will the Government take to tighten the prison privileges system? Take away their parole, for example. Take away all their privileges. If that does not work, put them in solitary confinement. Those evil killers have forfeited any right to privileges in this world. I think it is time that the Government took steps in the right direction by ensuring that high-risk offenders do not have access to freedoms that could be used to seriously harm those who risk their lives working in our prisons.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The individual to whom the hon. Gentleman refers is part of a police investigation at the moment, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. He makes a good point about the management of very dangerous people in our prisons. That is why we rely on the expertise and experience of prison staff, officers and governors.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Prison should be a rehabilitative place for the vast majority of prisoners; that is good for society, for lowering crime and for our economy. But there is a small number of prisoners in our prison system for whom it should never be about that; instead, it should be about punishment. The Southport murderer should die in jail and if he cannot be in jail without threatening prison officers, he has forfeited his rights. Does the Minister agree?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

What I do agree with is that punishment and public protection are two very important reasons why people go to prison. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I cannot comment on a live police investigation, and my hon. Friend will understand the reasons why.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question and, like everybody in this House, my thoughts are with the officer who was attacked. From speaking to friends of mine who have worked in the Prison Service over the last couple of years, it is clear that this is not a new problem, and it is vital that we tackle it. Will the Minister echo his commitment to ensure that everyone, whether they are a retail worker in Harlow or a prison officer in Belmarsh, is safe at work?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I absolutely give that commitment: this Government will do all we can to make sure that people are as safe as possible when they go to work. Nobody should suffer what happened to these very brave, wonderful prison officers doing their duty; that should not happen to anybody when they go to work.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Mullan]

I rise to speak in support of amendments 3 and 4 in my name and in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and of Conservative colleagues.

As MPs from across the House have made clear, the draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council would have led to an unacceptable two-tier justice system in which defendants were treated differently on the basis not of their crimes, but of their racial, cultural or religious identity. In fact, the record will show that two-tier justice did exist for several hours, because this issue was managed so shambolically that the guidance came into effect ahead of its formal withdrawal. That is not justice—it is a betrayal of the fundamental principle of equality before the law. It would have happened under the watch of this Labour Government and this Lord Chancellor but for the intervention of the Opposition, and in particular the shadow Secretary of State for Justice.

This Bill is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Instead of acting decisively to restore public confidence, after the Labour Government have been dragged to this Chamber to act at all, they now bring forward a half measure—a meagre response that falls short of what it should be. That is why the Opposition have tabled two important amendments.

Amendment 3 would ensure that in future, sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports cannot simply be issued by the Sentencing Council without democratic oversight, and would instead require the consent of the Secretary of State before coming into force. Why is that now necessary? The Sentencing Council has proven itself not just in the initial measures it proposed, but in its attitude and response towards parliamentary and public scrutiny, to be unable to sustain public confidence in its work in this area. It is one thing for a public body to possess operational independence and to seek to exercise that independence on a day-to-day basis; it is quite something else for a public body to choose not to exercise good judgment and make use of that independence to act with restraint in the face of widespread Government, Opposition, parliamentary and public concern. While they do, of course, have their merits, the actions of the Sentencing Council have brought to life the potential pitfalls of unelected quangos that are deaf to the concerns of the people who pay their wages and the politicians who represent them.

While this whole affair has no doubt been humiliating for the Lord Chancellor and the Government, the damage to public confidence in the leadership of the Sentencing Council is just as great. Despite what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said in his remarks on Second Reading, the Sentencing Council did not agree to pause the implementation of the guidelines to allow for a period of reflection—it outright refused to do so. He has misunderstood the sequence of events. The council paused only because we would have otherwise entered into a constitutionally unsustainable situation where people were being sentenced in the courts, with guidelines being legislated against in Parliament through emergency legislation. It was that direct threat alone that caused the council to pause and demonstrated its lack of judgment.

I am afraid that we must therefore act more broadly to constrain the Sentencing Council in future, pending any wholesale changes that may be forthcoming. That is why the shadow Secretary of State put forward a Bill that would have taken the necessary steps to return accountability of the body through the Lord Chancellor while wholesale reform could be undertaken. Labour chose to oppose that Bill. Today, it is out of scope for the Opposition to seek to introduce a similarly wide amendment, and we are therefore restricted to seeking to at least restore accountability where we can in this field.

The amendment would require that guidelines on pre-sentence reports drafted by the council must be expressly approved by the Secretary of State before they come into force as definitive guidelines—a basic safeguard of democratic accountability, ensuring ministerial oversight on sensitive sentencing matters. Without our amendment, history may repeat itself: the same council will be free to bring forward ideological frameworks that Ministers will be powerless to stop before the damage is done. Had these guidelines gone unchallenged, we would have tilted sentencing based on identity politics, undermining public confidence in the entire system.

Our amendment would create a crucial safeguard, ensuring that no future set of guidelines in this field, at least, could bypass ministerial accountability. I encourage those on the Government Benches who have made clear that they wish to see accountability restored across the work of the Sentencing Council to vote in support of amendment 3; doing otherwise would make clear that they are unwilling to follow through on their concerns with action.

Amendment 4 would make clear that sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports must not include consideration of a defendant’s status as part of a group that has experienced historical or intergenerational trauma. Why is this necessary? It would be deeply wrong to allow collective historical grievances to influence the sentencing of an individual today. This area is the latest frontier of identity politics, with the public being told that what should be given disproportionate focus in all sorts of domains—that what matters more than what is happening today, with the whole variety of challenges facing people of all creeds and colours—is, in fact, the past. Sentencing must focus on the actions, culpability and direct personal circumstances of the defendant before the court, not on sweeping assumptions based on historical events.

We are not able in this Bill to legislate across all the workings of the criminal justice system as much as we might like to. The events of the past few months have shown that what has happened with these guidelines was not a one-off. There is a creeping, systemic attempt to inject identity politics into our judicial processes, bail decisions, probation, and even training materials. If we do not confront this now, it will embed itself deeper and deeper into the foundations of our system. It is fundamental to the rule of law that justice looks to the individual, not to the group. It is fundamental that we deal in evidence, not in ideology.

Taken together, our amendments are designed to strengthen this Bill, to ensure that it is not merely a reactive measure, but, in this narrow area at least, provides lasting protection of the principle that justice must be blind, and must be seen to be blind. The public expect justice to be equal, not preferential. Our amendments will go further in helping to secure that.

We are in this Chamber today because the Lord Chancellor was not paying attention, and was then humiliated by the recalcitrant leadership of an unelected body turning its face against parliamentary and public concern. The Government should have acted decisively and immediately and we provided them with an opportunity to do so, but they failed to take it. Even now, we are faced with a Bill that does not do the full job. Our amendments are closing the gap between what the Lord Chancellor is offering and what is necessary—decisiveness in place of timidity. I urge the whole House and the Government to support them.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I wish to thank hon and right hon. Members for the points that have been made and the amendments that have been discussed, which I shall respond to in turn. I shall speak briefly to each clause and then remind us of why we are here debating this Bill.

In the last Parliament, the Sentencing Council consulted on a revised imposition guideline, which was due to come into effect on 1 April. The revised guideline includes additional guidance on when courts should request pre-sentence reports. It notes that pre-sentence reports will “normally be considered necessary” for certain offenders, including those from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority. The “normally be considered necessary” is replaced with “may be particularly important”, which the previous Government very much welcomed.

This Government note that a pre-sentence report is necessary. They agree that disparities exist in the criminal justice system. The reasons for that are unclear, but this is a matter for the Government, accountable to Parliament and to the ballot box, to address.

In effect, the revised guideline could have led to judges deciding whether to request a pre-sentence report based on an offender’s faith or the colour of their skin. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that this would be unacceptable, as it risks differential treatment. Singling out one group over another undermines the idea that we all stand equal before the law—a principle that has been in the foundations of our justice system for centuries, and that is why she acted immediately and quickly. By preventing the Sentencing Council making guidance on pre-sentence reports with reference to personal characteristics, this Bill helps to ensure equality before the law.

Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It provides that sentencing guidelines may not include provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics, including race, religion, belief or cultural background. Therefore, any existing guidelines that make reference to different personal characteristics will cease to have effect and the Sentencing Council is prevented from making such provisions in guidelines in the future.

The changes made by this clause prevent the Sentencing Council making policy about when pre-sentence reports should be obtained that risks differential treatment before the law, and which could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The sentencing code is clear that courts should obtain pre-sentence reports unless, in the circumstances of the case, it is unnecessary. The clause does not affect the independent judiciary’s ability to make decisions based on the personal circumstances of an individual offender, or determine where pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable. Nor does it stop the Sentencing Council from advising, in general terms, that pre-sentence reports are sought in cases where the court would benefit from an assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Pre-sentence reports, as the Minister has set out, are important in considering punishments that can address offending behaviour and help reduce the likelihood of reoffending. But, very often, probation is stretched so thin that officers do not have time to complete them. What will the Minister do to ensure that, where a pre-sentence report is required, probation has the capacity to do that important work?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend echoes much of what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) picked up on earlier. Probation is a significant part of the landscape. That is why we are onboarding 1,300 more probation officers over the next year.

The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), raised issues about the impact of the guidelines on existing guidelines. We expect that other guidelines will be affected by the Bill, including offence-specific guidelines related to mitigating and aggravating factors, which set out guidance about pre-sentence reports for specific cohorts. We will continue working with the Sentencing Council on the implementation of the Bill. We have had constructive discussions and will continue to do so.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick referenced, the Bill’s explanatory notes point out, existing precedent is not changed where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable. Such cases include: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised the importance of reports in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; and Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, a vulnerability and was a victim of modern slavery. The Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt the principle that we all stand equal before the law of the land.

