Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are determined to drive down the population of women who are in prison where it is safe to do so. That is why Lord Timpson set up the women’s justice board, which has taken huge steps not just in improving resources for women in custody, but in ensuring that we have plans to reduce the population wherever possible.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

5. What estimate he has made of the number of prisoners released in error since July 2024.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

Official statistics for the year to March 2025 show 262 recorded releases in error, and the latest figure will be published next month. In April we also released ad hoc data from April 2025 to March 2026, which was published alongside Dame Lynne Owens’s independent review into releases in error.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand that the total is 441, which over a two-year period is the worst on record and means that, in less than 24 months, Labour has released more prisoners in error than were released in the previous six years combined. That is a disgrace. How many of those released in error early were convicted of rape?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady was not listening to the figures I gave. We are seeing a reduction in the numbers because of the review that I asked Dame Lynne Owens to lead. We are implementing the recommendations so that the numbers come down, but I have to ask the hon. Lady: who left us with the mess? Who saw 800 releases under their watch? When did they update Parliament? When did they set up a review? They did absolutely nothing. We have a paper-based system. That is why we are introducing digital ID.

Prisoner Early Release

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

Yes, Lord Timpson, the Minister in the other place who is responsible for the Probation Service, has undertaken huge reforms to how the Probation Service operates, which are backed up by investment. I am confident that we have a robust probation system that is ready for the challenge ahead.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

During the passage of the Sentencing Act, we were told that the perpetrators of the “most serious, heinous crimes” would not be included in these measures, so can the Minister explain why the Government do not think that the rape of children is one of the most serious and heinous crimes, and how many individuals who committed it will be coming out early?

[Jake Richards]

As I have already said, more than 18,000 offenders serving life and extended sentences, including rapists and those who have committed the most heinous offences, are not affected by the Sentencing Act provisions at all. I need to be abundantly clear that we will never let happen what we inherited from the Conservative Government, which is that there were no prison places. We were running out of prison places, which meant that the whole criminal justice system was on the verge of collapse. Never again.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I should first declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician who has given evidence in court in that capacity. The references to the Magna Carta are particularly profound for a Lincolnshire MP, because one of the copies of Magna Carta from 1215 is kept in Lincoln. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) talked eloquently and at length about jury trials, why they should remain, and why removing the right of appeal for magistrates court decisions is the wrong thing to do, so I will not focus on that in the few minutes I have.

I will focus on clause 17, which removes the presumption of involvement of parents in their child’s life. When there is dispute over who cares for a child, courts can make decisions: they can decide who a child is to live with; they can decide who has contact with the child, for how long, and when; they can decide what form that contact takes, whether it is by telephone, in a supervised contact centre or face to face; and they can make specific decrees such as where the child is to go to school.

The law is clear that when courts are making those decisions, the welfare of the child is paramount. They can take into account the child’s wishes if old enough and capable of making decisions in that respect. They can think about whether the child has been subject to any harm. They can talk about whether the child is at risk of further harm. They can talk about whether the parents are capable of providing for the needs of the child. However, section 1 of the Children Act 1989 is clear that the courts must presume, unless shown otherwise, that the involvement of both parents is in the child’s best interests.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that in 2020 the harm panel said that that section creates a “pro-contact culture” that puts children at risk, and that post the publication of that review, it received no response from her Government?

[Dr Johnson]

That is why I have explained that the presumption is that the parents have involvement. The court must take the risks to the child into consideration and, unless shown otherwise, give contact to both parents. If the child is at risk, however, the court has the absolute right to prevent the child from seeing those parents or to restrict contact to different forms and timeframes. The welfare of the child is key in those decisions.

That is in line with international law, which I know the Government are fond of. The UN convention on the rights of the child says that parents and children should maintain

“personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s…interests.”

