Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Child sex offenders destroy the lives of their victims, so why did the Justice Secretary, as Foreign Secretary, appoint the “best pal” and known business partner of one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles as our ambassador to Washington? What message does the Minister think this sends to the victims of rape and child sex abuse here in the UK?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Child sexual abuse is one of the most abhorrent crimes in our society. That is why it is this Government who are enacting the recommendations of the grooming gangs inquiry. That is why we have kicked off the review into ensuring that victims get the justice they so deserve. It is why we are today introducing a Hillsborough law—a groundbreaking law to ensure that victims and survivors never again have to wait decades for truth and justice.

[Robert Jenrick]

The Minister could not answer, because it is simply indefensible and she knows it. Everyone in this House knows it. Everyone knows it. On Sunday, the family of one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre, said that Mandelson should never have been appointed. I agree; almost every person in this country agrees. Did the Justice Secretary not read the papers that detailed Mandelson’s extensive connections to Epstein after he had been convicted? Or did he read them and flippantly disregard the crimes and pain he caused so many? Will the Minister take this opportunity, in her role, to apologise on behalf of the Justice Secretary to Epstein’s victims?

[Mr Speaker]

I understand the point being raised, and it is a very important one, but we are a long distance from the original question—

[Robert Jenrick]

It is about justice for victims.

[Mr Speaker]

I am well aware of that and certainly do not need to be told. We have a three-hour debate coming up on that subject, so hopefully the Minister can respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place. The only one in, one out deal that is working in the Government is the one for Deputy Prime Ministers.

Just last month, the country was crying out that the Justice Secretary must face justice after his scandalous failure to register a licence for fish. Well, he thought he was off the hook, but finally it is justice for Lammy. I know that he has a previous and rather traumatic experience with one John Humphrys on “Mastermind”, so I hope that he is sitting comfortably. How many foreign nationals are clogging up our prisons, and does he stand by the letter he signed that opposed the removal of 50 foreign criminals, one of whom went on to murder?

[Mr Lammy]

I will look forward to this. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is so good that my predecessor was promoted, and that he is auditioning for another job. Let me be clear: returns under this Government have gone up 14%. I took a keen interest as Foreign Secretary. They will be going up further.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will give it to the Justice Secretary; that was a better reply than the one he gave when he was asked which monarch succeeded Henry VIII and he said Henry VII, but it was not the answer that I was asking for. In fact, there are 10,772 foreign nationals in our prisons, and that figure has gone up under Labour. The obstacle to so many of their removals is the European convention on human rights, which has morphed into a charter for criminals. The previous Justice Secretary pretended that we could reform the ECHR, but the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, has stated that that position is a “political trick”. Is it a trick that this Justice Secretary intends to play on the British public?

[Mr Lammy]

I know the right hon. Gentleman was a corporate lawyer, but he really needs to get into the detail. We are reforming through the Sentencing Bill so that we can get people out of the country by deporting them on sentencing. He needs to get into the weeds and look at the Bill—he can do better.

Sentencing Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Sentencing Bill, despite supporting measures to better identify domestic abusers on sentencing, because the Bill will lead to an increase in the number of dangerous criminals on the streets, putting the public, particularly women and girls, at risk, and this is compounded by HM Inspectorate of Probation’s finding that HM Prison and Probation Service ‘requires improvement’ meaning it is not equipped to deal with the further pressures imposed by this Bill; because the Bill will undermine public confidence, particularly victims’ confidence, in the criminal justice system by enabling serious violent and sexual offenders to be released from prison early, and repealing measures to ensure law-enforcement and victims’ perspectives are secured in parole decisions; and will cause further loss of public trust in the criminal justice system because it will not end the scandal of identity-based sentencing.”

I welcome the Justice Secretary once again to his position, and congratulate him again on his demotion to Deputy Prime Minister. When he rose to introduce the Bill, I half-expected him to rise waving a flag instead of a Bill. It would not be a Union flag or a St George’s flag, of course, although if he were inclined, I would be happy to come to his constituency and help him put those up. It would be a white flag, because this Bill is nothing less than a complete and total surrender—a surrender of our streets and our safety to the criminals presently terrorising them. The Justice Secretary is already a man known for surrendering the Chagos islands, but if this Bill passes, he will be remembered as the man who surrendered our streets to criminals here at home, too. Make no mistake: this plan will unleash a crime wave across the country, paving the way for fresh injustices on our streets. The Secretary of State is fond of quoting figures and principles, so let me quote some back for context. Up to 43,000 criminals will avoid jail every year as a result of this plan. The numbers are eye-watering. That is more than half of all offenders who currently go to jail. It is the biggest reduction in sentences in British history.

The backbone of this Bill is a brand-new presumption against short sentences. In practice, it means that Labour is abolishing prison terms under 12 months. It is all but impossible for an individual to be sentenced for 12 months or less. Who are these individuals? Let us be honest with ourselves about who we are talking about here. Burglars, shoplifters, thieves and even thugs convicted of nasty assaults will henceforth be spared jail and handed a community order instead. If we apply this Bill to those imprisoned last year, it would mean: up to 3,000 thugs jailed for assaulting an emergency worker avoiding jail; 1,200 violent offenders convicted of grievous bodily harm avoiding jail; 11,000 shoplifters terrorising communities in each and every constituency avoiding jail; 2,700 burglars who rob families of their peace of mind avoiding jail; and 600 muggers who strike fear into people going about their daily business on the streets of this country avoiding jail. Those figures are eye-watering. This is a “get out of jail free” card on an unprecedented scale.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

In the spirit of honesty, does the shadow Minister recognise that it was the previous Government who left our prisons at 99% capacity for most of the recent years? They let out 10,000 prisoners, largely in secret, and brought our criminal justice system to the brink of collapse. Does he take responsibility for all of that?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady perhaps does not remember the last years of the last Labour Government. They let out 80,000 criminals on to our streets. That is how they emptied the prisons—not by building more, but by opening the doors. We did not do that.