Clause 2 is concerned with details about how the Bill will be enacted. The Bill will apply to England and Wales only, and its measures will come into force on the day after it passes. The Bill may be cited as the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 once enacted.

I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for tabling his amendments and for the very thoughtful and comprehensive way in which he dealt with them. Amendments 1 and 2 would replace the term “personal characteristics” with “demographic cohort” to describe the type of provision about pre-sentence reports in sentencing guidelines that the Bill will prohibit. The Government have considered the proposed change to the wording very carefully and would like to take the opportunity to briefly explain the Government’s approach.

The Government’s objective is to help ensure equality before the law so that offenders are treated according to their own particular circumstances and not by virtue of their membership of a particular group. To ensure that the Bill prevents sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports including provision framed by reference to any specific personal characteristics of an offender, we have used the term “personal characteristics”. The Bill sets out that personal characteristics include race, religion or belief, or cultural background. However, this is not an exhaustive list. We accept that personal characteristics and personal circumstances have, over the years, been elided in different court judgments, and we are clear that it is intended to cover a wider range of characteristics including sex, gender identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy status.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam has rightly noted that the term “demographic cohort” is used in the Bill’s explanatory notes. However, the use of the term was not intended to narrow the definition of personal characteristics, and I believe it does not, though I note that he believes that it might do. Rather, it is a different term used to describe individuals who share certain personal characteristics.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I accept that the Minister is trying to give us clarity, so for the purposes of clarity is it the Government’s view that all personal characteristics can also be described as personal circumstances?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

No, that is not the Government’s view. “Personal characteristics” is a term that is understood and applied in other contexts, whereas “demographic cohort” is a term that, on balance, the Government feel is more imprecise and would ultimately need to be defined with reference to a group with shared personal characteristics. Therefore, I understand where the right hon. and learned Gentleman is coming from, but from the Government’s point of view, the amendments do not add anything to the drafting of the Bill and risk causing further confusion. As he pointed out in his helpful contribution, there is a danger of getting into detailed semantics, which probably does not help any of us.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I take on board the Minister’s warning, and I am not sure whether this will make it any better. I think he is saying that the term demographic cohort is a subset of personal characteristics, but personal characteristics are not the same as personal circumstances. Is that right?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

If we had used the phrase demographic cohort, we would have to define what that means, whereas personal characteristics is a phrase that already has a level of definition and is therefore preferred by the Government.

I turn to the similar issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick. We carefully considered whether the Bill should be narrower than referring to personal characteristics—for example, an offender being from a cultural minority—but in the end we felt that was not helpful.

As such, while I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for suggesting alternative wording, the Government remain of the view that, having considered it carefully, the term personal characteristics is the most appropriate way of capturing the issues raised by the guideline.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister clarify the point in relation to pregnancy? He said—it is in the explanatory notes—that it would be right for a sentencer to follow Thompson and order a pre-sentence report where a woman is pregnant or has recently given birth, but that, following the passage of the Bill, it will be incorrect for the Sentencing Council to make recommendations along those lines for sentencers to follow. I do not quite see the difference.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The Court of Appeal has made it clear, and, as my hon. Friend said, it is right to follow Thompson in those circumstances.

While I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for raising and rightly exploring this issue in Committee, I hope that he will not press the amendment to a vote.

Amendment 3, tabled by the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on behalf of the official Opposition, would require the Sentencing Council to obtain the Secretary of State’s approval before issuing any sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. Again, I referenced the helpful words of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who said we should tread carefully in this territory and that the separation of powers needs to be very much respected. Therefore, while carefully considering the case for mandating that the Sentencing Council obtain the Secretary of State’s approval, I am not persuaded that that is appropriate at this particular time.

As the Lord Chancellor has set out, this case has highlighted that a potential democratic deficit. That is why we are currently assessing the Sentencing Council’s wider role and powers for developing sentencing guidelines, with recent developments and imposition guidelines in mind.

[Dr Mullan]

I gently suggest to the Minister that if there is a risk of a democratic deficit, surely the thing to do is to act now in the short term and unpick it later if he feels he has overreached.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We certainly do not feel that we have overreached. We are acting in a timely and effective way. As the debate has demonstrated, there are issues of detail that need to be properly explored. The Lord Chancellor has done the right thing in announcing a review that will have a look at things in proper time; that will take place.

Given the special role of the Sentencing Council and the significant policy and constitutional issues involved, it is right that we take the time to consider whether more fundamental reform is needed, alongside considering wider recommendations that come out of the independent sentencing review. I am not convinced that it will be proper to deal with the issue now through this fast-tracked legislation, nor am I convinced that legislating in a piecemeal way would be helpful, noting that the amendment of the right hon. Member for Newark applies just to sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports when there may be other things that we need to look at. To be clear, we are keeping all options on the table and are willing to legislate further in a more comprehensive way if necessary. I therefore urge the Opposition not to press this amendment.

Amendment 4, also tabled in the right hon. Member’s name, would prevent the Sentencing Council from framing sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports with reference to groups that may have experienced trauma from historical racism or discrimination. While we have carefully considered the case for adding this restriction to the Bill, we are not persuaded that it is necessary. We have taken a general approach in the Bill to preventing sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports from being framed by reference to any personal characteristic of an offender. The Bill specifies that personal characteristics include race, religion or cultural background, but that is not an exhaustive list.

More widely, I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Newark has taken a keen interest in wider guidance across prisons and probation that touches on different experiences, including those specified in the amendment. The Government are absolutely clear on the need to ensure equality before the law. Wider work is going on to review relevant policy and guidance, and we will update practices where necessary. I therefore urge the Opposition not to press the amendment.

New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to arrange an independent review into the restrictions the Bill places on the Sentencing Council’s ability regarding pre-sentence reports, which are framed by reference to offenders’ different personal characteristics. I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for tabling the new clause. Although we have carefully considered the case for such a review and I agree that it is important to carefully think through what the Bill’s effects, I am not persuaded that a review is necessary because the direct changes made by the Bill are very limited in nature.

To recap, the Bill helps protect equality before the law by ensuring no offender receives differential treatment regarding pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. That reflects a fundamental principle that does not need to be reviewed. The Bill does that by restricting the powers of the Sentencing Council to issue sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. It will prevent guidelines from, for example, creating a presumption around whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s personal characteristics, rather than all the circumstances of the offender before the court.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Government support the use of pre-sentence reports and we have publicly committed to creating more capacity in the probation service to ensure it is able to do the valuable work that includes preparing pre-sentence reports. We are also happy to continue to work with the hon. Member for Eastbourne on disparities in the criminal justice system and the use of pre-sentence reports more generally.

We fully support the increased use of PSRs in our courts. PSRs include an assessment of the offender’s behaviour and the risk they pose, and the recommendations for sentencing options. It is a valuable tool, as many Members have said, in helping to ensure a sentence is tailored to an individual offender and their circumstances.

Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. It is the Government’s policy and belief that that should be protected. I again welcome the contribution from the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), supported by the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), to keep our feet to the fire on tackling disproportionality. I confirm again that this Government take very seriously tackling disproportionality in the criminal justice system. That is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned a review of the data on disparities in the justice system to better understand the drivers of the problem. I know that my right hon. Friend does not need my encouragement to keep going on this one, so I look forward to her continuing to hold us to account as we move forward.

I will also be clear on what the Bill does not do, to underscore its limited changes. Nothing in the Bill restricts the court’s pre-existing ability to request pre-sentence reports, nor the Sentencing Council from advising in general terms that a pre-sentence report should be sought where a further assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. The Bill does not affect Court of Appeal case law about the types of cases where pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, as we have covered previously. There is recent relevant case law covering vulnerable defendants, pregnant women and women who have recently given birth, and young defendants. Furthermore, the Bill will not prevent judges from requesting pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including in appropriate cases involving, for example, pregnant women, as well as those involving young people or domestic abuse. I welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) on those issues.

With such considerations in mind, the Government do not consider the proposed review to be necessary. However, as the Lord Chancellor has set out, she is carrying out a review into the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council, so I can reassure the hon. Member for Eastbourne that there will be further opportunities to discuss issues surrounding the Sentencing Council in the House. I therefore hope that he will withdraw the new clause.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call Sir Jeremy Wright to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Let me first take this opportunity to thank all Members of this House who have spoken in support of this important Bill. I am particularly grateful for the support expressed on Second Reading, as well as to all the hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this afternoon’s Committee proceedings. It is not yet a month since the Sentencing Council’s imposition guideline was due to come into effect. The Lord Chancellor followed up her concerns immediately with action. As Members from all parts of the House have acknowledged, had the Government not acted quickly to introduce this Bill, the guideline would have risked differential treatment before the law in this country.

I put on record my thanks to the Sentencing Council and in particular its chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for the constructive conversations on this issue and for pausing the guideline while Parliament had its say, as it is doing today. I also thank officials who have worked on this Bill, including Andrew Waldren, Stephen Toal, Jack Hickey, James Metter, Clare Taylor, as well as the Bill manager, Katherine Ridley, and my excellent private secretary, Emily Brougham. This Government strongly support the use of pre-sentence reports, which judges are required by law to obtain except in circumstances where they consider such a report unnecessary. We also acknowledge that there are disparities within the criminal justice system that must be addressed. However, those are matters of policy, and it is right for the Government to seek a policy response to these issues. That is why we brought this Bill forward, and I commend it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Satvir Kaur (Southampton Test) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to support female offenders.

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

This Government’s plan to support women is clear and ambitious. The aim is to reduce the number of women going to prison, and our Women’s Justice Board will lead on this. Following Susannah Hancock’s review, which was published in March, this Government have acted to prevent girls from being held in young offenders institutions.