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Johnson]

Not for the moment. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights provides the right to family life and suggests that consideration be given to all alternatives before ordering no contact. The Government, however—

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Will she please give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I give way.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

In talking about the right to family life, the hon. Lady is talking not about the rights of the children, but about the rights of the abusers. If we start from the idea that an abuser has the right to contact their children, we end up with bad decisions. That is why, in the past 30 years, 67 children have died when contact should not have been granted. That is the change that we are making, those are the lives that we are saving and that is why it is important to do this today.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I will continue my speech and perhaps he will listen to what I have to say.

The purpose of court decisions is, as the hon. Gentleman said, to prevent unsafe contact and to prevent tragedies. As a paediatrician, I have seen situations where children have been given back to parents and have come to significant harm as a result. I have dealt with and looked after those children, and unfortunately they have not been protected or saved in every case. The law is there to prevent unsafe contact, but the children’s needs must be put first, with the power to restrict access where they are in danger. The court must listen to all the evidence available, but no system is infallible and sometimes judges get it wrong. When they do, the outcomes can be hugely tragic, leading to the loss or serious injury of a child.

I know that this legislation has been brought forward with good intentions. The test is whether it will prevent such harm and such tragedies. I think that it might not. The reason is that the impact assessment produced by the Government says that it is “unlikely to materially change” the outcome in court. If that is the case, what is the point of the legislation? Will it, on the other hand, reduce the likelihood of children seeing their parents? Will that, in and of itself, cause some harm? Will it prevent some children from having the contact they need with their family members? Will it prevent the tragedies that we wish to prevent or not? Will it isolate those children who will come to harm? Do we have the right risk assessments to do that?

Every single one of us in this House wants to protect children. We need to improve the risk assessments and ensure that social workers have time to make proper risk assessments so that they identify the children who may be at risk and separate them from those who are not. We also need to improve the representation of children in court. I was once in court, in the witness box, and the barrister who was representing the children got up to speak. He asked me a question, but he had forgotten the name of one of the two children in the family and I had to remind him from the witness box. We really need to improve the quality of the representation of children.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I will not.

This legislation is potentially just a distraction—something that makes people feel like they are doing something and making a difference, when the impact assessment that the Government have produced suggests it will not. Is this change going to make any difference or not? Is this a lost opportunity to improve the risk assessments, children’s representation and social work and to actually make a difference?

Prisoner Releases in Error

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing in her community. I recognise that there will be anxiety in her constituency as a result of high-profile cases that have emanated from Wandsworth. She will know that one of those cases involved an error that actually started in the court system back in September, before the checks that I put in place. She asked me to outline what I have done. What it effectively means is that the duty governor and the deputy governor are having a double look at what comes out of their OMUs, which are largely staffed by slightly more junior staff who are making the decisions on who should be released from custody. I look forward to visiting Wandsworth with my hon. Friend in the coming months.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The ministerial code requires honesty and transparency. On 28 October, in a written parliamentary question, I asked how many of those released in error under this Government remain at large. On 3 November I received an answer, but it did not answer the question. Was that because the Government did not know how many people were at large, or because they chose not to be transparent and give the answer?

Prisoner Release Checks

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Of course I am sorry—sorry that any victim of crime had the anxious weekend that they had. It was important for me to ensure that police liaison were in touch with them, and I am grateful to Essex police for doing that. It is also important to me that Lynne Owens is able to speak to them so that their concerns are reflected in her full and final report.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

How many of those released in error under this Labour Government are still at large?

[Mr Lammy]

As the hon. Lady would expect, a number of people are released under different regimes: some will be released at home and will, hopefully, lead productive lives; others will be back in prison; and some are recalled under licence. All that will be examined by the independent, full investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend has contacted me and written to me on this issue. She will know that we in the Department are looking at the spending allocations following the spending review. However, we have protected and ringfenced special support for sexual violence victims, because we know that there is huge demand coming through the system and we need to keep those victims engaged in the criminal justice system to ensure they get their day in court and justice is served.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I read a recent BBC article about an asylum seeker who had violently raped a teenage girl. He has been convicted and given a sentence of nine years in prison, followed by three years on licence, after which he will need to be deported. I am concerned that such individuals, during their period on licence, pose a risk to British women and girls. Does the Lord Chancellor agree, and will she ensure that people go straight from prison to deportation where appropriate?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. It is why we are reducing the threshold for the early removal scheme and looking carefully with the Home Office at the Gauke review’s recommendation of effectively sentencing to deportation, to deal with the very types of cases that she has raised.