There is a better way. Another way is possible. A third of all those in our prisons are either foreign national offenders or individuals on remand. The first answer to this challenge is to get the foreign national offenders out of our prisons and out of our country. The number of foreign prisoners in our prisons has gone up under Labour. The second answer is to fix the remand problem by getting the courts sitting around the clock to get the court backlog down. What has happened to the court backlog? It has gone up. If the hon. Lady is looking for someone to blame, she should look no further than those on her Front Bench.

Behind the many thousands of criminals who will walk free because of this Bill are thousands of victims, and each has a harrowing story. Daniel Tweed launched a vicious attack on his partner in their home in Northampton. He punched her multiple times. He dragged her by her hair. He kicked her and stamped on her. She was subsequently taken to hospital. He was sentenced to 12 months. [Interruption.] Someone said that is not enough, and I agree. Most people in this country would say that is not enough. That disgusting man should be in jail for far longer, but under the Bill, violent domestic abusers like Daniel will walk free. I say to Members, “Be under no illusions about what you are voting for this evening: Daniel Tweed and men like him will walk free.” There is no specific domestic abuse carve-out from the presumption against short sentences. That is what we are voting on tonight.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The truth that dare not speak its name, at least on the other side of the Chamber, is that the public know what many on this side know too: that many more people should be imprisoned for much, much longer. Successive Governments have failed to grasp that nettle, because they have given in to what the Justice Secretary, who, by the way, is a personal friend of mine—[Interruption.] He is desperate to avoid that description. They have given in to what the Justice Secretary amplified today, namely the foolish idea that crime is an illness to be treated rather than a malevolent choice to be punished. We need a retributive justice system that recognises what the public recognise: that people like the thug whom my right hon. Friend described need to be punished, and punished severely.

[Robert Jenrick]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. The truth is this: most people in this country are already raging at the fact that prisoners get let out of prison early. They were sick of that happening under the last Government, and what are this Government doing in response? They are letting out more, and they are asking them to serve even shorter sentences. That is not justice. That is not what the people of this country want.

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

I was struck by the example that my right hon. Friend gave of someone who committed a vicious assault getting only 12 months, and now getting no months and no prison time at all. Of course, it could work the other way round: it could be that when a judge is forced to confront the fact that if he gives a sentence of only 12 months for a vicious attack the prisoner will walk free, he will feel that he must make the sentence somewhat longer—in which case the Government’s plan to free up a prison space will not even work, will it?

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend may well be right. A number of the policies introduced by this Government have had the most extraordinary unintended consequences. The Secretary of State said earlier that a number of people have been recalled. That is because of the failure of the Government’s policy; it is because they let people out on early release when they should not have been let out. Who knows what the unintended consequences of these policies are? But let me ask one thing of every Member of this House: think what you would say to the victim of Daniel Tweed. Should that man be walking the streets of this country, or should he be in jail? I know what I would say. I know what we believe on this side of the House.

Ministers defend this policy by saying that short sentences are counterproductive, noting that 62% of offenders who served under 12 months reoffended within a year, but here’s a thing: 100% of criminals left on the streets have the opportunity to reoffend immediately. It is cold comfort to the victim of burglary that a man who ransacked her home gets a stern talking to, unpaid work or, worse, “prison outside prison”—that ludicrous and empty slogan put out by the Justice Secretary’s predecessor—rather than even a few months behind bars. Short sentences exist for a reason. Sometimes a short sharp shock is exactly what is needed to change behaviour, and sometimes a short sentence is the only thing standing between a dangerous individual and his or her next victim. The approach in this Bill is totally naive.

The Government celebrate their new earned-release progression model as the centrepiece of the Bill—a Texas-inspired scheme, we are told. Well, this could not be further from Texas if the Justice Secretary tried. Texas’s incarceration rate is triple that of England. Who exactly will benefit from the right hon. Gentleman’s new scheme? Burglars, rapists, paedophiles, and those convicted of domestic abuse-related offences such as battery, stalking, and coercive and controlling behaviour. Disgracefully, all such prisoners who supposedly behave themselves will be released after serving just a third of their sentence—yes, one third. They have to behave themselves, not be rehabilitated, as the Secretary of State suggested. They do not have to come out with some skill, course or restorative justice; they must just not be a thug while they are in jail. Is that all we are asking for now?

Only the so-called most dangerous offenders are excluded. Forgive me if I am not reassured. If a violent domestic abuser, who was given, say, nine years, can stroll out of prison in three years because he attended a few workshops and kept his nose clean on the inside, how exactly does that protect the public, how does that protect the victim and how is that justice? The Conservative Government had moved to toughen sentences for serious crimes, requiring many violent and sexual offenders to serve two thirds of their term before release precisely to stop such tragedies. Now the Justice Secretary seeks to reverse that vital progress and water it down again to half. Hard-working, law-abiding citizens are being told that their safety hinges on a criminal’s good behaviour after conviction, rather than the severity of the crime itself. Public safety should depend on what criminals did to their victims and whether they remain a threat to the public, not on whether they earn gold stars on a prison conduct chart.

To sugar-coat the largest reduction in sentences in the history of our country, the Government promise intensive supervision of offenders in the community. Even that assumes that our Probation Service, which the Secretary of State was right to say is stretched to breaking point, has the capacity to monitor the beeping lights on all these new tracking devices. At Justice questions, he himself said that the contract was not working, yet we are now going to place even more reliance on tags—tags for goodness’ sake—but is that justice? Who exactly will watch the offenders? We are told that probation officers are already swamped and that, struggling with huge caseloads and staff shortages, they are at 104% capacity. Now, every petty thief, burglar and drug dealer who would have spent a few months in prison will instead be out in the community with a mere tag between them and their potential victim. Is the Justice Secretary seriously suggesting that this will stop a violent offender abusing their partner? If he is, he should explain that to the House.

What of the expanded menu of community restrictions of which Ministers are so proud? The Bill gives courts the powers to ban offenders from certain activities and places—bars, pubs, sporting events—and the press release issued to the media gleefully talked about criminals being barred from football matches and pubs as a way to curtail their freedom. However, do any Labour MPs here truly believe that these bans will strike fear into the hearts of hardened offenders? Don’t be ridiculous! A career burglar or repeat shoplifter will not quiver at the thought of being forbidden from entering the Dog & Duck—ridiculous!