[Dr Gardner]

I have been very concerned to hear first-hand reports of female prisoners being handcuffed during childbirth, sometimes to male officers. Does the Minister agree that there should be an independent investigation into the use of birth cuffing in women’s prisons across the country that consults all women who have been or may be affected?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend refers to a shocking situation. Our policy is clear that pregnant women should not be restrained during hospital appointments, except in the most exceptional circumstances. There is an ongoing deep-dive review taking place into matters at HMP Bronzefield, commissioned by the prisons Minister in the other place.

[Satvir Kaur]

I thank the Minister for his response. In my constituency, Hope Street is doing incredible work to offer residential alternatives to custody for women. We know that this model reduces the number of women being sent to prison, preventing separation from their children, who are likely to be taken into care, which we all know has a hugely detrimental impact. Can the Minister share any plans to replicate and scale up the Hope Street model?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I agree with my hon. Friend that for some women supported accommodation is very valuable. Existing provision includes His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service-led community accommodation services and third sector residential women’s centres, including Hope Street, which she rightly praises for its excellent work. The Women’s Justice Board is exploring options to increase use of robust community alternatives to custody, including residential options where appropriate.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Project SHE in Somerset, run by the Nelson Trust, allows some women who have been arrested for the first time for low-level crime an alternative to court, working with offenders on rehabilitation and reducing the impact on the community and the criminal justice system. What support is the Department providing for such schemes?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

These schemes are very important. The hon. Member highlights a very good one, and the Department continues to support those sorts of schemes.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that counselling services are crucial in supporting female offenders as they address trauma, addiction and mental health challenges? Furthermore, will she join me in commending the charity uHub in my constituency for its exceptional counselling services for young women?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member mentions an excellent counselling service in his constituency, which I praise. These counselling services are crucial and a very important part of the system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

It has been six days since the Supreme Court handed down its landmark judgment in the case brought by For Women Scotland—a judgment that confirms basic biological reality and protects women and girls. It was a Conservative Government who brought in the policy to stop male offenders, however they identify, being held in the women’s estate, especially those convicted of violence or sexual offences. Will the Lord Chancellor and her Ministers confirm that the Government will implement the Supreme Court judgment in full and that they will take personal responsibility for ensuring that it is in every aspect of our justice system, or do they agree with senior Ministers in their party who now appear to be actively plotting to undermine the Supreme Court’s judgment?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We inherited the current policy on transgender people in the prison service and we have continued the policy that the right hon. Gentleman describes during our period in office. In the light of last week’s Supreme Court ruling, the Department is reviewing all areas that could be impacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to support young offenders in Staffordshire.

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

This year, the Department will provide more than £1 million in funding to the Staffordshire youth offending team to supervise children and support them in turning their back on a life of crime.

[Adam Jogee]

At the election, we promised to take action to reduce youth offending, with a network of Young Futures hubs and a crackdown on antisocial behaviour which causes so much pain to my constituents and to people up and down our country. Criminals must face the full force of the law, and young offenders cannot be a lost cause. Will the Minister confirm that this Government will do whatever we can to divert young people away from a lifetime of crime?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. We must do whatever we can to move people away from a life of crime and keep the public safe. This year, despite the fiscal challenges we inherited, we are investing more than £100 million in youth offending teams across the country to identify children and divert them away from crime. With turnaround funding, Staffordshire youth offending team delivered skill-building activities for children in antisocial behaviour hotspots during a successful six-week summer programme.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

11. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce levels of reoffending among young people.

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

The Government are determined to reduce youth reoffending as part of our safer streets mission. Despite the huge fiscal challenges we inherited, we have been able to increase our core funding to youth offending teams across the country, allowing them to support children away from crime.

[Dr Sandher]

Constituents across my community of Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages have been facing the scourge of offroad bikes, often ridden by young reoffenders. That causes havoc for residents, it is dangerous for pedestrians, and can be fatal for those who are on those bikes. Those young reoffenders often have little else to do, as there are few education, training or employment opportunities, so can the Minister please set out how this Government will end the scourge of offroad bikes and reoffending, and how they will once again be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. In the past, antisocial behaviour has been too easily dismissed as low-level, but as he rightly describes, it can cause real distress and misery to our communities. I am pleased that the new Crime and Policing Bill includes measures to enhance police powers to seize nuisance offroad bikes and other vehicles used in an antisocial manner.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Engineered Learning in Derby teaches welding skills to young people at risk of offending and reoffending. A qualified, experienced welder can earn more than £50,000, yet we have a national shortage of welders. Does the Minister agree that preventing reoffending and securing the skills our country needs is a win-win, and will he look at how we can get more young lives back on track, learning trades such as welding?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. What Engineered Learning is doing is a clear win-win, teaching welding skills and moving people away from crime. The Department will continue funding youth offending teams to work with local education and employment providers to help young people get the skills they need to have productive careers and positive lives.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Aspiration and ambition are drivers of social mobility and help to reduce deprivation and crime. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Education to increase apprenticeships and training, so that these opportunities can be extended to all and we can reduce young offending throughout the UK?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We have regular discussions with the Department for Education on these matters. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the more young people we get into training, education and work, the less crime we should have on our streets.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for that answer. Quite clearly, those who reoffend do so because they go back to where the peer pressure is, where the unemployment is, and where poverty levels are high. Those are things that must be addressed in order to help these young people not to reoffend. They are big issues; what can be done to ensure those three things in the localities where those young people live do not overtake them, with the problems they have?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that all those issues contribute to circumstances that might create offending, but it is really good that we have the turnaround programme in place. Only 5% of children who completed their turnaround interventions received convictions in their first year of the programme. That is an example of the sort of programme we need to be engaging in to turn young people away from crime.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to increase access to legal aid in rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce levels of reoffending by people on probation.

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

I take this opportunity to recognise the excellent work that our probation staff do day in, day out. Probation is an indispensable part of the criminal justice system, but the service currently faces significant pressures. That is why we will recruit a further 1,300 probation officers by March 2026, invest £8 million in new technology to reduce administrative tasks for officers and focus efforts on reducing reoffending.

[Perran Moon]

May I take this opportunity to wish you a belated Pask lowen, Mr Speaker? 

Reoffenders are among the most socially excluded in society and often experience complex mental health and social issues, including drug and alcohol addiction. We know that perpetually locking them up does not work and costs a fortune. Can the Minister reassure me that he is working with both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that wraparound detox and rehabilitation support is available, such as that offered by Bosence Farm in Cornwall?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend. We work with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office to get offenders into treatment at the earliest opportunity, and have increased the use of drug rehabilitation requirements as well as improved links to ensure that prison leavers stay in treatment on release. In 2025-26, the DHSC is providing £310 million in additional targeted grants to enable local authorities, including Cornwall, to improve services.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

Because our prisons are running at about 98% capacity, not only are existing prisoners more likely to reoffend but, sadly, as we allow more prisoners to be released early, more people on probation will do so. Apart from the terrible effect on victims, the Ministry itself estimates that this costs a staggering £18 billion a year in England and Wales. What is the Minister’s policy to help reduce reoffending?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We have only just taken over a system that was struggling under the weight of 14 years of mismanagement, and we are doing our very best to get on top of it. We have set in train an independent sentencing review, and are committed to appointing 1,300 new probation officers by this time next year.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

10. What recent discussions she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on trends in levels of prison capacity.

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

Ministry of Justice officials regularly meet representatives of the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, as part of the “Five Nations Forum”, to discuss prison capacity. This allows best practice to be shared and emerging issues to be discussed. The Prisons Minister in the other place knows the Northern Ireland prisons system well, and will be going there later this year to compare notes.

[Robin Swann]

The Minister has mentioned best practice. The “separated regime” in Northern Ireland prisons gives those who have been committed to prison as a result of paramilitary activities a special kudos, and when they are released they emerge with a certain status. Can the Minister see the inherent dangers of applying such a policy on a wider scale when dealing with people who may have been radicalised while in prison and may, when released, bring the effects of that into a broader section of society?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is right to suggest that we need to learn lessons from wherever they can be learned, and he is right to caution against approaches that might bring about results that people do not wish to see.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

12. What steps she is taking to tackle court backlogs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

17. What steps her Department is taking to reform the prison system.

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

We inherited a system in crisis from the previous Government. With prisons over 99% full, we took immediate action to prevent the collapse of the prison system by changing the automatic release point for standard determinate sentences. We are building 14,000 new prison places, and we published our 10-year capacity strategy in December. However, we know that we cannot build our way out of this crisis, which is why we have also launched an independent sentencing review to ensure that we will never run out of places again.

[Jessica Morden]

As Ministers will know from previous questions about Parc Prison, parents in Newport East have very serious concerns about the welfare of family members there, with worrying reports continuing to emerge in recent months. Can the Minister give an update on any progress being made on prison safety, mental health support and drug interception since Parc has been receiving targeted support?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Safety in prisons is a key priority, and we are working hard to make prisons as safe as possible. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the concerns at Parc. I have recently visited HMP Parc, as has the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and the Prisons Minister in the other place. On that visit, I saw how seriously the director is taking these issues and engaging closely with families on their very real concerns.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The catastrophic security failure at HMP Frankland has exposed the danger that terrorist prisoners can pose to prison officers and other inmates across the prison estate. Will the independent review also examine the culture of gang-related violence and intimidation that have contributed to such incidents in our prisons?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

There is an ongoing audit of all the review’s recommendations. Our thoughts remain with our brave prison officers who were attacked, and with the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing and their families, who are understandably concerned by the shocking events in HMP Frankland. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor took immediate action to set a review in place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Personal protective equipment is now worn in all kinds of jobs where people may have to deal with dangerous situations. As Professor Acheson has said, it is

“staggering that frontline police staff working in conditions of far greater peril…are not issued with stab vests capable of stopping an attack with a bladed weapon.”

