IPP Sentences

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on calling this important debate at the start of this Parliament. I also endorse the comments made about the Justice Committee, and its incredible work scrutinising this issue and coming up with workable recommendations. work scrutinising this issue and coming up with workable recommendations.

My constituent, who lived in York before being taken into custody in 2005—19 years ago—was given an imprisonment for public protection sentence on 22 January 2007. His original tariff meant that the Parole Board could have released him on 26 May 2009, but he is still there. It must be one of the most egregious cases in the system.

IPP sentences were introduced through the Criminal Justice Act 2003, despite warnings that they would be an affront to justice. They were reformed in 2008 and abolished in 2012, and a total of 8,711 sentences were imposed.

My constituent’s family have been superb and have met me, to keep me informed of the progress for my constituent—apart from that there is no progress, because we do not know what happens next. There have been incidents and consequences, but he is seriously unwell, because he never knows the date of his release or how the injustices he has now served will ever be undone. To incarcerate someone indefinitely comes at significant cost—it is beyond comprehension. My constituent’s mental health has significantly spiralled, as he cannot see an end to this nightmare.

As we have heard, reports have shown that 90 people have taken their own lives while on an IPP sentence. There have been 1,866 incidents of self-harm; the figure is around 2,000 incidents of self-harm every year, across many years, among those on IPP sentences.

The nature of an indeterminate sentence is profound and we understand that denying somebody release has a huge impact. It is often denied as they are not engaging, as my constituent did not for some time, with psychiatric services. He just could not—yet that delayed his progress towards release. After getting a sentence of two years, four months and nine days, he has now served a sentence of 19 years, and his hope is diminishing as he continues to wait for the Parole Board to do justice. He was just 24 years old when a single incident occurred; now 43, having completed course after course after course, he is yet to be released.

The Justice Committee report highlighted the inconsistencies in the way IPP prisoners are treated, the failure of the Parole Board to properly stratify risk, and the conditions that prisoners have to satisfy in order to be released. As a result, we see people languishing in their cells without hope of ever getting out.

The Parole Board needs to be given the scope to properly look at this measure. That is why I support the recommendations in the Justice Committee’s report on resentencing. It is not just people who are incarcerated who are on an IPP sentence; on their release, people continue on that sentence in the community, and for the smallest misdemeanour can easily be recalled. There is no consistency. People may miss appointments and therefore be recalled. We heard in evidence to the Select Committee how small some of the misdemeanours were that meant people were recalled back into prison.

We need to find a way out of this situation. The report calls for resentencing and the reduction of the recall period to five years from the current 10 years. Will the Minister support that change? If not, I ask him to give us a full explanation as to why.

This all comes in the context of significant current pressure on the courts. Perhaps a specialist court is needed to review all these cases, to ensure that the decisions are expedited in the resentencing and ensuing release process. We need to ensure that people have the right support to go back into the community, given that the Probation Service is at absolute breaking point, not least as it is having to deal with early releases at the moment. Again, a specialist focus is required. For example, my constituent has been in prison for 19 years, so a lot of steps need to be taken to ensure that when he is released, he is safe to himself, that he gets the mental health support he requires, and that the family also get support over that period. We must recognise the huge vulnerability of these individuals at that time.

We also need to ensure that the process is robust and consistent—we have seen inconsistencies in the judgments of parole boards, causing further frustration for many people on the inside—and that there are allocated safe places, where people can start to rebuild their lives. My constituent is fortunate to have family who are prepared and a place to go, but many people do not have those associations because it has been so long since they were on the outside. We need to make sure that real expertise in this area is brought in.

When we hear places like the European Court of Human Rights deeming such sentences to be in breach of article 5, on the basis of protection of unlawful deprivation of liberty, the Government cannot sit on their hands. They must act swiftly; and being new in government brings the opportunity to ensure that they do.

How is the Minister is going to review the programmes that people on IPP sentences and others are placed on in prison? The Select Committee heard evidence that many are not fit for purpose nor evidence-based. How do we ensure that the focus of those programmes is on rehabilitating people ready for their future life, and that they are not just a process that prisoners have to go through, serving no benefit?

The Lord Chancellor and the Minister have to rebuild the criminal justice system—we recognise that. The most important thing is reducing the offending rate and ensuring that we do not continue to see the current levels of reoffending. There are some good models out there, including my local prison, Askham Grange, which has the lowest reoffending rate in the country. With that, there is a proper process in place so that the residents —as they are given the dignity of being called—are given support when coming out and going back into employment and civil society. That invest-to-save model needs funding and support. As we transition services, we need to ensure—particularly for those serving IPP sentences, but also across the wider criminal justice system—that the right support is put in the right place.