Independent Sentencing Review

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

One of the problems of running a prison system at absolutely boiling hot—where it is permanently on the point of collapse, as has been the case in our prison system for far too long now—is that we are not able to make much progress in the prison estate on the programmes that offenders need to access to begin a rehabilitation journey. Part of our proposals, which are designed to relieve the stress in our prison system, will help with rehabilitation within the prison estate.

We are also absolutely determined to make more progress on rehabilitation outside the prison estate, which is why we are toughening up community punishment. We know that that works, and we know that the country can have confidence in such punishment. We will be working with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to think about the availability of drug and alcohol treatment. We will expand the use of sobriety tags, which are already helping offenders to come off the drink that often fuels their offending. I have asked some tech companies to look at further technological innovation that can help us in this space. The holy grail would be a drugs tag, which could make a huge difference in reducing reoffending in our country. We will continue to press ahead and work as quickly as we can to find further technological solutions.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Crimes against children are among the worst crimes humanity can commit. There is relatively little, if anything at all, about offences against children in this review. Could the Lord Chancellor confirm that those who have abused children will not be allowed out early?

[Shabana Mahmood]

All those who have received an extended determinate sentence—and that includes many of the offenders mentioned by the hon. Lady—are excluded from these measures. All other offenders would have to earn an earlier release by proving that they have behaved properly in prison and not broken prison rules; the minimum for them is set at one third of the sentence, but it can be higher. As I have said, for those who egregiously offend, we will set no upper limit.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

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

When I spoke in this House on 1 April, I set out the Government’s intention to introduce emergency legislation, because I believe that our justice system must be above all else fair, and that, standing before a judge, we are all equal, no matter the colour of our skin or the question of our faith. Given the existential nature of this matter for our justice system, I was clear that we would move at pace to change the law. The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill was introduced that same day. With Second Reading taking place just three weeks later, we are forging ahead with plans to legislate as quickly as possible.

Before I set out the contents of the Bill, it bears repeating how we came to be in the current situation and why expedited legislation is necessary. In the last Parliament, the Sentencing Council put forward revised guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. I should note that during a statutory consultation they were welcomed by the last Conservative Government in no uncertain terms. The shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who was a Justice Minister at the time, should be able to furnish his colleagues with the details, but as he is absent today, I will do so.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Can the right hon. Lady clarify whether the guidelines proposed under the previous Government were the same as those with which she is dealing now, or did they differ—and if they differed, how did they differ?

[Shabana Mahmood]

They did not differ in any substantial way. All the guidelines, in so far as they concern issues relating to race, religion, culture or belief, are exactly the same as those to which the Justice Minister responded under the Conservative Administration. Hiding behind that, I am afraid, shows a failure to reckon with the Opposition’s own track record, which has become quite a hallmark of theirs in recent weeks and months.

These guidelines help judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence, providing guidance on the thresholds for disposals of this type. In the process of deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where they consider such a report to be unnecessary. The reports are used to give the courts more context of the offending behaviour in a given case, and set out any factors that should be considered as part of the sentencing process. As I said to the House on 1 April, generally speaking I am in favour of the use of pre-sentence reports, and in fact I have recently freed up capacity in the Probation Service precisely so that it has more time to produce reports of this type.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

However, it is always up to the people in this House, if they feel that a law is being applied in ways that were not intended, to put that law right. I am afraid the right hon. Member’s comment is a rather damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative Government, with 14 years of sitting back and allowing other people to do the policy work that Ministers in the previous Government perhaps did not have the time or inclination to do themselves.