I turn to some of the less trumpeted parts of the Bill—the changes to parole and the oversight of the Sentencing Council. These are technical on the surface, but they reveal much about the Government’s priorities. First, on parole, in a little-noticed clause—clause 38—the Bill repeals the power that would have allowed the Secretary of State to require certain parole board cases to have particular members, such as ex-police officers, on the panel. That power was designed by the last Government to ensure that, for the most serious and high-stakes release decisions, there was a law enforcement perspective in the room, with someone who has seen the worst of what offenders can do. Now the Justice Secretary has just scrapped it entirely before it even came into force. So when a convicted murderer or rapist comes up for parole, they will no longer be guaranteed that there is a voice of law enforcement or a victims’ champion at the hearing. Removing that safeguard tilts the balance further in favour of the prisoner’s release.

Secondly, on the Sentencing Council, the Labour Government’s Sentencing Bill lifts its central idea from a Bill we previously put before the House, which they voted down but now support, having wasted Parliament’s time with an interim Act. Yet after all that, they water it down. They propose to force the Sentencing Council, which drafts judges’ guidelines, to get approval from the Lord Chancellor and the Lord or Lady Chief Justice for new guidelines and to submit an annual plan for ministerial sign-off. That is political oversight in principle—something Labour voted against when we proposed a stronger version—but in practice it is too little, too late. Only after I raised this issue on the Floor of the House did Ministers scramble to block those outrageous guidelines at the eleventh hour. Even the former Justice Secretary had to admit that such “differential treatment is unacceptable”. But remember, if Labour had listened to us sooner, this entire debacle would have been avoided.

The Sentencing Council is a creature of the last Labour Government—a quango deliberately insulated from democratic accountability. We warned that an unchecked council would go rogue and it did. Sure enough, it tried to rewrite sentencing by stealth and almost succeeded. Labour’s belated tweak, requiring ministerial sign-off on guidelines, adopts our position that the council needs democratic oversight, but it barely scratches the surface. The truth is that the council is a totally flawed structure. When Labour set it up in 2009, they made it answerable to nobody. As a result, an unelected body nearly smuggled in identity-based sentencing.

If the Justice Secretary really opposes identity-based sentencing, let us look at what is in the pipeline. Will he use this power on the forthcoming immigration guidelines, signed off by the previous Labour Lord Chancellor, which will deny Parliament’s clear will that immigration offenders should be locked up and subject to automatic deportation? Will he scrap those guidelines? They are in his in-tray. He is taking the power to do so. It is on him.

Despite this being a new role for the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say that the Justice Secretary cannot feign ignorance on this approach. It was his 2017 review that fixated on statistical disparities in the justice system. His answer was not to enforce the law impartially; it was to impose outcomes by quota. His review’s guiding principle was “explain or reform”, effectively demanding that if an institution cannot explain a disparity in minority outcomes, it must change its practices until the numbers look equal. In theory, that sounds like holding the system to account. In reality, it invites social engineering and double standards.

The right hon. Gentleman openly champions equity over equality. In plainer terms, that means believing in bias by design—a justice system that explicitly favours some groups in order to tweak the statistics. We just saw the consequences of that thinking. The Sentencing Council’s two-tier guidelines were a textbook application of the Justice Secretary’s long-held belief: a two-tier system where justice is not blind, as it must be, but rather squints at your skin colour, your gender, your faith or your age before deciding how to punish you. On the Conservative Benches, we will always believe in the universal principle of equality before the law, not equity. That is the difference.

Turning to the matter of foreign criminals, for all the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, as of 30 June this year there were 10,772 foreign nationals in our prisons—12% of the total. That is up on last year.

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

I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s one-man show on why he should be leader of the Conservative party. He will get no argument from me on the fact that we need to reduce the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons—I agree that that is what we do need to do, as does my party. However, between 2019 and 2024 under his Government, the numbers increased by 12%. He knows that it is a difficult thing to achieve; he knows there is no simple answer, because if there was, his party would have done it when it was in government. Rather than offering simple magic-wand solutions, what is he actually suggesting that we do to deliver a reduction? If he knows the answer, why did he not do it when he was in government?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman is on rocky ground, because the Justice Secretary literally put his name to a letter stopping the then Government deporting foreign criminals from our country back to their own countries. [Interruption.] He did, I am afraid, as I think did the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. You literally could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker.

What is the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)? It is simple: change our human rights laws and address the European convention on human rights so that it is possible to remove each and every foreign national offender in a timely fashion, and then use every lever of the British state—whether it is revoking visas or suspending foreign aid—to achieve that.

Let me give the House an example of just how ludicrous the present situation is. When the Justice Secretary was Foreign Secretary, it was reported that he got into a debate with Pakistan over whether it would take back three grooming gang perpetrators—rapists—to their home country. Pakistan held out, saying that in return for taking back its own citizens—despicable rape gang perpetrators—we needed to agree to resume flights from a disreputable airline that has had safety challenges in the past. How weak is this country? How weak is this country that we will not stand up to that? We are giving more than £100 million a year in foreign aid to Pakistan. We should be using every lever of the British state to get these people out of our country and our prisons so that we do not have to carry out the early release of dangerous people, which is what this Bill will do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robert Jenrick]

I must make progress—I need to bring my remarks to a close.

In plain English, there are more FNOs overall, and more FNO sex offenders in particular, while those on Labour’s Front Bench have spent years campaigning against their removal. That will change only if the Justice Secretary confronts the broken ECHR, which is the biggest legal obstacle to their removal—everything else is tinkering. For the good of the country, I urge the Justice Secretary to support anyone within the Government who seeks change to the ECHR, because he will never resolve this challenge without that change.