Ultimately, I turn to the matter of our psychiatric services, because my observation is that many prisons have now become a place where people with significant and severe mental health challenges have to be; it is a failure of our mental health services that they are there at all. Many on IPP sentences fall within that category. If there is a resentencing process, which I hope there is, can we ensure that we also look at mental health support? For many people, perhaps hospital is a more appropriate place than prison. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Efford. We have had a full and informed debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing it and setting it off in such a positive way. He drew our attention to the issues and reminded us, as others did, of Lord Blunkett’s words about IPP sentences being the “biggest regret” of his political career. We all need to roll up our sleeves and work across the parties. I welcome the fact that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), recognised how we, in opposition, worked constructively with the Government. He is now doing the same. The problem belongs to all of us and we should put our shoulders to the wheel to resolve it in the best way possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green also drew our attention to the heart of all this: these prisoners often feel a loss of hope and that they are in a cycle of despair. It is our responsibility to do all we can to break that cycle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke with deep understanding and eloquence. He drew attention to the way in which prisoners often self-harm and the need for programmes to be focused precisely on the needs of individuals to bring about practical action. I hope that is where we are going now with the action plan and the dashboard behind it, which follows each individual prisoner so that the right approach can be taken for them and so that they and the prison authorities know what they have to do to allow people to move to the next stage so that there is, we hope, a positive outcome for everybody.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about people languishing in their cells without hope. That is a depressing picture and we all have a big responsibility to turn back the clock so that it is no longer the case. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—I pronounced her constituency wrong but did my best, so I hope she will forgive me—drew attention to the comments of the special rapporteur. Lord Timpson met the special rapporteur yesterday, so we are taking those issues seriously as we try to move forward.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke with his usual warmth and passion. He drew attention to the important principles of justice, rehabilitation and the needs of the victims, and the need to balance them as we move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) focused on the words of Lord Blunkett, but also drew our attention to the way recall has been used in a way perhaps not anticipated at the outset. I hope that what happens later this week will help remedy some of that. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), gave us Tommy’s harrowing story. Sadly, there are many stories like that, and our job is to try to ensure that there are not more in the future.

A lot of the history has already been dealt with, so I will not go back over what has been covered so well by others. The Government recognise the challenges faced by those serving IPP sentences, and it is absolutely right that the sentence was abolished. More than 5,000 people are still serving IPP sentences. For those serving the sentence in prison, the Government are determined to give them the support and opportunities they need to make further progress towards a safe, sustainable release. For those serving the sentence in the community, an end to the sentence is now within their grasp.

The debate is timely, as I was pleased to meet the IPP Committee in Action with Lord Timpson today—I see members of the group in the Public Gallery—in what I felt was a positive meeting. That does not mean that everything was where we wanted it to be, but it was a constructive, positive meeting, as we tried to work with people with genuine concerns and experience to get better outcomes.

This Friday, we will implement the first phase of changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which we supported in opposition, and we are determined to implement those vital provisions at the earliest opportunity. We will also publish an updated IPP action plan shortly, which will continue to focus on the rehabilitation of IPP offenders through frontline delivery in our prisons and in the probation service. It remains the case, however, that supporting IPP offenders continues to present a number of challenges, particularly when it comes to those who have never been released. In addition, we must never lose sight of the paramount importance of protecting the public, which the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston spoke about so sensibly.

The changes to the IPP licence in the Victim and Prisoners Act will mean that this Friday those who were first released at least five years ago—or four years ago for those convicted when they were under 18—and who have spent the last two on licence without recall to custody will have their licence automatically terminated on 1 February 2025. The qualifying period for when the Secretary of State must refer an IPP licence to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination, which is currently 10 years, will be three years, or two for those convicted when under 18. Commencing the new measures means that the IPP licence will end automatically for around 1,800 people on 1 November. In addition, 600 people will be referred to the Parole Board to consider licence termination on 1 February 2025. We anticipate that the changes, once fully implemented, will reduce the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two thirds.

I recognise that the changes will not automatically result in any change to the status of those serving IPP sentences in prison. For that reason, the Government are determined to give those people every chance to make further progress in reducing their risk and eventually obtaining a release direction from the Parole Board in a way that prioritises public protection. As hon. Members have said, there is a responsibility on us to provide hope, but also to ensure that hope is realistic and proper.

The IPP action plan is one of the first steps in delivering that. The refreshed plan, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked for, places greater emphasis on effective frontline delivery in our prisons to ensure that prisoners serving IPP sentences have robust and effective sentence plans that they are actively engaging with, and that they are in the correct prison to access the right interventions and rehabilitative services. Lord Timpson, the Minister for prisons, probation and reducing reoffending, is determined to use his role to achieve that, including by ensuring that HMPPS delivers effective sentence planning and timely prison transfers. Lord Timpson would also remind us that in the Timpson business he had 30 IPP prisoners as good, effective colleagues, so he has lived experience of working hard to deliver for people in this area.

Those efforts will ensure that IPP prisoners can get to the right place to pursue the programme of intervention that they need to reduce their risk and make further progress towards a future release by way of the direction from the Parole Board. Around 30% of IPP prisoners are not currently in the correct prison to start the next formal intervention specified in their sentence plan. We are clear that that must be addressed as a matter of urgency, notwithstanding the challenges brought about by the current population pressures, which the Government are taking decisive action to tackle.

[Rachael Maskell]

My constituent has been waiting 17 years for release. Can the Minister provide a timeframe by which my constituent can expect to hear what the justice system further expects of him before he gets that release?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Each case is different, so I come back to the importance of individual plans for individual prisoners, and the fact that they need to know, from conversations with the prison authorities, exactly where they are and what intervention is there, and they can see themselves progressing positively towards a positive outcome. It is impossible to give a timeframe on each individual case, but I would hope that each individual would have a feel of what the timeframe might look like for them.