I do not think that judges, in applying the law, are doing anything wrong; they are doing their job. They are public servants, and they do their job independently. It is right that we have an independent judiciary in this country. We are very lucky to have a judiciary that is world class and highly regarded. One of the reasons why so many businesses from all over the world want to do business in this country is that they know they can trust our courts system and the independence of our judges. I think it is incumbent on the whole of this House to defend the independence of the judiciary, because that independence was hard won. It is one of our absolute USPs as a rule of law jurisdiction in this country, and none of us must ever do anything that puts it at risk.

If there are issues about the way in which the law is applied—if Parliament or Ministers ever consider that it has strayed too far from the original intention—we can always legislate, and I am doing just that today. I hope this is an example that others, if they have issues in their areas, may consider taking as well. It is a question of policy, and that should be decided and debated here in this place, in this House, and the public must be able to hold us to account for the decisions we take, rewarding or punishing us at the ballot box as they see fit. This is the domain of government, politics and Parliament, and today we reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The right hon. Lady is making a point about the wider justice system and the importance of equality before the law. What has she done to assure herself and the House that, in all aspects of her Department’s work, people are being treated equally under the law—whether in relation to parole, how they are treated in prison, bail conditions and so on?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have ordered a wider review of all guidance across all the MOJ’s work in so far as it relates to equality before the law to make sure that the problems we have uncovered here are not replicated elsewhere. There is the issue of bail guidance, which was discussed in the House earlier. I have already ordered a review, and that guidance is being redrafted as we speak. That particular guidance has been something like 20 years in the making—it has been added to over many years—so the redraft has to be careful and we must make sure it does not have any unintended consequences. However, we are cracking on with that work at pace, and I will make sure that, by the time I am done, we can all be absolutely clear that this sweep towards allowing potential differential treatment is sorted out once and for all.

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make more progress. I think I have been more than generous.

That brings me to the Bill before us today. While the updated Sentencing Council guidelines are currently paused, if we do not act they will come into force— [Interruption.] Well, there was a lot to say, gentlemen, about the previous Government’s track record and it needed to be said. And I do not think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) should mind me taking interventions from people on his own side. That is a novel approach for the shadow Front Bench.

Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. It is tightly focused, containing just two clauses. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which brought the Sentencing Council into existence. It dictates that the guidelines the council produces may not include references to personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. Clause 2 relates to how the Bill will be enacted: that it will apply only to England and Wales, and that its measures will come into force on the day after it passes.

It is also important to be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not stop the Sentencing Council from issuing broader guidance concerning requests for pre-sentence reports in those cases where it is helpful for the court to understand more about an offender’s history and personal circumstances. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, for example those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. And, as detailed in the Bill’s explanatory notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; or Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt a principle which finds its ancient origins in Magna Carta and has developed over the centuries to serve the interests of justice not just here but in jurisdictions around the world: that each of us, no matter who we are, where we come from or what we believe, stand equal before the law of the land.

Wider questions remain about the role and the powers of the Sentencing Council, as I have noted. The council does important work, bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it is clear in this instance that it went beyond its original remit. It sought to set policy, which stood out of step with the Government of the day. Therefore, it raises the question: who should set sentencing policy? Today’s legislation only addresses this question in the narrowest terms, considering the guidance on pre-sentence reports. It does not give us a definitive resolution as to whether it is Government Ministers or members of the Sentencing Council who should decide policy in the future. As I noted, that leaves us with a democratic deficit.

As I told the House on 1 April, the question of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council must therefore be considered further. That work is already under way in my Department. Should a further change be required, the Government will include it in upcoming legislation. The Sentencing Council plays an important role in our justice system, and any changes to it must be made carefully and with the consideration it deserves. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them.