The Sentencing Bill is soft on crime, soft on criminals and brutal on the hard-working, law-abiding people of this country. It offers oven-ready excuses to offenders to get out of jail early and cold comfort to victims. The Justice Secretary has a choice: he can plough ahead with this farce and watch as our streets are swept by the coming crime wave, or he can heed our warning—shared by victims groups and rooted in common sense—and think again. The British people deserve safer streets. Instead, under this Bill, they are going to get a jailbreak. A crime wave is coming.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on her plans to restrict trial by jury through the creation of a Crown court bench division and related sentencing changes.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with record and rising backlogs in our criminal courts, leaving victims in limbo as they wait to see justice done. For that reason, the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a once-in-a-generation review of the criminal courts. We are grateful to Sir Brian for all his work. His report confirms that the system we inherited is broken, and that if we do nothing, it will collapse. We welcome the ambitious recommendations that he has put forward, and agree that a crisis of this scale requires bold action. We must consider any measures that will put our courts on a more stable and sustainable footing. Victims and the public deserve swift justice and a court system that they can have confidence in.

We will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations on jury trials, along with everything else, before providing a formal response to Parliament in the autumn. Jury trials are and will remain a cornerstone of British justice, and will remain in place for the most serious cases. However, justice delayed is justice denied. The system was not designed for a scenario where tens of thousands of victims wait years for justice. The Lord Chancellor and this Government are committed to turning the tide on the Crown court backlog by the end of this Parliament and creating a sustainable justice system fit for the 21st century.

[Robert Jenrick]

All of us agree that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is so important to get control of the court backlog. No one pretends that this is straightforward, but the Government have made the crisis worse. The backlog is at a record high, and accelerating, with 750 cases being added every month. Sir Brian Leveson’s review rightly acknowledges that we must increase the number of court sitting days. We thank him for his work and welcome many of his recommendations.

However, it cannot be right to give another sentencing discount to those convicted of crimes such as burglary and stalking. That could see criminals serve as little as a fifth of their sentence, when combined with the Gauke review—20% of a sentence served. Is that justice for victims? Out of court settlements for drug dealers and thieves mean that they will not even get a criminal record. It makes a mockery of the justice system.

Just as concerning is the proposal to scrap jury trials in many cases. The report admits that this will have only a “limited effect” on the backlog. It will save just £31 million—0.2% of the Department’s budget. As the report states, there is no limit to the cases for which jury trials could be scrapped. This is a slippery slope towards abolishing jury trials altogether.

Jury trials have been a central part of our constitution for centuries—in Magna Carta, and indeed before it. They are a gift that we have given to the world. To throw them away so casually shows a total disregard for our constitution, and for such limited benefit. It seems that too many on the Government Benches want to scrap jury trials regardless of the backlog, because they do not trust the British public’s instincts on justice. They say that judges know best; we say that the public know best. It does not have to be this way. The Government must take up the Lady Chief Justice’s offer of more sitting days. Will the Minister rule out yet another sentencing cut for criminals? Will she rule out letting drug dealers and thieves avoid even a criminal record? Does she accept that scrapping jury trials is a disgraceful and unnecessary rejection of one of our country’s proudest and most ancient liberties?

[Sarah Sackman]

What I did not hear in any of that was an apology. It is extraordinary to hear that the shadow Justice Secretary has suddenly discovered a sense of urgency, but where was that sense of urgency in the past 14 years? The so-called party of law of order allowed two things to happen. First, it took our prison system to the brink of collapse. That let down the public, and it let down victims—soft on crime, and soft on law and order. Secondly, it allowed the backlogs in our Crown courts to run out of control to record highs.

For 14 years the Conservatives did absolutely nothing, so let me explain the contrast with a party and a Government who are gripping the crisis and who are tough on law and order. We commissioned one of their own—Sir David Gauke—to give us his sentencing review. We commissioned one of our most revered judges, Sir Brian Leveson, who today has set out his recommendations. We will not provide our policy response today, because that demands and requires seriousness—not what we hear from the shadow Justice Secretary, but serious, careful analysis—and we will provide our formal response to the House in the autumn.

But we are not delaying. We are not waiting; we are investing in the system. To take up the challenge from the right hon. Gentleman about what the Lady Chief Justice said, we have already done what the previous Government failed to do, with an additional 4,000 Crown court sitting days and a record level of 110,000 sitting days a year—up from what the so-called party of law and order gave us. We also understand that we need proper system capacity. As we heard from the Lord Chancellor yesterday, this is not simply about adding more Crown court sitting days; as Sir Brian Leveson tells us—had the right hon. Gentleman bothered to read the report—we cannot simply sit our way out of this crisis.

We have to build system capacity—more judges, more prosecutors, more defence lawyers, and more court ushers. Of course we need to invest in the system, which is what the Government are doing with a promise of £450 million into our courts, additional to what the Conservative party provided. We are staying laser-focused on our mission, which is to provide swifter justice for victims, and restore public confidence in a justice system that was left to rack and ruin by the Conservative party.

The right hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun: we have been very clear that we are going to consider Sir Brian’s careful and detailed report, and we are going to listen to those who represent victims, and to the barristers and judges who do such an exceptional job. We will do what it takes for the victim who, if she reports a rape or serious crime, is told that she will have to wait until 2028, or 2029 in some cases, for her day in court. That is unacceptable, and that is why we will do whatever it takes, with the seriousness that the previous Government simply failed to have.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

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

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Sohail Zaffer raped a child. He received 42 months. Manzoor Akhtar raped a child. He was sentenced to four and a half years. Ramin Bari was convicted of four rapes. He got just nine years—just two years per rape. These men were sentenced, but not punished. Does the Justice Secretary think these sentences represent justice? If she does not, like most people in this country, will she change the law so that rape gang perpetrators receive full life sentences?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

In the year since Labour took office, can the Justice Secretary tell us how many individuals have been prosecuted for smuggling people in on small boats?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do not have those figures directly to hand, but I am sure that if they are available, I can write to him with the details.