Every prison now has a dedicated full-time neurodiversity support manager, and each has attended a bespoke awareness session on the IPP sentence and its impact on those serving it. Those managers are working with frontline staff to help them improve their support and communication with neurodiverse IPP prisoners, fostering good relationships and effective support for improved prospects of progression. We will continue to focus on delivering good education training and work opportunities in prison to build skills, alongside support for IPP prisoners to access employment and accommodation on release.

The IPP action plan is reviewed annually, and the Government will continue to scrutinise thoroughly progress made. To increase accountability, next summer the Lord Chancellor will be laying before Parliament the IPP annual report, which will detail the activity that has been undertaken to support those serving the IPP sentence, and hopefully address the points that have been made about where individuals lie in relation to confidence and assistance. If the anticipated progress is not being made, we will then consider what more we must do to drive the progress that we are determined to see. We will not accept no progress; we expect and demand progress, and that is what we will be looking for.

I appreciate that those still serving the sentence in prison will consider that they have not really benefited from the previous IPP action plans—there is some scepticism. This Labour Government will not allow that to be the case in future. We will robustly drive meaningful actions to deliver actual changes to how well IPP prisoners are protected and supported. That includes supporting those who have never been released, and those who have been recalled to custody. Recall remains a vital function in managing the risk of released IPP prisoners. The thematic review from His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation highlights the fact that decisions to recall IPP offenders have been proportionate and necessary, and that must continue to maintain public protection.

The Government’s overriding priority remains the protection of the public—I was pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, reiterated that in his comments—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central pointed out, that needs to be robust and consistent. It is vital for public confidence and protection that those serving the IPP sentence in prison are released only following a thorough risk assessment that finds that their risk has reduced to the point where they may be safely managed in the community. That is a judgment for the independent Parole Board, which has also recognised that a greater focus on the IPP cohort is necessary. The board has set up a dedicated IPP taskforce so that IPP cases are handled and reviewed by Parole Board members with the appropriate knowledge, experience and expertise of the IPP sentence.

Legislating to give every IPP prisoner a definite release date and post-release licence would result in most of them being released automatically—we are coming on to the issue of resentencing, which I know is an issue of huge contention and concern—but, in many cases, the Parole Board has repeatedly determined that those individuals are too dangerous to be released, not having met the statutory release test. In those circumstances, sadly, public protection has to take priority.

The alternative would be resentencing via the court, which would likely result in most offenders still in custody being released without any licensed supervision, despite the Parole Board having assessed in the past two years that those individuals should remain in custody for the protection of the public, having not met the statutory release test. Either approach, sadly, would pose an unacceptable level of risk to members of the public, and, in particular, to victims. I am especially concerned that resentencing could result in dangerous IPP prisoners being released, without a licence period, into the community.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I will very happily revisit the report as my right hon. Friend advises, but the reality is that we need to crack on with this. We need to get things to a better place as quickly as possible, and that means having the right support available to support each individual, to move them on their way. There may be a way of resentencing happening, but it is complicated and it has significant risk, which is why we are not going there. People released in those circumstances would not be subject to any licence conditions, including those that protect victims, for example by prohibiting contact with victims and enforcing exclusion zones. I do not accept that that is an acceptable position for victims.

On IPP offenders in the community, a resentencing exercise would also halt the risk management and support for these individuals, some of whom will be at the critical moment of having been recently released from custody. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 makes significant changes to the IPP licence period and allows for the termination of the IPP sentence in a safe, sustainable way, ensuring that the public and victims are best safeguarded. It is about balance, and I recognise that there are very strong arguments— and good arguments—for the balance to be elsewhere, but this is where the Government want to place the balance at the moment.

[Rachael Maskell]

The big issue, which I think all colleagues across the Chamber have been raising consistently in this debate, is people’s mental health. Continuous uncertainty will continue to mean people having very poor mental health, including self-harming and, tragically, losing their lives. Will the Minister ensure that he puts time frameworks around what he is talking about, so that people can start planning in their mind what their future looks like? At the moment, they are still looking down a very dark hole.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Each IPP prisoner should know what they need to do in order to make progress through the system or towards the community, and each IPP prisoner should also know what the system should be doing to support them. That is the question, really, and I look towards friends and family because they are a massive resource in this respect. If individual IPP prisoners do not know what they should be doing in order to move on the journey towards release, or they do not know what the system should be doing to support them on the journey towards release, which includes support on mental health and other support of that kind, then there is an issue that we need to focus on and deal with. That is my answer to that point.

I will come on to the questions asked by the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, about what progress is being made on the action plan. I hope I have managed to cover off in my response the fact that the action plan is central and progressing in the way that we would wish. I have just mentioned mental health support. In relation to the licence breach, where the licence is still in force and victims become aware that an offender has breached a licence condition—for example, if they have entered an exclusion zone—they may report it to the police or their victim liaison officer. Where the licence is terminated, all licence conditions end, including exclusion zones.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is right that this is a big issue. The Prison and Probation Service is working hard to ensure that appropriate accommodation is available, and working hard with partners across the country in different regions. I am very happy to meet the hon. Member to talk about the issue further.

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

Amazing charities such as Survive in York depend for their survival on the rape and sexual abuse support fund. However, without certainty over the amount, and if and when the funding will come, it is hard to leverage funding from other sources, such as the national lottery. When will the funding be announced, and will the Minister meet me to discuss this vital funding as demand rises?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I recognise the vital work that Survive in York does to support victims and survivors in her area. I fully appreciate the importance of notifying police and crime commissioners and providers about future funding as early as possible to effectively commission, plan and deliver those services. As I have indicated, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the current spending review. We know that current providers are concerned about the cliff edge in March 2025. I fully appreciate that and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss that further.