We should all be ensuring that our prison officers come home safe to their loved ones. Unions have called for this measure, and I can assure the Minister that they have the full support of those on the Opposition side of the House. Will he act—not in two months or six months, but now—to protect prison officers before it is too late?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

That is part of the review that has been announced. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is meeting the Prison Officers Association tomorrow. These things need to be done rightly and properly, and that is what will happen with this Government.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but I suggest that this is something we should just get on with—it is common sense. There is a more fundamental issue. Perhaps I can invite the Minister to provide his assessment of the relative threats provided by different ideological extremists in prisons, which may be fuelling such violence. Islamist terror suspects make up the vast majority of MI5’s caseload. Do they also make up the majority of radicalising criminals in our prison estate?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman urges us to get on with it. By my reckoning, the Conservative party had 14 years to get on with it. We are getting on with it. We set up the snap review straightaway. [Interruption.] “It’s not party political,” he says. Well, people might judge that for themselves by listening to the sort of questioning we have had today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Key agents of reform in our prisons are prison officers. Unlocked Graduates is an amazing scheme that supports the production of prison officers with new innovations, but it has had the rug pulled from underneath its feet, beyond its current cohort. There are mixed accounts of what has happened from different civil servants and other individuals in government. Will the Minister explain exactly what has happened? Why has the contract not worked? Will he sit down with me and Unlocked Graduates to see if we can find a way forward?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I very much praise the work that Unlocked Graduates has done over many years. Unfortunately, when the contract was let previously, Unlocked Graduates was unhappy to progress with the contract. That is the situation. Obviously, these things are very difficult, but I am very happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss matters further.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

18. What steps she is taking to increase the provision of legal aid services.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am happy to write to my hon. Friend on the detail of the data collection and remind him that we have a sentencing review in process that will be looking at all of those things.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

T3. In a single week in Bradford, we have seen council leaders once again reject my calls for a full rape gangs inquiry. An ex-police officer has been threatened with arrest for investigating these horrific crimes, and now a judge is blocking the release of official transcripts from a major rape gang trial in Bradford. Can the Lord Chancellor explain why our justice system is being used to block the truth about these trials?

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

T8. Restricted patients are mentally disordered offenders who are detained in hospital for treatment and are subject to special controls by the Justice Secretary. What additional support is my right hon. Friend’s Department providing to help mental health trusts to treat and rehabilitate these patients, so that they can be released from this secure environment in a timely manner?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend asks a serious and difficult question. The Mental Health Bill, introduced to Parliament last November, aims to stop restricted patients from languishing in hospital unnecessarily, while prioritising public protection and managing any risks. The Department also works closely with clinicians and care teams to make decisions on restricted patients as quickly as possible, in line with the published guidelines.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

T5. Release on temporary licence is denied when people say nasty stuff on Twitter but granted for much more serious crimes. Can the Secretary of State tell me when I can expect a satisfactory reply to an urgent ROTL case that I have already raised with the Prisons Minister and senior civil servants and that affects a grieving family in my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Children adopted from care or living under special guardianship are currently disproportionately at risk of entering the criminal justice system later in life if early trauma goes untreated. Given the recent changes in the adoption and special guardianship support fund, what steps is the Lord Chancellor taking alongside Cabinet colleagues to ensure the availability of more equitable access to such support?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We know how vulnerable many children with care experiences are, and we are working closely with colleagues in the Department for Education to help reduce their risk of entering the criminal justice system. The Government are committing £50 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund this year.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Minister take a special look at the problem of rogue builders who repeatedly target our constituents—often very vulnerable people? They take thousands from them and wreck their homes, yet the only redress is said to be trading standards. Surely that amounts to fraud and there ought to be a prosecution to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

We have a case in my constituency of a young offender, well below 16, who is causing havoc—he has been arrested many times—and is not complying with a court order. The assumption is against incarceration because of his age. Will the Minister explain what work the Government are doing to crack down on prolific offending by young people well below 16 who are causing stress and fear in their local communities?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am very happy to answer queries about that particular issue, if the hon. Lady wishes to write to me. The Government have increased the youth offending team budget this year and continue to invest in the turnaround programme. As I said before, it has been shown that young people who are engaged in that programme have only a 5% chance of reoffending.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions. I think what I heard at the end from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), was support for this Bill, and I thank him for that. Today’s debate has been helpful; it has underscored the broad support for this legislation, and for the principle of equality before the law. Many Members—pretty much every Member who has spoken—underlined the importance of that principle. I am proud that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor acted so swiftly to address this situation in a way that was courteous and respectful to all involved, and to get us to where we are today.

While we have had much agreement, the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for whom I have the highest regard, announced herself as being in a minority of one. I am sure that is not the case, but she drew attention to her serious concerns about disproportionality in the criminal justice system. I can say to her that we share her concerns about disproportionality. That is why my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has announced a proper review of all the data, so we will know what actions will properly address that disproportionality and bring about change in a way that addresses the seriousness of the unfairness in the system to which she rightly referred.

Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. It is the Government’s policy and belief that it should be protected. We know that more must be done to address inequalities in the justice system, and we are absolutely committed to tackling racial disparities across the criminal justice system. We are also taking steps such as increasing diversity in our staff and working with the judiciary to make sure that our appointments are reflective of the society we serve. That has included supporting under-represented groups in joining the judiciary and the magistrates, and has involved the Ministry of Justice and partners running widely supported outreach programmes to reduce barriers to individuals joining. However, we need to do much more. I commend my right hon. Friend the Mother of the House for keeping us on notice, and I promise her that we will deliver.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, reminded us, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), that these guidelines were nodded through by the previous Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Eastbourne also reminded us of our inheritance of an underfunded probation and court system, which has led, in his words, to a rationing of pre-sentence reports. I agree with him that the debate should be about how we move to universality of pre-sentence reports, not about rationing. Of course, none of this debate alters the fact that independent judges can ask for pre-sentence reports whenever they feel they are necessary. Indeed, in her opening speech, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that capacity is being increased, quite properly, so that more pre-sentence reports can be done.

We had very helpful contributions from the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). Both of them drew attention to the importance of pre-sentence reports in identifying the most appropriate and effective sentence for individual offenders. The Chair of the Select Committee gave us the full timeline of this affair to date, and a good analysis of where we are with the Bill. I agree with him that we will have more opportunity to look at matters in detail in Committee. Likewise, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam drew attention to his concerns about the breadth of the Bill. Again, we will have an opportunity to examine them further in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised very serious concerns about issues relating to pregnant women, and was pleased that the Bill does not affect Court of Appeal case law in that respect. In fact, nothing in the Bill, as she helpfully reminded the House, prevents judges from requesting PSRs for pregnant women. Judges will continue to be able to request PSRs in cases where they ordinarily would, including appropriate cases involving pregnant women. We would expect that to continue.

I am happy to have heard so much support for the Bill. There will be a drop-in for MPs on Monday about the next stages of the Bill, at which Members can have any questions answered, and can feed into the process before Committee stage next week. This emergency legislation, while a small Bill, is of great significance. It will stop the Sentencing Council’s updated guidelines on pre-sentence reports from coming into force, and will safeguard against the risk of differential treatment arising from their use. The action taken by the Government on this issue underscores our commitment to equality before the law, which all hon. Members who have spoken today have underlined, and which is most important. It is the ancient principle on which our justice system was built. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to.

Whiplash Injury Compensation

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 March, be approved.

This draft instrument amends the fixed tariff for whiplash compensation set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 by applying an inflationary uplift to the tariff values. In doing so, the amendment gives effect to recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor on 21 November 2024 following the completion of her statutory review of the 2021 regulations. By adjusting the whiplash tariff values to account for inflation, the Government will ensure that claimants can continue to receive proportionate compensation until the next review in 2027.

The whiplash reform programme changed the way claimants are awarded damages for low-value whiplash injuries following road traffic accidents. The aim of the reforms was to ensure an efficient, proportionate and reliable system for both claimants and defendants involved in road traffic accident-related whiplash claims. At their core, the measures aim to reduce the number and cost of whiplash injuries and deliver savings to consumers via reduced motor insurance premiums. Elements of the reform programme were delivered by the Civil Liability Act 2018, which introduced several important changes to the civil claims process. Alongside measures that introduced a legal definition of what constitutes a whiplash injury and banned the settling of such claims without medical evidence, the 2018 Act empowers the Lord Chancellor to set a fixed tariff of damages for road traffic accident-related whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.

The 2018 Act measures were supported by additional secondary legislative changes to increase the small claims track for road traffic-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000, and the introduction of a new pre-action protocol for personal injury claims below the small claims limit in road traffic accidents. At the same time, the insurance industry-owned and developed Official Injury Claim portal was launched to assist claimants affected by the reforms.

The first whiplash tariff was set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, which came into force on 31 May 2021. The 2018 Act requires the Lord Chancellor to review the 2021 regulations, and thereby the whiplash tariff, within three years of its implementation and every three years thereafter. In fulfilment of that statutory obligation, the first review of the whiplash tariff was completed on 22 May 2024 and the Lord Chancellor published her report of the statutory review on 21 November 2024. Upon reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor concluded that the structure and component parts of the whiplash tariff were effective. However, she recommended that the tariff amounts be uprated to account for consumer prices index inflation between 2021 and 2024, and to incorporate a three-year buffer to account for expected inflation until 2027. She did not consider that any other changes to the 2021 regulations were necessary.

In reaching her conclusions and recommendations, the Lord Chancellor took into consideration relevant industry and courts data, as well as information from a Ministry of Justice call for evidence, which ran from 6 February to 2 April 2024. In accordance with the review, this statutory instrument increases the whiplash tariff damages values and, subject to approval by both Houses, the new tariff will apply to all road traffic accident-related personal injury claims in England and Wales from 31 May 2025.