[Robert Jenrick]

I asked the Justice Secretary a very simple question about one of the biggest challenges facing our country right now, and the whole House can see that she did not have a clue. This is about not just the pathetically low levels of prosecutions under her watch, but the fact that she has waved through guidelines to shorten sentences for immigration offences. Under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the most serious offence for facilitation carries a life sentence, but she is watering that down to between 10 and 16 years. Instead of smashing the gangs, she is slashing the sentences. Why will she not do something for once and stop this?

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Can I first say how sorry I was to hear that the Minister was the subject of intimidation and an attack on her office? I think all of us across the House would like to wish her and her staff well, and to say how pleased we are that the vile individuals behind this have been caught and punished.

In September, the Justice Secretary designed an early release scheme for prisoners. She let out Lawson Natty, who supplied the machete used to kill a 14-year-old, and Adam Andrews, who shook a baby so violently that he was left blind and paralysed. She is now halving prison sentences for killers and rapists, while Lucy Connolly remains behind bars for a reprehensible but swiftly deleted tweet. Does the Justice Secretary really believe that her choices are making the public safer?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

This Government are making choices to keep this country safer, and are cleaning up the mess left after the previous Government led our criminal justice system to rack and ruin. They left this Government to make the difficult decisions, when we came into office, that were necessary to prevent the total collapse of our criminal justice system. It is worth reminding the House again, because the Conservatives seem to have very short memories, that they only built an additional 500 prison places. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and getting on with the difficult job of building the prison places necessary to keep violent offenders in prison, while putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

For the first time, the Sentencing Council has published immigration sentencing guidelines. They water down sentences passed by Parliament, which means that hundreds of illegal migrants every year will avoid the threshold for automatic deportation. Once again, the Justice Secretary’s officials were in the meeting and waved the guidelines through, and I have the minutes to prove it. Has the Justice Secretary lost control of her Department once again, or is it the case that, as the Defence Secretary said on Sunday, this Government have simply “lost control” of our borders?

[Shabana Mahmood]

No; what this Government are doing is cleaning up the almighty mess left to us by the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. He knows full well that I have already signalled an intention to review the powers of the Sentencing Council. We have an upcoming sentencing Bill, and I will take the action that he and his Government never did in 14 long years. [Interruption.] He has suddenly found his voice—he did not have it for a decade or more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Brave prison officers are under attack, and I am warning again that, if the Government do not act now, an officer will be killed on the Justice Secretary’s watch. After the Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, allegedly attacked an office with boiling water, he is now bingeing on treats such as Maltesers and Pringles. When will the Justice Secretary strip Rudakubana and monsters like him of those privileges and put them in solitary confinement? When will she finally have the backs of all our brave prison officers, by giving each and every one the protection that they need in the form of high-collar, stab-proof vests, and not just a privileged few in the most limited circumstances?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me give the shadow Secretary of State a much-needed education, because he appears not to know that under the Tory Government violence on staff in our prisons soared and experienced officers left in droves because of it. That is the inheritance I received, and that is the mess that this Government are clearing up. He will know that I have already acted on suspending the use of self-cook facilities, and Jonathan Hall is looking into the HMP Frankland attack. I have made the announcement on body armour, and I will not hesitate to take any further action, but unlike him I will not take “headline-grabbing” measures, just for the sake of a headline.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say to both Front Benchers that Back Benchers also have to get in? Topical questions have to be short and punchy. Please, let us stick to the script. If the right hon. Member wants to ask longer questions, he should come in earlier—I could have picked the questions where he could have been brought in.

[Robert Jenrick]

Last month, nine countries wrote to the Council of Europe calling for urgent reform of the European convention on human rights to tackle the migration crisis. The UK was conspicuously absent, and instead the Attorney General has likened critics of the ECHR to the Nazis. The Justice Secretary is reported in the press to find Lord Hermer “very frustrating”, and “personally unbearable”. Well, Mr Speaker, we might have found an area of cross-party consensus, but why did the Justice Secretary not sign the letter? Are the Government irrelevant, or are she and the Prime Minister defending a broken system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Again, if the shadow Secretary of State ever paid any attention to detail, he would know that that letter was sent by EU member states and we are no longer a member of the European Union. Let me assure him that I am absolutely committed to considering the wider picture of our human rights law and I will not hesitate to take action where I need to.

Independent Sentencing Review

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Today is about one question: should violent and prolific criminals be on the streets or behind bars? I think they should be behind bars. For all the Justice Secretary’s rhetoric, the substance of her statement could not be clearer: she is okay and her party is okay with criminals terrorising our streets and tormenting our country. The truth is this: any Government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thought people had come to listen to the statement and I expect them to listen. I expected the Opposition Front Bench to be quiet; I certainly expect better from the Government Front Bench.

[Robert Jenrick]

Mr Speaker, the truth is this: any Government serious about keeping violent criminals behind bars, any Government willing to do whatever it took, could obviously find and build the prison cells required to negate the need for these disastrous changes. What do the changes amount to? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Swallow, you are getting very excited. You were telling me how good a schoolteacher you were; this is a very bad example of that.

[Robert Jenrick]

What do these changes amount to? They are a “get out of jail free” card for dangerous criminals. Has the Justice Secretary even gone through a court listing recently? Pick one from anywhere in our country: those currently going to jail for 12 months or less are not angels. They are Adam Gregory in Calne, who got 12 months for sexually assaulting his partner; Vinnie Nolan, who got 12 months for breaking someone’s jaw; Shaun Yardley, 10 months for beating his partner; or Paul Morris, who got six and a half months for shoplifting 36 times. Her plan is to let precisely these criminals loose. It is a recipe for a crime wave.

What about the Justice Secretary’s plan for most criminals going to jail to serve just one third of their prison sentence there and for her slashing of sentences across the board—discounts so big they would make Aldi and Lidl blush? I would call it a joke if the consequences for the public were not so terrifying. In fact it gets worse, because criminals who plead guilty—and most do—already get a third cut in their sentence, so under her scheme a burglar who pleads guilty to an 18-month headline term would spend just one fifth of that term in jail—barely 11 weeks. Eleven weeks for smashing through a family’s door and storming through a child’s bedroom looking for valuables, leaving them traumatised for life. Is that the Justice Secretary’s idea of justice for victims? The least she could do is here and now guarantee that violent criminals, domestic abusers, stalkers and sexual assaulters will not be eligible for any discount in their sentence. Will she commit to that?