Prison Capacity

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is a temporary scheme. We will revert to the usual 50% level as quickly as possible. I think 18 months is the right period for me to return to this House. The hon. Member will have many opportunities to scrutinise these changes because this Government will be different from the previous Government, because we will be transparent all the way through. I anticipate many moments in this House when I will be challenged. It is a temporary change. It will always be a temporary change.

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

I have had many constituents placed in prison because of failed mental health services, when the crisis team does not turn up and there is no capacity in secure accommodation. Will the Secretary of State have urgent discussions with the Secretary of State for Health to make an assessment of those people who should be in mental health services rather than in the criminal justice system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right that we have broad failure across many of our public services, including within the health service. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said, we have inherited an NHS that is “broken”. I will have conversations with him on the matter that she raises, but it is important, as we try to return the prison system to health, that we do so in conjunction with the other public services that we know are crucial to the proper functioning of the criminal justice service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What steps he is taking to ensure that people leaving prison are provided with support to help prevent reoffending.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

16. What steps he is taking to help reduce reoffending.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

Since 2010, crime has fallen and so has reoffending, with the overall proven rate of reoffending down from over 31% in 2011-12 to 25% in 2021-22. That means that fewer innocent members of the public are suffering from the misery of falling victim to crime. We have gone further, building up initiatives including a new prison education service, expanded access to incentivised substance-free living wings for drug recovery, and the groundbreaking guarantee of 12 weeks’ post-release accommodation to secure that essential period of stability for offenders to turn their lives around.

[Rachael Maskell]

With the reoffending rate at over 25%, rising to nearly 50% for burglary, reoffending is costing the country £18 billion a year and the service is failing to keep us safe. If just a small fraction of that cost were invested in probation staff to address the problems caused by 50,000 days lost through sickness and 2,000 people leaving each year, it could be transformative. Will the Justice Secretary back Operation Protect, the campaign spearheaded by the justice unions, and ensure that there is a comprehensive workforce plan to recruit, retain and return the staff needed to prevent reoffending?

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Lady is right. We want to drive the offending rate down, and it is good news that it is down from about 31% in 2010 to 25% now, but we do believe in investing in probation. That is why the baseline is up by £155 million, and it is why we have added 4,000 trainees since 2020. Since the reunification of probation services, the number has risen by 17%. Probation officers keep society safe, and we will back them all the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I know that question was on the Order Paper to be taken before topicals, but if the Justice Secretary could shorten his answers to make sure everyone has time in topicals, that would help me and others.

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

T7. Last week, I visited IDAS—Independent Domestic Abuse Services—which is an outstanding organisation supporting survivors of domestic and sexual violence. They highlighted that parents’ fear of having their children removed is preventing victims from presenting a case in full, and is preventing justice. How will the Minister ensure that power imbalances in the family courts are addressed?

[Laura Farris]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. She will know how much we are doing on victim support, particularly in terms of sexual and domestic abuse. I would like to speak to her about this issue, and about parental responsibility in the family courts, so I think we should have a meeting. I ask her to write to my office after questions to arrange it.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his engagement on this issue. Thanks to his intervention and those of campaigners, and his tireless work to ensure that victims are given the right opportunities to participate in restorative justice, I am pleased today, at the Dispatch Box, to commit to the following changes. I will ensure that our new commissioning guidance for police and crime commissioners due to be published next year will include specific information on restorative justice services so that those responsible for funding services understand these services when considering how best to address local need. I will also consult on a new entitlement in the victims code for victims to be given information about restorative justice services at the point of sentence, rather than the point of reporting, which I appreciate may not be the right time for consideration by either the victims or offenders. I hope that those additional measures will improve awareness and provision of restorative justice, which I recognise can be extremely valuable for victims and offenders in appropriate cases. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work in driving forward this change.

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

On the issue of pre-trial therapy, will the Minister be taking on board the recommendations from the Bluestar Project, which has been working to ensure that the victims code is up to date and that pre-trial therapy is readily accessible to all survivors of child sexual abuse?

[Edward Argar]

In respect of pre-trial therapy, and in addition to what I said, we will be bringing forward a revised victims code and consulting on the detail of it. I am happy to look into the specifics of what she proposes, but I do not want to pre-judge that consultation. I appreciate that on some occasions people may think that the consultations are pre-determined, but I want this to be genuine engagement and consultation. I am happy to read anything that she wants to send me, as always.

I also put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for raising the important issue of court transcripts. I recognise the cost challenge posed by transcription of every aspect of a case, and the full details of the case and all its proceedings. What I am happy to announce today is that, from next spring, we will run a one-year trial pilot that will enable victims of rape and other serious sexual offences to request Crown court sentencing remarks, which contain a summary of the case and the points that have been made, free of charge. We believe that this approach strikes the right balance between supporting victims of these horrific crimes and providing something that is affordable and achievable, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work on this issue.