I believe that the House will find it helpful if I provide some additional explanation of the increase that will be applied to the whiplash tariff. By way of background, I should say that the whiplash tariff operates via a rising scale of fixed compensation payments determined by injury duration, up to a maximum of two years.

The payments in the original whiplash tariff set in 2021 range from £240 for whiplash injuries lasting three months or less to £4,215 for whiplash injuries lasting between 18 and 24 months. There is a separate, slightly higher, tariff for cases where any minor psychological injury, such as low-level travel anxiety, is incurred at the same time as the whiplash injury. Claims for whiplash injuries that last longer than two years fall outside the fixed tariff.

When the tariff was first implemented in 2021, the amounts were set to include a three-year buffer. The buffer was designed to account for expected inflation, according to the available forecasts at that time, and to ensure that claimants were not under-compensated in the years between the tariff’s implementation and the first statutory review. In reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor recognised the impact of inflation on the whiplash tariff amounts, noting that inflation over the first three-year period ran at a higher than expected rate, and, as most respondents to the 2024 call for evidence had noted, the real value of the tariff had fallen. In the light of this, she concluded that the tariff should be uprated by actual inflation between 2021 and 2024, and should again include a buffer to account for the expected inflation until the next review in 2027. The whiplash tariff will therefore be increased by around 15% for claims arising from road traffic accidents occurring on or after 31 May 2025.

As I have mentioned, this increase has been calculated using the consumer prices index inflationary measure. After careful consideration of the available data and evidence, the Lord Chancellor determined that CPI remains the most appropriate measure for uprating the tariff amounts by inflation. In contrast, she considered that the alternative retail prices index measure, if applied, would likely overstate inflation. It is worth noting that the use of CPI is in line with common practice across Government, as recommended by the Office for National Statistics.

In accounting for inflation, the Lord Chancellor also decided that the whiplash tariff should continue to be future-proofed by applying a CPI rounding over three years from 2024 to 2027. This approach is consistent with the method used to protect claimants from additional inflationary impacts when the first whiplash tariff was set in 2021. While this three-year buffer could lead to some over-compensation in the short term, not implementing it would allow the real value of claimants’ damages to decrease and risk significant under-compensation in the long term. Therefore, this buffer protects access to justice and minimises the risk of claimants being under-compensated in the years leading up to 2027.

I would, though, like to acknowledge that some respondents to the call for evidence expressed concern that the buffer would artificially increase the amount of compensation available and potentially undermine cost savings. However, the difference in the tariff levels using the buffer is not substantial enough to significantly impact on savings. The tariff amounts are only being adjusted to account for inflation and, as such, it is our view that this does not represent a real-terms increase in claim values.

Conversely, I am aware that other stakeholders suggested that the whiplash tariff should either be subject to an annual review or be index-linked to inflation to ensure annual increases. As the Lord Chancellor made clear in her report, these arguments are not compelling. A three-year review period, as anticipated by the 2018 Act, strikes the right balance between adequately compensating claimants and maintaining a stable system that is as simple to understand and administer as possible.

It is also worth noting that the recent high inflationary cycle was driven by a unique set of circumstances and is not a regularly occurring event. Therefore, while it is appropriate that the whiplash tariff is regularly reviewed against inflation, three years is the appropriate length of time to hold such reviews. Other than uprating the whiplash tariff to account for actual and expected inflation, as I have explained, no other amendments to the 2021 regulations are made by this instrument.

In accordance with her statutory obligation, the Lord Chancellor has consulted the Lady Chief Justice before making this instrument. The Master of the Rolls, acting on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice, expressed his endorsement of the proposal to uprate the whiplash tariff. He also noted that the judiciary would not welcome any further derogation from the principle that damages are assessed and awarded by the courts. As we have seen, in accordance with the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by the 2018 Act, the instrument only adjusts the level of damages for whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.

The amendments that this instrument will make to the 2021 regulations represent a balanced, proportionate and practical approach to uprating the whiplash tariff ahead of the next review.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for the support of the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition on the direction of travel.

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for reminding us that behind every claim is a person, and that this is about helping real people and real lives. The official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), rightly mentioned the report on reducing insurance costs for consumers. We share his and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s concern about that, which I think is felt across the House.

The report was published on 27 March and shows that the whiplash reforms have reduced insurance costs for customers. It was produced by His Majesty’s Treasury, which worked with the Financial Conduct Authority to fulfil its statutory obligation under section 11(7) of the Civil Liability Act 2018. Although it is a factual reporting of the information from insurers provided to HMT through the Financial Conduct Authority, it does not represent the Government’s view, so it is right and proper that, separately from the report, the Ministry of Justice will undertake a post-implementation review of the whiplash reforms later this year. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am sure I heard the Minister ask for the leave of the House at the beginning of his remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on the Sentencing Council’s publication of community and custodial sentences guidelines.

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

The Sentencing Council is independent of Parliament and Government. The council decides on its own priorities and workplan for producing guidelines.

The Sentencing Council consulted the previous Government on a revised version of the imposition guideline, which included new guidance on pre-sentence reports. That consultation ran from November 2023 to February 2024. The previous Government responded to the consultation on the guideline on 19 February 2024. The former sentencing Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who is now the shadow Transport Secretary, wrote to the chair of the Sentencing Council thanking him for the revisions to the guideline. In particular, he thanked the council for fuller guidance on the circumstances in which courts should request a pre-sentence report.

The Lord Chancellor was clear about her discontent with the guideline when it was published. It is our view that there should not be differential treatment before the law. The House will be pleased to hear that the Lord Chancellor met the chair of the Sentencing Council last week, and the discussion was constructive. It was agreed that the Lord Chancellor will set out her position more fully in writing, which the Sentencing Council will consider before the guideline is due to come into effect.

[Robert Jenrick]

In just 14 days, new two-tier sentencing rules will come into force. These sentencing rules will infect our ancient justice system with the virus of identity politics, dividing fellow citizens on the basis of their skin colour and religion. The rules will ride roughshod over the rule of law and destroy confidence in our criminal justice system. The stakes are high, but the Justice Secretary seems clueless—in fact, she is not even here. Has the Department conducted an assessment of the additional pre-sentence reports that will be required and the impact of that on the Probation Service, given that it is already working above capacity? Is it considering providing the Probation Service with additional resources to cope with the extra demand? Does it expect the additional pre-sentence reports to lead to further delays in our courts?

I ask these questions because not only do these new rules violate the most foundational principle of equality before the law, but they also create immense pressure on the criminal justice system. If the Justice Secretary wanted to stop two-tier justice, she would have supported my Bill on Friday. She would have used her powers of appointment to sack the individuals who drafted the rules. Time is running out, and so is confidence in the Sentencing Council. Frankly, the public are losing confidence in the Justice Secretary and her Ministers, too.

I cannot escape the conclusion that the Justice Secretary actually supports these two-tier sentencing rules. Why? Because she supported a group that called the criminal system institutionally racist. Her representatives walked through the two-tier guidance and approved it, and she refuses to legislate to block the guidance coming into force or to take any sanction against the members of the Sentencing Council that drafted it. If there is one thing we know about Labour Governments, it is that they always end in tears. This time, it is a second-tier Justice Secretary pursuing two-tier justice, all to suck up to her boss, two-tier Keir.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

There is one thing that we know about Labour Governments: they always have to clear up the mess left by Conservative Governments. That is what the Lord Chancellor is doing at the moment. She is clearing up the mess left by the previous Government: the clogged-up the courts, the overflowing prisons and the overworked Probation Service.

Getting back to the facts of the case, the Lord Chancellor met the Sentencing Council last Thursday and had a constructive discussion. It was agreed that she will set out her position more fully in writing, which the Sentencing Council will then consider before the guidance is due to come into effect. This is serious government, not auditioning for government. The Conservatives were not only consulted; they welcomed these guidelines when they were in office. The former Minister for sentencing wrote a letter of welcome to the Sentencing Council setting this out on 19 February 2024. There is a process in place now that needs to be allowed to play out. We will not pre-empt that process.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council is—it should not need saying—a non-political body whose guidelines are carefully drafted and widely consulted on. These guidelines received positive responses from the Justice Committee under its previous Chair and from the previous Government. They do not require that a pre-sentence report is ordered, they do not limit who should be the subject of such a report and they do not tie the hands of the sentencer. Does my hon. Friend agree that by dragging the Sentencing Council into the political arena without good cause, the shadow Justice Secretary degrades both the Sentencing Council and himself?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee makes a good point about the way in which the shadow Justice Secretary conducts himself. The important thing is that the Lord Chancellor had a constructive meeting with the chair of the Sentencing Council and there is now a process in place to address this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I would like to think that all in this House believe in equality under the law, in sentencing matters and otherwise, but it is clear that two-tier justice has existed in our country, having been governed by two-tier Tories who thought they could get away with illegal No. 10 parties while the rest of us were told to stay at home; two-tier Tories such as the shadow Justice Secretary, who unlawfully approved a development for his donor; and two-tier Tories who have pummelled our prisons and crashed our courts, leaving victims to pay the price. Can the Minister tell us how he will reform sentencing in England and Wales to protect the victims and survivors so let down by the Conservatives?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is perfectly right to underline the importance of equality before the law. He gives me the opportunity to give a plug to the independent review of sentencing being conducted by David Gauke with an independent panel, which will address the issues that he has raised.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a two-tier justice system, it is not the one claimed by the Conservatives, but it is certainly one that was created by them—one where victims of crime are let down by delays, where working-class communities see justice delayed and denied, and where the reality remains that black and ethnic minority defendants are disproportionately sentenced? Does he agree that instead of playing political games with sentencing, we should focus on delivering real justice, ensuring that every decision made in our courts is based on evidence, not culture wars or headlines in right-wing rags?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right to contrast the approach of the soundbites from the shadow Justice Secretary with the Justice Secretary’s approach of rolling up her sleeves and getting on with the job of sorting out the mess left in our prisons, Probation Service and courts.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Just to be constructive for a moment and to try to get a bit of consensus, surely no one is suggesting that anybody in Parliament wants to restrict the power of judges and their traditional right to sentence people according to their own lights. All we are questioning is whether a quango like the Sentencing Council should try to stack the deck against certain groups. All we are saying is that judges should impose sentences irrespective of people’s race, colour or whatever.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The Father of the House and my constituency neighbour brings a constructive note, and I agree with exactly what he says. We have an independent judiciary that we should let get on with the job.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a former magistrate, I have been personally involved in sentencing decisions and have relied on and can attest to the importance of pre-sentencing reports giving as much information about an offender as possible before deciding an appropriate sentence. Used properly, they can cut reoffending rates. Does the Minister agree that pre-sentencing reports should therefore be available for all offenders and that access should not be determined by an offender’s ethnicity, culture or faith?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right that pre-sentence reports play an important role, and we ought to applaud the work that the Probation Service and others do in preparing those reports. She is exactly right to point to how effective they are in helping with sentencing.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The Minister is right to stress the independence of the Sentencing Council, but would he accept that he cannot criticise the shadow Secretary of State for having a view on these draft guidelines when the Secretary of State herself did exactly that? I also ask him to consider in this debate the real purpose of a pre-sentence report. It is there to give more information about an offender, but it also enables a judge to impose a non-custodial sentence if they believe that is the appropriate course. It is hard for a sentencer to do that, unless someone has been assessed as suitable for a community penalty. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this debate, is it not important that the Sentencing Council makes clear that what is important in deciding whether to ask for a pre-sentence report is whether that extra information is needed and not anything else, including protected characteristics?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