The Bill we are debating today is small, but the issues it contains could not be of greater significance. I know the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree that the Sentencing Council’s intentions on this issue were noble, but in trying to reach for equality of outcome, they sacrificed too much, undermining the sacred principle of equality before the law. It is right that we, as policymakers, stop the updated guidelines from coming into force. We must stand up for the idea that no matter our race or religion, no person should receive preferential treatment as they stand in the dock before a judge, so I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I can see that, when it comes to this legislation, I am in a minority—it is not the first time, and I suspect that it will not be the last. There has been a great deal of misinformation about the Sentencing Council’s original guidelines, both in the run-up to and during the debate, so I, with all humility, want to insert some facts into the debate.

First, it is important to recognise what the Sentencing Council actually is. Much of the debate today and in recent weeks has seemed to presume that it is a bunch of heedless young barristers and social workers. On the contrary, the Sentencing Council is largely composed of some of the most senior judges in the land. They include: Lord Justice William Davis, its chair, who was called to the Bar in 1976; His Honour Judge Simon Drew, a circuit judge sitting in the Court of Appeal; Lord Justice Tim Holroyde, lord justice of appeal and vice-president of the Court of Appeal; and the honourable Mr Justice Mark Wall, who was appointed a High Court judge in 2020. There are also some senior probation officers and magistrates. That is hardly a cohort of men and women who need the firm hand of an MP on their shoulder to explain to them what the rule of law is.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The right hon. Lady is making the important point that the Sentencing Council is comprised of senior and learned individuals. Given that, what circumstances does she think conspired to let it get the guidelines so very wrong? It is clearly felt on both sides of the House that they are wrong.

[Ms Abbott]

I can say with confidence that the Sentencing Council is talking about issues to do with race and criminal justice because of a history, going back decades, of problematic issues in relation to race and criminal justice. I will come to those later. The independence of the Sentencing Council is crucial, and the idea that anybody in the Chamber is standing up for law and order yet seeks to undermine its independence—and by implication, that of the judiciary as a whole—is quite remarkable.

Next, what do the guidelines actually say? Much of the debate implies that black and minority persons are singled out for pre-sentence reports under the guidelines. On the contrary, there is a whole list of people in the guidelines on whom, the Sentencing Council suggests, judges and magistrates might ask for a pre-sentence report. Those persons include those at risk of committing their first custodial sentence; young adults; women; ethnic minorities; yes, cultural minorities, of course; pregnant and post-natal women; and the sole or primary carer for dependent relatives. The Sentencing Council is clear that that is not an exclusive list; ideally, every defendant should have a pre-sentence report. The aim of the guidelines is to ensure that judges and magistrates get the most information possible. Who could object to garnering more information on any defendant? It is certainly not the intention of the guidelines to dictate the sentence in any given case.

Yet it is being argued that a pre-sentencing report will discourage a judge from sending an offender to jail. We are asked to believe that our judiciary is weak-minded and susceptible, and that it will not live up to its centuries-old standards, which, as we heard earlier, go all the way back to Magna Carta. However, the House was also told earlier that our judiciary is world-class and highly regarded. Both propositions cannot be true.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

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

Secure 16 to 19 academies, otherwise known as secure schools, are an innovative new form of custody for children and young people that the 2019 manifesto committed to trialling. They will be schools with security, rather than prisons with education. Normally when children commit an offence, they are managed in the community with community sentences, but sometimes the offences committed are so awful or the offending is so frequent that a custodial sentence is necessary. Thankfully, that is not common; there are currently around 530 children in the secure estate, and the House may be interested to know that fewer than 12 of them at any time in the last year have been female children.

Many of these children have significant social, emotional or mental health issues, which are root causes of some of the offending behaviour. Even if they have very long sentences, they will come out into the community at a relatively young age, which means that they will have a long time free to contribute to society if they can be effectively given greater rehabilitation opportunities in prison.

In Sleaford, we have a secure children’s home that takes younger children into a small environment and gives them a better chance of turning their lives around. The first secure school will be built in Medway in Kent, providing education to a small number of young people —up to 49 of them—and giving them a good opportunity to bring themselves on to the straight and narrow.