I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for his amendments and for raising the issue of criminal conduct relating to sewage and wastewater. Like every Member of the House, I have every sympathy with those who are affected by these offences, and I have made it clear that individuals who have been harmed or impacted by these offences can access support services where the issue for which they are seeking support fits their eligibility. I will say no more than that at the moment, because I want to hear what he says when he speaks to his amendments. I will seek to address them in more detail in my winding-up speech, if that is acceptable to him, because I want to hear what he has to say.

I turn now to part 2 of the Bill, “Victims of Major Incidents,” on which the Government will table a number of amendments relating to the Independent Public Advocate. Before turning to those amendments, I wish to put on the record my thanks for the time and dedication of Bishop James Jones, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the right hon. Lord Wills and, of course, the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who is in her place and who has been phenomenally pragmatic throughout the process. While pushing for what she believes to be the right outcome, she has engaged constructively and pragmatically to try to make improvements, and I am very grateful for the way she has done that. In what I am about to say, she will see some of the fruits of what she has done in that space.

We have engaged with victims directly, we have heard from them about what they most need after a major incident, and we have sought to listen. First, we will establish a permanent Independent Public Advocate for victims of major incidents, who is referred to in the Bill as the standing advocate. This standing advocate will advise the Secretary of State on the interests of victims of major incidents and their treatment by public authorities in response to those major incidents. A major incident will still be declared by the Secretary of State, and I appreciate that some have called for the IPA to be self-deploying. However, we do not believe that would necessarily be the most appropriate or sustainable approach. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, is responsible for spending public money, and can be challenged on their decisions in the courts.

Secondly, our amendments will allow the standing advocate to advise relevant Secretaries of State on the appropriate Government review mechanisms following a major incident. These could include a statutory inquiry or a non-statutory panel model, such as the Hillsborough independent model. Such advice can also cover the scope of any review, and the advocate will make representations for the questions to which victims want answers. Crucially, this advice will be informed by the views and needs of victims themselves, and it will place their voice at the heart of the process.

Continuing with the IPA, Government amendments 76 to 82 will introduce significant changes to the advocate’s reporting function and abilities. They will place a duty on the standing advocate to report annually, and confer a discretion on an advocate to report on their own initiative, once appointed, in respect of a major incident. The amendments also make provision for the publication and laying of reports before Parliament.

The amendments will also clarify the grounds on which the Secretary of State can omit material from reports. I am aware that the ability of the Secretary of State to omit material from a report was a cause of concern for some, and I particularly appreciate this given the context of the IPA’s establishment. For the avoidance of doubt, we have carefully considered the feedback and have brought forward measures to be more explicit about when a Secretary of State may omit material, and to be more specific than something simply being in the “public interest”. We have used the Inquiries Act 2005 as our touchstone. The ability to omit material in certain circumstances is vital to ensure that sensitive materials, such as those relating to national security, are protected.

Amendment 64 will ensure that a lead advocate is appointed if more than one advocate is appointed for the same major incident, and I have reflected on the very helpful and constructive feedback from Lord Wills about the importance of having a clear structure in the Bill. Amendments 84 to 86 allow for the disclosure of information by an advocate, where appropriate, to any person exercising functions of a public nature, or by a person exercising functions of a public nature to an advocate, subject to the Data Protection Act 2018. This two-way flow of information is crucial to ensuring that advocates are able to support victims properly.

I want to make it clear that that does not provide the advocates with any data-compelling powers. We expect strong co-operation between public authorities and the advocates, and an advocate can report to the Secretary of State if they believe there has been a lack of co-operation. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood may try to nudge me to go a little further, but I note that the Hillsborough independent panel, which was rightly credited with securing disclosure of information that showed that fans were not responsible for the disaster, likewise did not have those data-compelling powers.

The final change that the amendments make is to remove the current restriction in the Bill whereby the advocate could share personal data only with the consent of the data subject. By removing that, the advocate now has greater freedom and can rely on a wider range of legal bases to process personal data, as outlined in data protection legislation.

I want to acknowledge the important issue raised by the Manchester Arena families and the hon. Member for—[Hon. Members: “South Shields.”] I should have known that, because we have met on a number of occasions, although we may have called each other by our first names on those occasions. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and those families for their tireless campaigning. In respect of having a role for the bereaved in the registration of their loved one’s death following an inquest, I will say a little more on this in my closing remarks, once the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to speak to her amendment in the course of this debate, but I want to reassure the House that I am sympathetic and understand what sits behind what the hon. Lady is campaigning for and seeking to do.

I turn to the final part of the Bill, part 3. The measures in respect of parole reforms are designed to protect the public and maintain confidence in the parole system by enabling the Secretary of State to intervene in the release of the most serious offenders. The first duty of any Government is to protect the public, and although the Parole Board has a very good record of assessing risk, this power will give the public additional confidence that when it comes to the release of those who have committed the gravest of crimes, there is an extra safeguard to ensure that prisoners are released only when it is safe to do so and that dangerous offenders remain behind bars.

During the passage of the Bill, I have heard support for that important principle, but I have also heard concerns from parliamentary colleagues and other stakeholders about how the proposed reform will be implemented, and from victims’ representatives about the potential for unnecessary delay in the process. I have therefore tabled amendments that will streamline the process to ensure that cases are dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible, while still guaranteeing that the Secretary of State retains a power to intervene on behalf of the public whenever necessary to do so.