If not prison, what is the plan to punish these criminals and to keep the public safe? Well, the Justice Secretary says it is digital prisons—as she puts it, prison outside of prison, words that lead most people in this country to conclude that the Justice Secretary is out of her mind. I am all for technology but tags are not iron bars—they cannot stop your child being stabbed on their walk home from school, or a shop being ransacked time and again, or a domestic abuser returning to their victim’s front door.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that “out of her mind” is language that should be used. I am sure the shadow Secretary of State would like to reflect on that.

[Robert Jenrick]

Of course, Mr Speaker.

The Ministry of Justice’s own pilot scheme found that 71% of tagged offenders breached their curfew. When it comes to stopping reoffending, tags are about as useful as smoke alarms are at putting out bonfires. What is the Justice Secretary going to say when she meets the victims of offenders that she let off? How is she going to look them in the eye and say with a straight face, “I’m sorry—we are looking into how this criminal escaped from their digital prison cell.” Her reforms are a recipe for carnage.

I urge the Justice Secretary to change course and to make different choices—yes, choices—from the ones that we knew the Government would make from the day that the Prime Minister hand-picked Lord Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, a man who is on record as saying that

“a lot of people in prison…shouldn’t be there”—

two thirds of them in fact, he said—

“and they are there for far too long”.

The Labour party is clearly ideologically opposed to prison and that is why the Government are letting criminals off with a “get out of jail free” card, rather than deporting the 10,800 foreign national offenders in our prisons—one in every eight cells—a figure that is rising under the Justice Secretary’s watch. If she is actually serious about keeping violent criminals off our streets and finding the cells that are needed, will she bring forward legislation, tomorrow, and disapply the Human Rights Act 1998, which is stopping us from swiftly deporting foreign national offenders?

Some 17,800 prisoners are on remand awaiting trial—another figure that has risen under the Justice Secretary. In fact, her own Department’s figures forecast that it could rise to as many as 23,600. If she is serious, will she commit to taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s request for extra court sitting days to hear those cases and free up prison spaces? Will she commit, here and now, to building more than the meagre 250 rapid deployment cells her prison capacity strategy says she is planning to build this year? They have been built in seven months before, and they can be built even faster.

If the Justice Secretary were serious, she would commit to striking deals with the 14 European countries with spare prison capacity, renting their cells from them at an affordable price, as Denmark is doing with Kosovo. Between 1993 and 1996, her beloved Texas, the state on which she modelled these reforms—a state that, by the way, has an incarceration rate five times higher than that of the United Kingdom—built 75,000 extra cells. If the Government were serious, why can they not build 10,000 over a similar time period?

Labour is not serious about keeping hyper-prolific offenders behind bars. In fact, there is nothing in the Justice Secretary’s statement on locking them up or cutting crime, because the Labour party does not believe in punishing criminals and it does not really believe in prison. The radical, terrible changes made today are cloaked in necessity, but their root is Labour’s ideology. It is the public who will be paying the price for her weakness.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The shadow Secretary of State talks about serious Government—if the Government that he was a part of had ever been serious, they would have built more than 500 prison places in 14 years in office—[Interruption.] He is a new convert to the prison-building cause. He and his party have never stood up in this Chamber and apologised for adding only 500 places—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want the same respect from Members on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] Do we understand each other?

[Robert Jenrick]

indicated assent.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Mr Speaker, if I were waiting for respect from Opposition Members, I would be waiting for a long time, so it is a good job that I do not need it.

The shadow Secretary of State talks about “iron bars”, but he was part of a Government that did not build the prison places that this country needs. Unlike him, I take responsibility, and it has fallen to me to clean up the mess that he and his party left behind. In case there is any confusion, let me spell out what happens when he and his party leave our prison system on the brink of collapse, which is exactly what they did, and set out the prospect that faced me on day one, when I walked into the Justice Department. When prisons are on the verge of collapse, we basically have only two choices left at our disposal: either we shut the front door, or we have to open the back door. The right hon. Gentleman’s party knew that that was the situation it was confronted with, but did it make any decisions? No, it just decided to call an election instead and did a runner.

The public put the Conservatives in their current position. If they ever want to get out of that position, I suggest that they start by reckoning with the reality of their own track record in office. In any other reality, they should have started already with an apology. Conservative Members have had many chances to apologise to the country for leaving our prisons on the point of absolute collapse, but they have never taken them. Frankly, that tells us everything that anyone needs to know about the modern Conservative party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I start by saying that it is an absolute honour to be able to share with my mum, who is a survivor of domestic abuse at the hands of a former partner, that campaigning fuelled by our harrowing experiences at home all those years ago, and the experiences of many other survivors across the country, has contributed to the Government heeding our calls to better identify domestic abuse in the criminal justice system. The increased visibility and the interventions that it will inform to patch up what was an outrageous gap in the system stand to protect victims and survivors across the country, and I sincerely thank the Government for listening to us.

My party and I will hold the Government to account on the implementation, and we would like to get clarity on the record that the new identifier will mean that the Government can be empowered to exclude domestic abusers from, for example, an SDS40 early release scheme, and that partners using Clare’s law will see offences flagged as domestic abuse in the light of the report.

It must be said that it is absolutely appalling that the shadow Justice Secretary has just tried to play politics with domestic abusers.

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not want to let criminals out early—you do.

[Josh Babarinde]

The right hon. Gentleman says that this Government want to let domestic abusers out early. He fails to remember that the end-of-custody supervised licence scheme under the Conservative Government from October to June last year released 10,083 offenders early, with no exclusions for domestic abusers. Does the Secretary of State agree it is critical that this Government provide more support for domestic abuse victims from the likes of their abusers in a way that the last Government failed to do on their watch?