That is exactly what the Lord Chancellor is saying.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a fatal flaw in the case of the shadow Justice Secretary: his party worked for months to develop the very guidelines about which they now complain? Does the Minister further agree that rather than desperately scoring an own goal for his party, the right hon. Member should get behind this Government’s reforms to clear up the mess left by the Conservatives?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

To be fair to the Conservatives, they did not work on the guidelines, but they were consulted on them, and they did respond to them in a positive way.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I note the comments by the chair of the Sentencing Council Lord Justice William Davis, who said that both Labour and Conservative Ministers, or their representatives, had known about the plans since 2022 and did not object. While I am disappointed that the Government are only acting reactively now, does the Minister not agree that the shadow Secretary of State has no shame and that it is hard to take his faux outrage seriously when this is just another audition for Tory leader?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Lady has said what everybody else in this House and outside it is thinking.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the Conservatives have some explaining to do, given that the Sentencing Council’s consultation on the guidelines that recommended differing approaches for those from an ethnic minority background was undertaken during the previous Government, that the previous Government was a statutory consultee and that it was welcomed by the Government at the time?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The previous Government were fully involved in the consultation, and not only were they fully involved, but they welcomed it.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Coming to this fresh, as one without a legal background, it seems to me that there are matters here of very great importance that ought to be properly debated by this House. Does the Minister agree that this is yet another classic example of where the much-vaunted separation of powers is likely to interfere with the process?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

This is the third consecutive week in which we have discussed this in the House. We discussed it in the Lord Chancellor’s statement, we discussed it at Justice questions last week, and we are discussing it again today.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his response. It has already been mentioned that pre-sentencing reports are important for judges. However, does he agree that pre-sentencing reports should be available for all offenders, and that their availability should not be determined by an offender’s ethnicity, culture or faith? Further to what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said, we also had a two-tier probation system under the last Government.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does the Sentencing Council understand that, with these guidelines, it is totally out of touch with the mood of the British people, totally out of touch with the mood of the Government, and totally out of touch with the mood of the House? And therefore, why will it not agree to delay these guidelines until they have been properly debated in this House?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

To be fair, the chair of the Sentencing Council met the Lord Chancellor last week, and it was a constructive meeting. He is awaiting a letter from the Lord Chancellor, which he promises the Sentencing Council will consider and respond to before 1 April.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

As a former local authority lead for youth justice, I saw at first hand how important pre-sentencing reports can be in shaping effective and progressive outcomes in justice. However, it cannot be right that access to them is determined by factors such as race and religion. I applaud the Justice team for making such a strong and robust response to the Sentencing Council’s guidance so far. Can the Minister assure me that unlike the last Government, who were clearly asleep at the wheel during the consultation, we remain willing to take whatever action is needed to uphold this important principle?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the last Government appear to have been asleep at the wheel, rediscovering their mojo only once they were in opposition.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Last week, the Prime Minister announced that he is abolishing NHS England to make sure the NHS is brought back under democratic control. Will the Minister be lobbying the Prime Minister to abolish the Sentencing Council to make sure sentencing is brought back under democratic control?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the former common sense Minister for her question—

[Esther McVey]

You wouldn’t understand common sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

If the right hon. Lady stops gabbling and listens, I will attempt to answer her question.

I think the right hon. Lady is getting a little ahead of herself. There is a process in place, and there has been a constructive meeting with the Sentencing Council. A letter is being sent to the Sentencing Council, and the Sentencing Council will respond.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I do not believe the shadow Secretary of State believes that the law is currently applied equally and free of structural biases. But given the unfortunate politicisation of all this, does the Minister now back the chair of the Sentencing Council, who says that the state should not determine the sentence imposed on an individual offender and that sentencing guidelines of any kind—if they were to be dictated in any way by Ministers—would breach an important principle?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Certain things are a matter of policy, and they are for the Government and for Parliament. We have had a constructive meeting with the Sentencing Council, a letter is going to the Sentencing Council, and the Sentencing Council will respond. We totally respect the independence of our judiciary.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Just the other week, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that she does not agree with the direction in which the Sentencing Council is going, and I think we all hope that her meetings with the Sentencing Council will produce results. However, if they do not, will the Minister commit to working across parties? I think there is a real commitment on the Opposition Benches to work with him to bring forward emergency legislation, if that is required.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the right hon. Member for the constructive tone of his question. I refer him to the point about our not wanting to get ahead of ourselves. We need to allow the process to go forward, and to respect the Sentencing Council’s role in it; we will address things when we need to address them.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

We are in the bizarre position where the body that advises judges on how to judge may decide to go to court for a ruling on whether Ministers have the power to tell judges what to do. What preparation has the Minister’s Department made for that possibility?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am afraid that I am becoming a bit repetitive. There is a desire from Opposition Members to rush ahead, and I have great respect for that—[Interruption.] Well, you had 14 years, and what did you do in them? [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Speaker, not you. Opposition Members are trying to rush ahead; we will take things steadily, at the right pace, with proper respect.

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

On a point of great importance to the Lord Chancellor, she is reduced to asking the Sentencing Council to change its mind. The former Minister for common sense is right. There is a lesson here for all parliamentarians about the way we delegate powers to quangos that then come up with solutions that we clearly find repulsive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

There was a constructive meeting. If the right hon. Member had been in it, I do not think he would have seen it as somebody “asking”. There was a constructive exchange of views, and there is a proper process in place, which I am confident will come up with the right answer.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

It is obviously ridiculous that the Justice Secretary is on her knees before a quango, asking it to respect the principle of equality before the law, but this is not the only example. The Judicial College’s equal treatment handbook says:

“to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”

Will the Minister condemn that logic and say, “No, we must not treat defendants differently because of their race or religion”?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The Government do not believe that there should be differential treatment before the law. The Lord Chancellor has been very clear about that. The “Equal Treatment Bench Book”, to which the hon. Member alludes, is written by and for the judges. Ministers have no involvement whatsoever in its content.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with me and many of my hon. Friends that policy decisions by unelected non-departmental bodies such as the Sentencing Council are eroding public confidence in our democratic institutions? Will he commit to scrapping such bodies, so that policy is always made by Ministers, who are directly accountable to this House?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Policy decisions should always be made by this House; the hon. Member is absolutely correct about that. The background to where we are today is that the Sentencing Council consulted the Government of the day, members of whom are now on the Opposition Benches. The members of that Government were asleep at the wheel. Now it is down to this Government, yet again, to pick up the pieces they left for us and sort out their mess.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My constituents are confused about the Justice Secretary’s position. She says she believes that these sentencing guidelines are wrong in principle, and that they amount to differential treatment before the law, but she is in government; she has the power and the tools at her disposal to stop this and change it. Why has she not done so?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I have tried to explain this, and I will explain it once more. The Justice Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, has been extremely clear that she believes in equality before the law, and she is not happy with the guidelines. That is why she wrote as soon as they were published, unlike Conservative Members, who had sight of them earlier in the consultation. They went further than ignoring them; they responded to them in a very positive way.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know you like to think that in order to keep talking a bit—[Interruption.] One of us is going to sit down; it is not going to be me, Minister. There are other things to do and points of order to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is an honourable man, and I have to ask a question on behalf of the victims, if he does not mind. He will understand that any reform of sentencing must have victims at its heart. For most victims, their concern is not the ethnicity of the perpetrator, but the severity of the crime and the lasting impact on their life. Many victims today will feel that the sentencing guidelines play politics with justice. How can victims be assured that justice will mean time served for crimes committed, and will not be based on ethnicity? Justice is blind, and so must sentencing be.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I agree with him. The victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), is sitting next to me; we take victims very seriously. That is why there is a victims’ representative on the sentencing review panel. We need to make sure that victims are at the centre of whatever we do. I have met too many victims already in this role, and every time I meet them, it is very difficult—a little difficult for me, but hugely difficult for them, because they live this.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

It seems like every week we are back here, dealing with culture wars—

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Judging by the lack of action, it appears that the Justice Secretary is comfortable with changes that she has described as two-tier coming into effect in just two weeks. We have heard that she is unhappy; if she really is, can the Minister tell the House and the country what the Secretary of State is doing, other than holding cordial and cosy meetings, to prevent two-tier justice?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The Lord Chancellor has made her position clear. She immediately met the Sentencing Council, and she is writing to it again to set out her concerns, and the Sentencing Council has committed to responding to them quickly.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The Minister complains about having to explain the Government’s position, but why can he not just explain to us why the Secretary of State has not fixed this issue yet? It seems that there has been a meeting, but she has not even written a letter in the last three weeks explaining what she wants to happen. That is why I thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question again. The Minister has not actually fixed the problem that we are all talking about.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The consultation was held under the previous Government, who not only expressed no concern, but welcomed what the Sentencing Council was doing. Immediately on seeing the guidelines as drafted, the Lord Chancellor acted to sort out the mess left by the Conservative party.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Minister says that the situation is completely clear, so I feel like a bit of an idiot for asking for more clarification, but I will anyway. Pre-sentencing reports are allowed to take in further background on the lives of offenders from an

“ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community”.