The amendments mean that instead of Ministers being required to carry out the full assessment as to whether a prisoner meets the release test, which will be an onerous process requiring a full review of hundreds of pages of evidence, only for a prisoner to almost certainly challenge that decision in court, Ministers will now be able to send a case directly to a superior court for a judicial decision. In most cases, it will be the upper tribunal. We are also making it clear that the Secretary of State will refer cases that particularly affect public confidence, and where they believe that the court may reach different decisions from those of the board. The amendments will make the exercising of the power quicker and more cost-effective, removing the need to create a shadow Parole Board within the Ministry of Justice and providing swifter certainty for victims and the public.

We are also proposing two further minor changes to the measures. Clause 36 enables the Parole Board to refer cases to the Secretary of State for a decision where it is unable to reach a decision itself. We have listened carefully to suggestions that this provision may not be required, as it is not easy to envisage the circumstances in which it might apply. We have listened and will remove the clause from the Bill. Secondly, there are a small number of parole cases—usually those where the index offence is terrorism—that involve the consideration of sensitive material relating to national security or closed material. It is usual for legal matters involving closed materials to be heard in the High Court, so we are amending the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to refer any such specific parole cases, which we would expect to be few in number, to that court rather than the upper tribunal. I hope that the changes will be well received and demonstrate our commitment to ensuring swifter outcomes for victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I rise to speak to amendment 26, which I tabled. It is supported by hon. Members across the House and would enable victims to request a transcript of court proceedings free of charge, as that would be a huge step towards improving the transparency and accessibility of our justice system.

In 2020, my constituent Juliana Terlizzi was drugged and raped in her sleep by her then partner. Two years later, Juliana’s attacker was finally convicted, but she can barely remember what was said in the courtroom due to trauma and emotional distress. Following the trial, she was advised by a therapist to apply for a transcript of proceedings to allow her to revisit and process what was said in court. Her application for a free copy of the transcript was rejected, and she was then quoted an astonishing £7,500 by one of the private companies outsourced by the Government to produce transcripts. I soon discovered that Juliana’s extortionate quote is not an isolated case. Other victims have faced fees of up to £22,000. How can anyone be expected to pay such a fee? Court transcripts should not be a luxury that only a few victims can afford; they are a vital tool in aiding victims’ recovery. As victims and bereaved families do not routinely attend trial, transcripts are often the only means available to them to establish exactly what happened in the courtroom.

I secured an Adjournment debate on the cost of court transcripts last month. During the debate, I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) affirm the Government’s commitment to the principle that justice must be open and transparent, and I welcomed his comments regarding the work that officials within the Ministry of Justice are doing to improve access to court transcripts. I welcome the Minister’s opening remarks committing to a trial of making sentencing remarks available free of charge. However, it is important to establish that we still need full transcripts to be available, so that victims can have the context within which those sentencing remarks are made. The importance of access to transcripts has been emphasised by the Victims’ Commissioner, the Justice Committee, charities such as Rape Crisis, Refuge, and Support after Murder and Manslaughter, and dozens of hon. Members from six different parties across the House.

There are steps the Government could and should be taking to reduce costs, such as utilising new technologies and assessing the value for money of contracts held with transcription services. I have repeatedly raised the idea to Government of enabling victims to request an audio file of court proceedings. That would be a low-cost solution to improving transparency and ensuring that victims can access a record of court proceedings. I welcome the commitment of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice in that Adjournment debate, and in written correspondence to me, that he will look in greater detail at that issue. Above all, victims and bereaved families need access to full, accurate transcripts of court proceedings at no cost to themselves. Anything less will be an injustice. I urge Ministers in the Ministry of Justice to listen to the concerns of victims, and to look more closely at what further can be done to tackle the injustices faced by victims.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the Minister for what he said about consultation on the victims code. It is important that we get this right, and I trust that he will be attentive to amendments 145 and 146, tabled by me and other hon. Members.

Declan Curran was just 14 years old when he took his life for not being able to access pre-trial therapy. His abuser was eventually sentenced to two years and served just one. Since then his brother, Kev Curran, has taken up the campaign to ensure that all children can access pre-trial therapy, and that is why I stand in this House today.

The challenges around access to pre-trial therapy continue, despite new CPS guidance from 2023 that removed previous restrictions to accessing therapy, as identified by the Home Office-funded Bluestar Project. The wait for court access is extensive. It is often 18 months on average, but it can go beyond three years for a child. Pre-trial therapy services are a specialism that is currently massively overstretched and inconsistent. My amendments would involve training to ensure that services could be expedited judiciously by the CPS, the police, and other people. Currently, there is no trust that information will not be passed on to a trial, so therapists are concerned that the notes they make, and the therapy they provide, could cause a case to collapse. We need absolute clarity within training to ensure that more than just a video is provided, that in-person training is robust so that there can be a reasonable line of inquiry, and that all those involved are properly trained with regard to limitations on the information that is provided to court on content and delivery.

Secondly, there is not enough availability of pre-trial therapy and support. Amendment 146 would ensure that child survivors access therapeutic services. I ask that that is within a month of requesting these services, that they are made aware of the support they are entitled to, that there are minimum standards on the quality of support and that this support should continue throughout the criminal justice process, but also after that process has been completed. I again urge the Minister to look carefully at the amendments I have tabled to ensure that all child survivors can access justice and the vital therapeutic interventions to help them through the criminal justice process and beyond.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I am delighted to hear that from the hon. Gentleman. We have to follow the evidence, which shows that short sentences of immediate custody lead to a higher reoffending rate than those where the sentence is suspended, albeit on tight conditions, which might include curfew, an unpaid work order and potentially a rehabilitation requirement. Why? Because if the offender fails to comply, the probation service can find them in breach and bring them back before the court, where they will then likely hear the clang of the prison gate. We will follow the evidence. We make no apology for using our custodial estate to lock up the most dangerous offenders for longer and take them out of circulation. But protecting the public also means ensuring that those who would otherwise reoffend get off the conveyor belt of crime.