The Government have already acted, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to establish the secure 16 to 19 academies in legislation, and this Bill makes further necessary amendments to the Academies Act 2010 to make specific provisions relevant to the establishment of new secure schools, as opposed to other types of academies.

The changes proposed cover the termination period in which the Government continue to fund the secure school should there be a need to end a funding agreement into which they have entered. In general, normal academies would have a seven-year period, but the Bill will reduce that to two for the secure estate. The seven years is calculated on the basis that students would normally spend seven years at a school, but in the case of secure schools, the sentences vary considerably, and the amount of time that a child spends in such an establishment is determined primarily by their legal status. The Bill will enable the Government to prioritise value for money, which we would expect a Conservative Government to continue to do. It will also provide more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a school provider.

For such an important part of our vision for the future of the youth custody estate, it is important that we have efficient processes for opening new schools. The Bill will modify the consultation requirements in the 2010 Act so that they do not apply to secure schools, and help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. For example, anyone who wants to open an academy is required to consider the impact that it will have on pupil numbers in other local schools, but clearly that is not a relevant consideration for a secure school. Engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection process for new custodial sites. The Bill gives providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school works with local partners. It should be noted that a proposal to build an entirely new site would of course go through the regular planning procedures too.

By supporting the Bill, the House has an opportunity to tailor the legislative framework for secure schools, thereby creating better services and strengthening the impact of secure schools on the lives of children in the justice system. I have been most grateful to hon. Members across the House for their support and valued contributions during the Bill’s passage so far. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Dr Evans), for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Southend West (Anna Firth), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) and for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Neath (Christina Rees), and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) for participating in the Bill Committee. I thank in particular my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Neath for their valued contributions in Committee. I also thank the Ministry of Justice officials who have been so helpful to me with the Bill; the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for his support with it; Anne-Marie Griffiths in the Public Bill Office; and my great team for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

I hope I have addressed the aims of the Bill and the positive impact it can have, and I am proud to move its Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I rise to thank again those who have helped with the passage of the Bill. In Sleaford, we have a secure children’s home that runs a small unit providing great education and rehabilitative care to those young people. I welcome the fact that the Bill will help to extend that educational and holistic approach to helping young people to turn their lives around.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I again congratulate the hon. Lady on piloting her Bill through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Question proposed, With this, it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to deal with clauses one and two together.

Secure schools are an innovative new form of custody for children and young people, which the 2019 Conservative manifesto committed to trialling. Essentially, they will be schools with security rather than prisons with education. The Government have already established secure 16 to 19 academies in legislation, and the Bill makes further necessary amendments to the Academies Act 2010 to make specific provisions in that Act relevant to the establishment of new secure schools.

In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his landmark “Review of the Youth Justice System”. The report made a number of important recommendations, including the need to reimagine how we care for children who commit offences serious enough to warrant detaining them in custody. He proposed the creation of a new type of custodial environment, one that is focused on the delivery of education and offers children the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications necessary to prepare them for their release into the community. The Taylor review made a compelling case for change. The need to transform the environments in which we detain and provide care for these children is as necessary now as it was then. The 2019 Conservative manifesto restated our commitment to trialling the new model. The first secure school is set to open in Medway in Kent this spring, and is to be run by the Oasis Restore trust.

Since the Taylor Report, the Government have been working to create the legislative and regulatory framework that will govern secure schools. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 established secure schools in legislation as secure 16 to 19 academies under both the Academies Act 2010 and the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. As work has continued and we near the opening of the first secure school, this Bill is needed to ensure that specific provisions in the 2010 Act are relevant to secure 16 to 19 academies.

The proposed changes cover the termination period in which the Government continue to fund the secure schools, should there be a need to end a funding agreement. The Bill also amends the duties placed on providers that enter into funding agreements with the Government prior to opening a secure school. These changes will essentially reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, provide for better and more integrated services, and protect the public purse.