What is the definition of a cultural minority, and are our veterans considered a cultural minority?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member reads out a phrase that was welcomed by the previous Government, but that the Lord Chancellor is objecting to and talking to the Sentencing Council about.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On Wednesday, I challenged the Prime Minister directly on two-tier justice, and gave him the opportunity to confirm that he would back the shadow Justice Secretary’s Bill to stop this in its tracks. In his attempts to scramble out of giving that commitment, he said something which has been repeated today: that the previous Government were consulted on and welcomed the guidance. However, the Sentencing Council has already put in writing that the wording is different and so would lead to a materially different outcome. The Government failed to take the opportunity that the shadow Justice Secretary presented them with to block this change. Was the Prime Minister right in what he said, or is the Sentencing Council right? They cannot both be.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The letter the previous Government wrote to the Sentencing Council during the consultation is clear. The previous Government were not just consulted; they welcomed the guidance. The initial version of the guidance included reference to specific cohorts of offenders, including ethnic minorities.

[Robert Jenrick]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his response to the urgent question, the Minister has repeatedly told the House that the previous Government approved the guidelines. In particular, he besmirched the name of the former sentencing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). What the Minister said to the House today was wrong. On page 4, paragraph 4, of the Sentencing Council’s letter of 10 March to the Justice Secretary, it made it perfectly clear that the guidelines published under this Government were materially different from those considered by the prior Government. In fact, the Minister’s official was present at the meeting of the Sentencing Council at which this version of the guidelines was signed off. Will he take the opportunity to correct the record? I am afraid that he has misled the House not once, not twice, but on numerous occasions today, and that is quite wrong.

[Robert Jenrick]

I do hope it was inadvertent, Mr Speaker.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that I inadvertently misled the House.

Draft Civil Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Fees (Amendment) Order 2025

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 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 Civil Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Fees (Amendment) Order 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. This draft order makes a technical amendment to three court and tribunal fees to ensure they can continue to be charged at their current level by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. This forms part of a wider set of amendments to 27 fees, the latest estimated costs of which have fallen below their current value. The 24 fees not included in this affirmative instrument will be reduced by a negative instrument that will shortly be laid before Parliament.

No one will be required to pay a higher fee as a result of the changes made by this draft order. It simply changes the legislative power under which the three fees in question are set without amending the amount charged to HMCTS users. The amendments will protect at least £3.5 million a year in estimated income to help ensure that the courts and tribunals remain efficiently and effectively resourced, thereby reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer.

A properly funded and functioning HMCTS is critical to upholding the Lord Chancellor’s statutory duty to protect access to justice. Fees are an essential source of funding for courts and tribunals, with over 300 fees charged for the various administrative and judicial services provided by HMCTS. In line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s “managing public money” principles, most court fees are set to recover no more than the underlying estimate of what it costs HMCTS to run the corresponding service. Others are set deliberately below the cost of service to ensure that access to justice is protected, such as proceedings concerning domestic abuse.

A minority of HMCTS fees are set under what is known as the enhanced power, via section 180 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Enhanced fees can lawfully over-recover their underpinning costs to cross-subsidise HMCTS services, for which low or no fees are payable. Following a substantial review of my Department’s costing methodology in relation to court processes, the newly estimated costs of 27 fees were found to have fallen below previous estimates. The revised costing methodology is an improved, more nuanced model that relies on data sources that were not available in the previous methodology.

The powers under which the 27 fees are currently set allow them to recover a maximum of their underlying costs, which means that the fees must either be reduced to their estimated costs or kept as they are, albeit restated under the 2014 Act as enhanced fees. In line with Treasury principles, it is prudent for the Act to be used sparingly when setting fees that over-recover their cost. The Department’s position is therefore that the enhanced power should be reserved for fees that can generate substantial levels of income to cross-subsidise under-recovering parts of HMCTS, provided that doing so has a minimal impact on access to justice. That is why the majority of the 27 fees in question will be reduced, in line with their newly estimated costs, by an upcoming negative instrument, with only three enhanced by this affirmative instrument.

I will explain the services to which the three fees covered by this draft order are attached, and why the Department deems it appropriate that each should be enhanced for the purpose of cross-subsidisation. The first is the 50p fee charged for a council tax liability order. This fee is payable by local authorities to legally demand payment of council tax arrears. HMCTS receives a high volume of CTLO applications each year, which raises significant income to support the running of the courts and tribunals. In 2022-23, 2.1 million CTLOs resulted in £1.1 million of fee income. Enhancing the fee will not only ensure this crucial income is retained, but it will also remove the cost to the taxpayer of adjusting the fee in line with its regularly fluctuating cost.

The second fee is charged at £22 for a warrant of entry. Such warrants are mostly applied for by utility companies to gain legal access to private premises. Similar to CTLOs, high volumes of these warrants are issued each year, generating £7.2 million in fee income for HMCTS in 2022-23 alone. Reducing the fee to cost would place significant financial pressure on the Department at a particularly challenging time.

The third fee relates to ships or goods that are seized in the event of a breach and then sold off at auction. The admiralty court charges several fees, which are payable on the sale of a vessel or goods, but the amount payable varies depending on the value of the ship. The fee relevant to this instrument applies to ships valued over £100,000. Unlike the flat CTLO and warrant of entry fees, this fee is £1 for every £100 of a ship’s value up to £100,000, and it increases by a further 50p for every £100 of the ship’s value above £100,000, with a minimum fee of £205. Although this fee does not attract the same volume as applications for CTLOs or warrants of entry, it still provides an important source of income for HMCTS because some ships are sold for several million pounds, meaning that even low annual volumes can result in the generation of notable overall income.

I reiterate that this draft order merely maintains the status quo by not increasing the value of any of the three fees restated under the 2014 Act. As a result, there is no anticipated impact on users of the courts and tribunals. The negligible bearing this draft order will have on HMCTS users is echoed in the response to the previous Government’s 2023 consultation on a series of updates to court and tribunal fees. The consultation included a proposal to enhance the CTLO fee, but the other two fees in question had not yet been identified as over-recovering at the time of the consultation.

Of those who responded to the proposal, 63% had no view and no further comments to share, and 17% agreed with the proposal, stating that enhancing the fee would not negatively impact users given that its current value of 50p would be retained. The two respondents who disagreed had incorrectly assumed that the fee was being increased.

I reassure Members that the number of variations between costs and fee values being corrected by this draft order and the accompanying negative instrument is considered higher than usual. That is because of the revisions brought about by the Department’s updated costing methodology. Although the costs underpinning HMCTS fees will be reviewed on an annual basis, I do not anticipate the need to amend this many fees each year, thanks to the improvements made by the new methodology. The three fees in question are charged in England and Wales only. This draft order will therefore have no effect on court fees in either Scotland or Northern Ireland.

This draft order can be seen as a corrective statutory instrument that simply delivers minor updates to the statute book for continuity purposes. As such, it does not bring about any practical changes to those affected by court and tribunal fees, and in fact ensures that the fees payable by the relevant court users remain the same. The amendments made by this draft order and its accompanying negative instrument represent the most pragmatic approach to keeping the Department’s fees legislation up to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for his contribution. He is right that any future changes should have proper scrutiny, like the scrutiny we are providing today, and the Government are always willing to commit to monitoring the impact of such changes such as those made by the draft order. However, I note that these decisions maintain what is currently happening, rather than bringing about any change to charges. All the funds will go directly into the justice system, as he rightly encourages, and fees will always be kept under proper review.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

2. Whether she plans to release land owned by her Department at Springhill Road to the Springhill Road Residents Association.

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

As the hon. Member will know from his meeting with the Minster for Prisons in the other place, currently there are no plans to release land at Springhill Road. The Ministry of Justice is working closely with local representatives to ensure that we bring benefits to the local community as part of the new prison build.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, and for the Prisons Minister’s time last summer. Notwithstanding our local opposition to a new prison, it is an absurdity that has been going on for years that the MOJ owns the greens, the lampposts and the public lighting on the Springhill Road estate adjacent to HMP Spring Hill, even though they are of no use to the MOJ and there is no benefit to the prison estate. The residents’ association is willing to take those greens and care for them, so that kids can play on them and residents can use them. Will the Minister look again at getting the land transferred, because it is of no benefit to him or his Department?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Under the last Government, only 500 prison places were created. By contrast, the last Labour Government delivered 27,830. The Lord Chancellor has set out her ambition to deliver 14,000 new places by 2031. Almost 1,500 of those will be provided by the new prison in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. If he writes to me about the specific concerns of the residents’ association, I will be happy to respond.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking through the criminal justice system to help prevent defendants absconding before their trial.