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

11. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the conditions in the prison estate for the rehabilitation of offenders.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

By the end of the spending review period, we will have invested nearly £4 billion to deliver an additional 20,000 modern prison places and ensure that the right conditions are in place to rehabilitate prisoners, cut crime and protect the public. The key to effective rehabilitation is the provision of education and skills training, to increase a prisoner’s employability and ensure that they can access employment upon release, alongside providing support for substance misuse, treatment and so on. We are also investing to improve rehabilitative spaces in prison, having delivered our employment hubs, where prisoners can access job vacancies. We will renovate prison workshops through our HMP academies programme.

[Rachael Maskell]

No glass, just bars at the window; mice and rats; faeces in the gravy; and sewage overflows regularly in his cell. This is not the start of a Victorian novel, but the disgrace experienced by my young constituent, who was locked in his shared cell for 23 and a half hours a day, having never received the vital specialist mental health support that he needed. When can we expect such draconian conditions at HMP Hull to end? What appropriate steps will the Minister take to ensure that people in prison experience rehabilitation, not the conditions that my constituent faced?

Prison Capacity

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my hon. Friend for his typically thoughtful and considered response. He is absolutely right that we have to make choices about what we do in respect of the custodial estate. We choose to ensure that the most dangerous people are locked away for longer, which is right, so that the punishment fits the crime and so that we protect the British people. This is not simply a political statement but a statement of evidence, and the evidence, not just in England and Wales but in the Netherlands and elsewhere, shows that short sentences are disproportionately associated with recidivism. Of course we should learn the lessons from that.

My hon. Friend rightly raises the issue of IPPs, which are a stain on the justice system. That point is made even by the person who came up with the idea. We will take steps, and I thank the Justice Committee for taking on this difficult issue and for coming up with some very sensible proposals. I will be announcing more, but the central point about licence length is critical. It seems to me that this 10-year licence length means that it is very hard for people on IPP to think they will ever be free.

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

I have a constituent who has been in prison for 18 years under IPP. He is due to be up for parole towards the end of the year. The Secretary of State says he will be bringing forward a review. How long will that take, and how will it impact on people awaiting the Parole Board?

[Alex Chalk]

First, I make it very clear to the hon. Lady and her constituent that we will not take steps that put the British people at risk. The Parole Board will have to make an assessment, in the normal way, on whether a person is safe to be released. If they are considered safe for release, the question is then about the duration of the licence period that remains. IPP effectively continues to hang over them. I am looking at that particular area at the moment, but I want to be clear that it is a sensitive area. We are trying to unwind a very ill-starred policy, but we have to do so in a way that ultimately keeps the British people safe.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

Let me make a little progress.

As I indicated, the Bill will make sure that everyone knows what they are entitled to and it sends a clear signal to the system about the service that victims should be receiving. Secondly, as I suggested, the Bill will ensure stronger oversight by placing a new duty on police and crime commissioners and criminal justice bodies to monitor compliance with the code, to provide the public and this Parliament with a clear picture of how victims across the country are being treated. Ministers will have the power to direct the inspection of justice agencies that are failing victims to help drive improvements using best practice from those agencies that are succeeding.

Thirdly, the Bill will place a duty on specific authorities to respond publicly to the recommendations of the Victims’ Commissioner and introduce a requirement for an annual report to be laid before Parliament. That will shine a spotlight on how the system is working and ensure that we have the transparency needed to drive change.

Fourthly, the Bill will provide better support for victims. It will help to ensure that critical support services are targeted where they are most needed by introducing a new joint statutory duty on police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities to co-operate and work together when commissioning support services for victims of domestic and sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes.

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

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. The family of Declan Curran, who tragically took his life, pre-trial, aged just 13, wanted me to stress in this debate the importance of child victims of sexual abuse and their inclusion in clause 2, the victims code, and how they should be able to access comprehensive psychological services without any delay. This must not be seen as interference in the evidence of the trial, with victims’ evidence being recorded at the time of the crime. Will that be fully included in the Bill without delay?

[Alex Chalk]

It is incredibly important that child victims receive the support that they need, and that should not be a bar to their giving a video-recorded piece of evidence, for example, so that they can participate in that trial as well. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the particulars. The general principle is this: if child victims, who are victims within the ambit of the Bill, need that support, they should get it.

Rape: Criminal Prosecutions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I reiterate that this is a priority for this Government, from the Prime Minister downwards. It is also a priority for colleagues on the Back Benches from across the House, who have raised it. I am very grateful to Conservative colleagues who have raised issues such as cyber-flashing and the use of intimate imagery on the internet, which we will no doubt be discussing as the Online Safety Bill makes its way through this place. There is huge support on the Back Benches for ensuring that victims of domestic abuse get the justice and support they need, and I am extremely grateful to every Member of this House who can join us in our efforts to improve justice for victims of these horrendous crimes.