Victims and Courts Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

In recent months, I have sat with Jeremy and Susan Everard, whose daughter, Sarah, was murdered in the most horrific circumstances; with Paula Hudgell, whose little boy, Tony, lost both legs through brutality and who asks why his abusers will one day walk free; with Katie Brett, whose sister, Sasha, was stabbed to death at 16; and with Ayse Hussein, cousin of Jan Mustafa, whose body was found in a freezer after a catalogue of official failings. Their stories are harrowing and their bravery and resilience is incredibly inspiring. They, and the relatives of countless other victims, have formed the Justice for Victims campaign group, because serious criminals are “escaping proper punishment.” Their demand is clear: make the system value the lives of those who were damaged or even taken.

We welcome legislation in the name of victims, but it must be worthy of that title. A Bill that carries the word “victims” should put victims first in practice and not just in prose. I appreciate, as the Secretary of State has rightly said, that some measures in the Bill are stronger than those in the predecessor Bill, but some measures are less strong, or at least different, to those in the prior Bill. Parliamentary time is precious. I know from my own period in government that one cannot always return to the same issues time and again, however worthy the topic, so we must not waste the opportunity afforded by the Bill to enact the most radical and serious changes to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of victims. I will explain why and make what I hope will be seen as constructive proposals to the Secretary of State.

First, victims rightly want offenders to face them at sentence and to confront their crimes. All too often, cowardly criminals squirm away from the consequences of their actions, so I welcome the intent behind clause 1, which proposes to correct that. I question how the Minister will deliver recalcitrant offenders to court, when our own prison officers are already fighting for their lives with bare hands and little serious protection. That is not a new problem, but it is one that we all have to confront together. With no kit, there can be no confidence. In the wake of the HMP Frankland attack, the Minister’s idea of a limited taser trial sometime this summer in a handful of prisons, for specifically trained staff only, seems inadequate. We still do not issue every single officer with a stab-proof vest; body armour is “under review”.

Clause 1, for understandable and right reasons, piles fresh duties on staff, who tell me that they are already one assault away from leaving the service. Until Ministers issue full body armour and staff our escort units properly, this duty will be a burden to them. Officers will not feel safe to force violent offenders out of their cells, not least because the Bill affords them only the use of “reasonable force”, not the ability to use force as long as it is not grossly disproportionate, which should surely be the threshold in law. Judges making such orders need only to take into consideration the “reasonable excuse” of an offender to override the concern and the will of victims. What is the reasonable excuse to dodge justice? Surely that should be tightened to the most exceptional circumstances.

Where in this Bill is the right for victims’ views to be heard and recorded in court? Some victims will want the offender to come before the court, even in the knowledge that they will be highly disruptive, challenge the solemnity of the court and, frankly, behave in a way that many would consider to be deeply shocking and even scarring. Surely that should be broadly the victim’s choice; they should at least be properly consulted by the judge. This legislation is ultimately for the victims, even if the judge might have reservations or it leads to challenging situations or confrontations that we are not accustomed to in our courts.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that using the test of reasonable force, as the Lord Chancellor proposes, raises the unpleasant prospect that prisoners so forced might bring claims for damages against the Lord Chancellor, which would be a further insult to victims? I firmly support my right hon. Friend’s view that “grossly disproportionate” is the correct legal test to use.

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made. Given that the threshold of “grossly disproportionate” is an available and established concept in law, why not apply it in these circumstances, so that we can equip the criminal justice system with the standard it needs to ensure that in all bar the most exceptional circumstances, these individuals are brought to court if it is the wish of the victims of crime?

Secondly, Ministers say that clause 3 protects children from predatory parents, but the devil is in the detail. Only abuse of an offender’s own child counts—a point understandably made by the Labour party when it was in opposition. If a man rapes a neighbour’s child, he keeps full rights over his own infant daughter. The BBC this morning highlighted the case of Bethan, who was forced to spend £30,000 in the family court to strip her ex-husband, jailed for the gravest of offences, of parental responsibility. Bethan’s family call the Bill very disappointing, because it would not protect them.

Additionally, offenders jailed for three years and 11 months, which is still a grave sentence, retain their rights. Where is the logic behind four years? Thus far, that is unexplained. Where is the child’s best interest? Conversely, the Bill states that the order

“does not cease to have effect if…the offender is acquitted”

on appeal, so an exonerated parent may still be barred for life unless they marshal funds to return to court. That is neither proportionate nor principled. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s view that that may well be a starting point, but let us get this clause right. This is the opportunity, and it may well be the only one for some time.

I turn to clause 11. The unduly lenient sentence scheme is the last safety valve for victims when a judge gets it badly wrong, and I know how important that is. Just last week, a case that I referred to the Attorney General alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) was heard in the Court of Appeal, and three defendants had their sentences increased. Today, a victim has only 28 days from the date of sentence to request that the Attorney General make a referral. That clock starts even while they are still waiting for the official transcript to land.

Everyone in this House has met families who discovered the scheme after the deadline, who will forever wonder whether justice slipped through their fingers because they Google-searched the rules a week too late or did not reach out to their lawyers or friends in the system who were more knowledgeable. I have been very struck recently when speaking to victims—even victims of some of the most prominent and heinous crimes of modern times, who one might have thought would have been equipped with the very best legal advice and support—who simply did not know that the scheme even existed, let alone that it had such a short time limit attached to it.

Clause 11 gives only the Attorney General, not the victim, an extra 14 days when the paperwork arrives on day 28. Officials get six weeks; the mother of a murdered child still gets only four. Ministers claim that this is levelling the playing field, but it is nothing of the sort. Victims’ groups, from rape and sexual abuse centres to the Centre for Women’s Justice, have pleaded for a straightforward fix: double the victim application window to 56 days, and require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify every complainant in writing of the existence of the scheme and of that deadline on the day of the sentence. Those groups asked for time; on this occasion, the Government have delivered bureaucracy. That is clause 11 in a nutshell—a lifeline for Whitehall and the Attorney General’s staff, but not for the people we are sent to Parliament to defend.