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

The decision to remand or bail an individual is solely a matter for the independent judiciary. Courts are required to considered the likelihood of absconding as part of that decision. The courts have the power to impose a broad range of robust bail conditions in the bail package, including electronic monitoring, exclusion zones and curfews. This Government are committed to ensuring that criminals face justice and victims have peace of mind and closure.

[Robbie Moore]

After the conviction of eight men for a string of horrendous child rapes in my constituency, I would like to be able to inform the Secretary of State that all those men were now serving their just punishment. However, two of them absconded from their trial and are believed to be abroad. Their exact whereabouts are an open secret in Keighley. It is a shocking failure of the justice system that those men are still walking free. Does the Minister agree that if a dual or foreign national is charged with disgusting child rape crimes, courts should be required to put terms on their bail that prevent them from leaving the country during their trial, so that they cannot walk free after their horrendous, heinous crimes?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I understand that the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers took place under the last Government, and the men he referred to were tried in absentia. The Home Secretary set out the steps that the Government are taking to tackle the terrible crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse, including group-based child sexual exploitation. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are legislating to make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences, to ensure that it is properly reflected in the sentencing of perpetrators.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

4. What steps she is taking to reduce the cost of court transcripts for victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

7. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of ensuring that all prison leavers receive resettlement support from mentors.

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

The Ministry of Justice recognises the benefits of mentoring in resettlement and is currently reviewing our approach to peer mentoring to make sure it is consistent and effective. There are many excellent organisations delivering a range of peer-led rehabilitation support, including Ingeus, Wizer and the Wise Group.

[Bobby Dean]

At my surgery a couple of weeks ago, I had two fantastic volunteers show up from Sutton Night Watch, a local homeless charity. They had been working with prisoners, both before and after they left their cells, to help them reintegrate into the community. They are doing fantastic work, but they now need to expand. They need more space and more people. Can the Minister explain what support is available to volunteers like them to help them to do their work with prisoners?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I applaud the work that the hon. Member describes. It is certainly the sort of work that needs to continue. Overall, the levels of homelessness and rough sleeping that we have inherited are far too high. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a long-term strategy to put us back on track to end homelessness. If he wishes to write to me about that particular case, I will follow it up.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

As part of the Justice Committee’s work on rehabilitation, I have come across some excellent projects on preventing reoffending, such as Revolving Doors, Peer Support and Key4Life, that use reformed ex-offenders as mentors. On a visit to Wormwood Scrubs prison last month, I saw the Right Course restaurant, which gets almost 60% of its trainees into employment on release. What are the Government doing to support and expand successful rehabilitation projects like these?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his identification of these very good actions that are going on within the prison estate. The Prison Service is keen to encourage all this sort of activity, and I will follow this up with my hon. Friend directly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The sentencing review’s interim report describes the situation at the moment, and it is the first stage of that independent review’s addressing this long-standing issue. Frankly, this is something that the Conservatives spent the last 14 years avoiding tackling. That is—[Interruption.] I will leave it there.

[Dr Mullan]

The House will have heard very starkly that the Minister did not offer me any clarity. I can help him by telling him that there is not one word anywhere on the expectations of victims of crime and their families—[Interruption.] Not one word. Worse than that, it cherry-picks evidence from reports to support a narrative that an ill-informed public do not know what they want and do not understand. Does the Minister agree that for that review to have any credibility whatsoever, it must engage seriously with what victims and the public want when it comes to the use of prison for the punishment of serious offenders?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We heard fully the commitment from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and the Lord Chancellor that victims are front and centre of our approach to fixing the mess that the Conservatives left us. There is a victims representative on the panel, as the hon. Member well knows. Victims were fully involved and engaged in this. I have sadly met too many victims in this role, and I have encouraged all of them to contribute to the report and committed to them that they will be fully involved in the implementation of the report. Instead of carping from the sidelines trying to get cheap soundbites, it is about time the Conservatives rolled their sleeves up and tried to help us sort out their mess.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department plans to take to reduce the backlog of domestic violence cases.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Government’s plan to support women offenders is clear and ambitious. To reduce the number of women going to prison, our new women’s justice board will support the implementation of the plan. This Government have taken immediate action to ensure that girls will never again be held in youth offender institutions following the publication last week of Susannah Hancock’s review into girls in the youth estate.

[Liz Twist]

Self-harm in prisons is now at the highest rate ever recorded. In women’s prisons, the rates are eight times higher than in men’s prisons—shockingly, one in three female prisoners has self-harmed. Does my hon. Friend share my deep concern about those figures, and what is the Department doing to tackle that issue effectively?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I certainly share my hon. Friend’s deep concern about that issue, which she is right to raise. Good relationships between staff and prisoners are essential in our efforts to identify and manage the risks of suicide and self-harm. We are providing specialist support to establishments rolling out tailored investments, including specialised training for new officers, recruiting psychologists to support women, and piloting a compassion-focused therapy group designed for women.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

13. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the independent sentencing review’s interim report, published on 18 February 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This Government inherited a prison system on the verge of collapse. Under the last Government, in 14 years only 500 prison places were produced. Under the last Labour Government, there was a net increase of 27,830 prison places in 13 years. We are redoubling our efforts to match that number.

[Lewis Atkinson]

The prison capacity crisis that this Government inherited has resulted in persistent offenders not feeling the deterrent effect of a custody option being realistically available. Can the Minister tell us how this Government’s prison building plans will restore a level of deterrence to the system and ensure that capacity is available in time to remove active offenders from the streets?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Where they were blocking, we are building, building, building. HMP Millsike, the UK’s first all-electric prison, will open in just a few weeks and deliver 1,500 places. Just last week, the Prisons Minister in the other place attended a groundbreaking at HMP Highpoint, and we have already secured full planning permission for a new prison in Leicestershire and outline planning permission for a new prison in Buckinghamshire. We are getting on with the job.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Minister will know that the increase in prisoner numbers is often because of the logjam within the Crown court system, and there are too many on remand who are then convicted and released with time served, with no opportunity for rehabilitation or mentoring. Will he confirm that that forms part of the sentencing review or the Leveson review?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

That is why we are doing this big system relook. The right hon. Member is right to draw attention to this. We are going to tackle it and sort it out.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

17. What support she has provided to prisons that have received an urgent notification since July 2024.

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

I thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to the terrible legacy we inherited from the previous Government. The Prisons Minister in the other place has personally visited three of the prisons that have recently received urgent notifications—Wandsworth, Winchester and Manchester—and plans to visit the fourth as soon as possible. He has strengthened the UN process and meets regularly with governors and senior officials to challenge them and assure himself that sufficient progress is being made.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Prison officers do an important job, and I thank every officer at Downview Prison in Banstead. It is extremely concerning that the number of assaults on staff at Downview more than doubled between 2023 and 2024. What steps is he taking to ensure that officers are protected in their day-to-day jobs?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

As the hon. Member rightly says, prison officers do an outstanding job. The work of the Prison Service is to make sure they are properly supported and protected in that role, and that is what is going on.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

18. What steps she is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

T3.   Last year, assaults on prison staff were up by 19% and serious assaults were up by 22%, yet the pensionable age of prison officers is still 68—it is simply too late. Can the Minister update the House on any discussions he may have had with officials regarding that industrial injustice and say when these loyal public servants might expect to see this long-standing issue corrected?

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

We recognise the unique and challenging role that prison officers play in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. The Lord Chancellor has requested advice from officials on the pension age of prison officers, and we will continue to engage with trade unions as we work through this complex issue while considering the wider fiscal context. I am meeting the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) to discuss this important issue next week, and I am very happy for my hon. Friend to join that meeting if he wishes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

T8. A significant proportion of those who experience homelessness are ex-offenders. I have previously raised concerns that the drive to alleviate the prison places crisis must not add to the homelessness emergency. The Deputy Prime Minister is in the process of establishing an inter-ministerial group on tackling homelessness. Will my right hon. Friend’s Department play a full and active role in that inter-ministerial group, and ensure that Ministers and officials from the Ministry of Justice are adequately represented?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and the Ministry of Justice will play a full part in the inter-ministerial group.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s attempts to prevent the Sentencing Council from changing the sentencing process, which would lead to a two-tier justice system. If, however, the council will not budge—as appears to be the case—a two-tier justice system will arrive in just 21 days, contradicting the key principle of the legal system that everyone should be equal before the law without discrimination. Will the Secretary of State introduce legislation immediately to ensure that that two-tier justice system does not come about?

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Last week, at a Justice Committee hearing, it was confirmed that an effective probation service is essential to the rehabilitation of offenders and to prevent reoffending. However, over the years the service has been under immense strain owing to increased demand. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that probation officers have manageable caseloads, and that support is provided for their mental health and wellbeing to avoid high levels of stress and burnout, and also to help with the recruitment and retention of staff?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the probation service. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the chaotic running of the service under the last Government. We are actively monitoring the effectiveness of the probation reset policy and assessing its impact on workload capacity, the time saved, and the increased focus on individuals posing the highest risk to public safety. We recognise the significant pressure that probation officers have been under, which is why comprehensive wellbeing support models have been put in place across our services, including dedicated wellbeing leads for both prison and probation services.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

What work is the Secretary of State doing with the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure that the families of British citizens who are murdered abroad have the same rights as the families of homicide victims in the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Prison maintenance privatisation has been a complete and utter disaster. When will it be taken back in-house?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We are investing approximately £500 million over two years in prison and probation service maintenance to improve conditions across our estate, but it is fair to say we have inherited a system in serious need of repair. The estimated cost of bringing the prison estate to a fair condition and maintaining it till the end of the decade is £2.8 billion. The programme is now under way, and we hope that we will make as much progress as possible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]