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

I have had too many cases where survivors of rape have not reached the evidence thresholds demanded by the CPS and, as a result, their cases have collapsed or not even been able to be taken forward. That clearly has an impact on confidence in the system, particularly on the issue of consent and with one word being played off against another even if there is forensic evidence,. What measures is the Minister taking to improve a victim’s opportunity to take their case forward in that context?

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Lady hits on a sensitive point, in that the “Code for Crown Prosecutors” sets out the tests that prosecutors must apply, not simply in cases of sexual violence but across all criminal cases, and the threshold of 51% or thereabouts for the evidential stage. This means that, as we know from speaking to victims, there are occasions when the CPS does not believe that test has been met, which is why the roll-out of Operation Soteria, both across police forces and across CPS regions, is so important. In this effort for non-defensive transparency, the CPS is looking at its own actions and ensuring that the right standards are being met, for example in the application of the test and in disclosure. All of this is being lined up to ensure that the law is applied properly and appropriately. We have also reformed disclosure guidelines recently, in order to help the police and the CPS make important decisions about whether material needs to be gathered at all and, if it does, whether it meets the very specific circumstances in which it falls to be disclosed.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

Of course we are not closing down protest. The right hon. Gentleman is right that people have a fundamental right to dissent, to protest and to make their views known in the public sphere as they do in the private sphere, but, as the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights have said, the right to protest is not unqualified, and I am afraid that, in the last couple of years, we have seen protestors using tactics that are massively disruptive to other people’s lives. People just wanting to go about their business have been so frustrated that they have been leaping out of their cars and taking things into their own hands. We have seen protestors running on to the fast lane of motorways, causing danger to themselves and motorists, and distracting police officers from stopping people from being stabbed or burgled in all our neighbourhoods. We have a duty to address that, and the role of the House and that of the police is to strike a balance between competing rights. That is what we do, and that is what we are trying to do with these modest measures.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

No. I have given way lots of times. There will be many speakers, and I do not want to use up all the time. We have only got until midnight to get through all of this stuff. I will move on from the noise powers, which, as I say, we think will be used only in exceptional circumstances but must be available given changes in amplification.

Lords amendment 80 would prevent the alignment of the police’s ability to place conditions on public assembly with their existing powers to place conditions on public processions. HMICFRS found that a distinction between processions and assemblies was no longer appropriate. In the light of the practical challenges of safely policing protests, there is an unjustifiable inconsistency in the current law. When does a procession become an assembly and vice versa?

Lords amendments 74 to 79 implement a recommendation to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the effect that the term “serious disruption” should be defined in the Bill rather than in regulations. I trust that the amendments have allayed the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is not in her place, in our previous debates on the matter.

I am afraid that Lords amendments 81 and 82 arise from a misunderstanding of the effect of the provisions in clause 58, which are designed, in the words of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to protect the rights of access to the parliamentary estate for those with business there. The changes to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, which governs prohibited activities in the vicinity of Parliament, will not prevent protests outside Parliament, nor will they prevent the Greater London Authority from authorising assemblies outside Parliament. Clause 58 will simply enable a police officer to direct an individual to cease or not to begin obstructing the passage of a vehicle into or out of the parliamentary estate. That is extremely important for those who are disabled or otherwise need a vehicle to access the estate, either to work here or to exercise their democratic rights. We expect police officers to use their sound judgements to determine when it is appropriate to make use of the power, and I do not see how it can lead to a prohibition of any kind on protests outside Parliament. Lords amendments 81 and 82 are therefore unnecessary.

Lords amendment 88 is a stripped-out version of the Government’s proposal to increase the maximum penalty for those who obstruct the highway. It would limit the increase in the maximum penalties to the obstruction of the strategic road network. Many major roads lie outside the SRN; indeed, some 98% of all roads in England do not form part of it. Were we to limit the increase in the maximum penalty in that way, protestors could continue to cause extensive and wholly disproportionate disruption to commuters and parents dropping their children off at school without facing sentences proportionate to the harm they have caused. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 88 will ensure that the full extent of our road network is protected with the increase in maximum penalties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who put it so well.

[Rachael Maskell]

Protests occur so that people can be heard, and if people need to be heard, they need to make a noise. I was particularly struck over the weekend not only by the masses who have stood up against an authoritarian state, but by the actions that the police have had to take against those people. If we are to criminalise people for exercising their rights, is that not just going down the same path?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right: this is about getting the right balance. We believe that the measures in part 3 of the Bill already threaten that careful balance by putting too much power into the hands of the Home Secretary, undermining rights, and hindering, rather than helping, the police to do their job. Labour’s Lords amendment 73 therefore focuses on the imposition of conditions related to noise on public processions. It would omit subsections (2) and (3) from clause 55, which broadens the circumstances in which conditions can be imposed by a senior police officer based on the noise generated by the people taking part and the impact that that has on the people in the area. Essentially, part 3 provides a trigger for imposing conditions on public assemblies, public processions and one-person protests if a protest is too noisy. The Opposition want those provisions removed from the Bill.

We also support Lords amendment 80, which was tabled by Lord Paddick and removes clause 56 from the Bill altogether, and we urge hon. Members to vote for Lords amendment 81 to ensure that permission can be granted for major protests in Parliament Square despite new rules on obstructing vehicle access.