Let me now turn to what the Bill does not try to do. The court backlog is spiralling, and the Ministry of Justice cannot yet provide a date by which it will start to come down. Going before the Justice Select Committee, its permanent secretary could not answer that most basic question for an official charged with leading the service. When is this going to start getting better? Cases are being listed today for as far away as 2029; meanwhile, victims are in limbo with their lives left on hold. Justice delayed is justice denied. Today, 74 courtrooms across the country are sitting empty because the Justice Secretary still has not taken the Lady Chief Justice up on her offer of extra sitting days. There is barely anything in this Bill that will put a dent in the court backlog—nothing that maximises court sitting days. Not one clause addresses listings, disclosure or digital evidence.

For many people, our justice system is opaque and secretive. I am a firm believer that sunlight is the best disinfectant—that greater transparency drives change and enhances confidence—but there is nothing in this Bill that enhances transparency on the court backlog, such as publishing the number of courtrooms that are not sitting each day and why they are not sitting. It falls to start-ups producing websites and apps to provide that information, not the Ministry of Justice itself. Nothing in this Bill increases access to court transcripts, so that victims, the press and the public can see justice dispensed. That issue was recently given further prominence by the public’s shock and anger when they heard or read fragments of the transcripts of grooming gang trials. As technology transforms the ability of the courts to provide reliable transcripts using artificial intelligence, we should provide a better and more transparent service to the public and the media. That is possible, so why not use this Bill to establish basic standards in law for the benefit of every victim across our country?

There is also nothing in the Bill that mandates the publication of data on offenders’ visa status or asylum status, so that we know where offenders are coming from. We need that information in order to design a criminal justice system and, above all, an immigration system that protects the British public. The London Victims’ Commissioner has said that the £1 billion of unpaid court fines is “truly astounding”, and that the failure of the Courts and Tribunals Service to recoup outstanding offenders’ fines must come under greater scrutiny. Again, the Bill is silent on that—it contains no extra powers to recoup that money. At a time when the Ministry of Justice’s budget is unquestionably under strain, why not do everything to recoup unpaid court fines, beginning with those? Victims are suffering as a result.

We welcome legislation in the name of victims, but it must be worthy of that title. Victims have asked for justice that is swift and certain; in many respects, this Bill is slow and tentative. I urge the Government to amend it—to strengthen it—so that it really does put victims first, in practice and not just in prose. Where it does, the Secretary of State and the Government will have our support, for justice and for the victims.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Robert Jenrick 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.

Protection of Prison Staff

Robert Jenrick 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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Today, the Justice Secretary is belatedly introducing a Bill to restore fairness in who receives a pre-sentence report, but it will not correct what the pre-sentence report says. Under brand-new guidance that the Justice Secretary’s Department issued in January, pre-sentence reports must consider the “culture” of an offender and take into account whether they have suffered “intergenerational trauma” from “important historical events”. Evidently, the Labour party does not believe in individual responsibility and agency. Instead of treating people equally, it believes in cultural relativism. This time the Justice Secretary has nobody else to blame but herself. Will she change that or is there two-tier justice? Is that the Labour party’s policy now?

[Shabana Mahmood]

What a load of nonsense. I am the Lord Chancellor who is rectifying the situation with the proper distinction between matters of policy and matters of independent judicial decision through the Bill that we will debate on Second Reading later today. I have already dealt with the issues in relation to the immigration guidelines. The right hon. Gentleman has made some comments about that which do not bear resemblance to fact, so perhaps he would like to correct the record. On the bail guidance and on all other guidance that relates to equality before the law, I have said that we are reviewing absolutely everything. I will ensure that under this Government equality before the law is never a principle that is compromised, although it was compromised under the Conservative Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I support the Lord Chancellor’s decision to commission a full statutory inquiry into the terrible attack in Nottingham. I know it will be welcomed by the families and everyone in the city and across my home county of Nottinghamshire. I fully support her welcome decision.

Greg Ó Ceallaigh is a serving immigration judge who decides asylum and deportation appeals. It took nothing more than a basic Google search to uncover his past comments that the Conservative party should be treated the same way as Nazis and cancer. As a sitting judge, he has publicly supported Labour’s plans to scrap the Rwanda scheme and for illegal entry into the United Kingdom to be decriminalised. Does the Lord Chancellor believe this is compatible with judicial impartiality? If not, what does she intend to do about it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks on the new Nottingham inquiry—I am very grateful for his support. I am sure the whole House will want to see the inquiry come to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that when people have a complaint to make about judges, they can do so via the well-placed mechanism of the judicial complaints office. If he wishes to make a complaint, he can do so, but what I will not do is indulge in, effectively, the doxing of judges, especially not when they are simply doing their job of applying the law in the cases that appear before them. If there are complaints to be made about judicial conduct, I am sure the shadow Lord Chancellor knows how to go about it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say that we must be careful about what we do here? We are not meant to criticise judges, and I know that this House would not do so. I am sure that we will now change the topic.

[Robert Jenrick]

Mr Speaker, it is important that judges and the manner in which they are appointed are properly scrutinised in this House, and I will not shy away from doing so. Helen Pitcher was forced to resign in disgrace as the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission after a formal panel found that she had failed in her duties during one of the worst miscarriages of justice in recent memory. But she is still in charge of judicial appointments, despite judges appearing in the media every week for their activism. Her commission has failed to conduct the most basic checks on potential judges, either out of sheer incompetence, or out of sympathy with their hard-left views on open borders. The commission is broken and is bringing the independence of the judiciary into disrepute. How much longer will it take for the Justice Secretary to act and remove the chair of this commission from her position and defend the independence and reputation of the judiciary?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am afraid that the shadow Chancellor cannot elide the process for the appointment of judges with a wider attack on the independence of the judiciary. I hope that he will take the admonishment from you, Mr Speaker, and the clear disapprobation of this House to reflect on the way that he is approaching his role. If there are complaints to be made about judicial conduct, there is already a robust process in place for doing so. If the shadow Lord Chancellor wishes to avail himself of that, I am sure that, given how active he is, he will be happy to do so. What is completely improper is to take his position in this House to indulge in a wider attack of the judiciary at a time when we know that judicial security has been compromised—