With that background in mind, I now turn to the clauses themselves. Clause 1 sets out three main measures. First, it amends section 2 of the Academies Act 2010 to reduce the minimum notice period for termination of a funding agreement from seven years to two years for secure 16 to 19 academies. Having a two-year termination period will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and give them more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. The reduction to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which the Government are committed to funding the school longer than is necessary and ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding needed to avoid problems with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in that environment. Although the Government are already able to terminate funding agreements with secure school providers in the event of poor performance, the Bill provides an important “last resort” option to terminate a funding agreement for any other reason.

Secondly, the Bill disapplies section 9 of the 2010 Act for secure 16 to 19 academies, which would otherwise require the Secretary of State to consider the impact on other educational establishments in the area of entering into a new academy funding agreement. Although it is important that secure schools are established as academies to ensure that they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different from other schools in the community because they do not compete with other schools. As such, we do not expect them to have any impact on the viability of local mainstream schools. The Bill therefore disapplies that duty to help any future secure school to open with minimal delay.

Thirdly, the Bill amends section 10 of the 2010 Act, which currently requires an academy provider to consult appropriate persons on whether a funding agreement should be entered into. We recognise the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. The Bill amend that section to require the provider to consult appropriate persons on how the secure school should work with local partners; for example, a provider may deem it appropriate to consult elected representatives or health and education services.

Clause 2 establishes that, when enacted, this legislation will extend to England and Wales, but apply only to England, given that the academy system under the 2010 Act has not been adopted in Wales. The clause also establishes that the provisions of the Bill will come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day it receives Royal Assent and is passed. Finally, the clause establishes that, once in force, the Bill may be referred to as the Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2024.

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will not detain the Committee long, but I want to voice my wholehearted support for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in introducing the Bill. I also wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to her for her well-known and long-standing commitment to children, both in her professional career as a doctor and in this place. It is perhaps a testament to that commitment that she has been instrumental in bringing forward this small but important piece of legislation. The people of Sleaford and North Hykeham are very lucky to have her as their representative in this place, and long may that continue.

It is a sad reality that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty in order to protect the public. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that they receive the appropriate support to prepare them for their eventual release and to turn their lives around.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware from his time doing my job some years ago that we have within our youth custodial estate young offenders institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes. The secure school is a new addition to that. It will be the first of its kind in the country. With that in mind, it is important that we establish this first secure school, see how it works and learn from that experience. If it works, my ambition is to see the concept expanded, subject in the future to any funding or spending review decisions. However, it is important that we learn from the real experience once the school is open before we make any longer term commitments or decisions.

The Government fully support the Bill on the basis that the amendments will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and create better services, thus strengthening the impact of secure schools on the lives of those children in our justice system. Through the Bill, we have an opportunity to enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer, and have more flexibility should there be need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. Although one hopes that will not be necessary, it is prudent and appropriate to have that power in place.

We also have the opportunity to modify consultation requirements that do not apply to secure schools, and therefore help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. Engagement with local communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has highlighted, is a key part of the selection process for any new custodial site. The Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, facilitating future secure schools should the school prove to be the success that we hope and anticipate it will be. That will ensure a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school should work with local partners.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing forward the Bill, and I confirm the Government’s full and continued support for it.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank those who have contributed today, and the Government and the Minister for their support. I thank the hon. Member for Neath for coming along today and for her contribution. As she has in Neath, we have a secure children’s home in Sleaford in my constituency. These homes provide care, support and education to children in a secure environment, many but not all of whom have been placed there by the criminal justice system. Rehabilitation is a key part of the criminal justice system, particularly for our youngest people. Extending it to the formal school-based approach for 16 to 19-year-olds in particular will help us to rehabilitate those young people.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

[Edward Argar]

I will take this opportunity to put on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her work on the Bill, to those right hon. and hon. Members who are here today, to you for chairing proceedings, Mr Hollobone, and to the fantastic parliamentary and Bill team at the Ministry of Justice for their work on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.