Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill

Edward Argar Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 26th April 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is a genuine pleasure to speak at the Dispatch Box on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary, and it is a pleasure for various reasons. I suspect this will be one of my least challenging appearances at the Dispatch Box, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) has garnered so much support for these measures across the House and in Government.

It is a pleasure to appear opposite, and respond to once again, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), who shadowed me in my role before she was moved to a different team. It is also important to put on record our gratitude, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) did. We are grateful to her, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for his work, to Stephen Twigg and his staff, to Mr Speaker, and indeed to the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who with the Bill, as with many others, has done so much as the Whip to ensure that it has progressed smoothly and is—hopefully —within touching distance of becoming law.

[Chris Elmore]

I will pay my own tribute to the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household later, when we come to my Bill. On private Member’ Bills, this shows the House at its best. I think these measures have been debated in a ten-minute rule Bill and a previous private Member’s Bill, and I infer from the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) that this was a presentation Bill. That shows the importance of the work of the House on a sitting Friday to push through to the other place such legislation, which is so important internationally to so many of our Commonwealth partners, as well as, obviously, the Red Cross.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I often say when I am talking to schools or more broadly in my constituency—I suspect he does so in his—that if our electorate want to see the House at its best, they should watch the Chamber on a sitting Friday when we are debating private Member’ Bills: there is often much cross-party co-operation and enlightening debate. One goes away not only having hopefully moved things forward and achieved something, but having learned something.

Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, I have a couple of other points to make. I turn briefly to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) about, I think, the Canadian Parliament—

[Dame Maria Miller]

New Zealand.

[Edward Argar]

I am sorry; the New Zealand Parliament, which gave the power to the Speaker or the Chair that if a Minister had not been deemed by the Chair to have given a sufficiently accurate or appropriate answer to a question, they could have the question re-put to the Minister. I gently say to my right hon. Friend that while that is an interesting suggestion, it would be entirely redundant in this place, given how Ministers always answer directly the question posed to them as fully and helpfully as they can.

The other reason it is a genuine pleasure to be here is that the Bill has been brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) highlighted that she had been forcefully pushing this issue to a conclusion. I must say that, having had the pleasure of working with her on various amendments to legislation in the past, I have always found it wise to agree with her. I am therefore pleased to confirm the Government’s support for the Bill. It is wise to agree with her, not least because generally she is right in the points she is making, as I know from experience. So it is a genuine pleasure to speak on her Bill on this occasion. I recognise in doing so her work as chair of the CPA as well as her work with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the huge value that that adds.

This is a hugely important Bill, reflecting on two important organisations. In what can appear to be a fractured and increasingly dangerous world, it is important that we remember and reinforce the role of democracy as a bulwark against authoritarianism and totalitarianism, and indeed the conflicts that can often flow from those.

In respect of the CPA, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) set out clearly the importance of its work to promote parliamentary democracy and good government through a range of activities and in a range of forums. It is open and wide-ranging in its promotion of democracy within the Commonwealth context. It is non-partisan and non-prescriptive. It does a huge amount of work to capture the best of parliamentary democracy across the Commonwealth, propagate it and reinforce it.

It is also important, as the shadow Minister did, to recognise the importance of the Commonwealth in that context. She rightly highlighted its 75th anniversary. It is an institution of enduring success and enduring value. We can genuinely characterise it as the Commonwealth family of nations, because we do view all the other members of the Commonwealth as family, as I hope they would view us.

The ICRC was founded 160 years ago. It is

“an impartial, neutral and independent organisation whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance.”

That is from the ICRC mandate. Its unique international humanitarian mandate and mission have been formally recognised, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North highlighted, by states in the Geneva conventions and their additional protocols. This organisation has unique legitimacy to engage all parties to conflicts and has unparalleled access to vulnerable groups in conflict situations. It is frequently the only agency operating at scale in many conflicts. As we look around the world at the conflicts raging, its work has never been more important.

It is a pleasure to confirm the Government’s full support for the Bill and to thank those Members who have contributed today. As set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, the Bill will enable the Government to treat the CPA and ICRC in a manner genuinely comparable to that of an international organisation of which the UK or His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom are a member.

The UK has, as I have highlighted, a huge and long-standing partnership with the CPA, and we recognise the work it does. The UK also views the ICRC as an essential partner for achieving our global humanitarian objectives, with the organisation having unique legitimacy to engage all parties to conflicts and unparalleled access. It also operates in some of the most challenging situations that anyone could face. Its specialised role in engaging with all arms bearers, including the growing number of non-state armed groups, is coupled with its direct delivery of a comprehensive range of integrated humanitarian assistance and protection programmes.

Treatment as an international organisation will allow both the CPA and the ICRC to deliver their objectives while operating in the UK. In the case of the CPA, it will facilitate the organisation to operate fully across the Commonwealth and international fora, including in areas where it is currently restricted by its charitable status. While it is not possible under the International Organisations Act 1968, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, to accord it the privileges and status it needs, this legislation fills that gap.

For the ICRC, treatment as an international organisation will critically enable it to operate in the UK in accordance with its international mandate, maintaining its strict adherence to the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence and its standard working method of confidentiality, which is designed to protect its staff and operations in active conflict zones. The public disclosure of information that the ICRC obtains from confidential dialogue with conflict parties is likely to put that at risk. It is also a principle that underpins its ability to operate in dangerous locations on sensitive issues, engaging with state and non-state actors. The Bill has therefore been amended to include a provision for the protection of certain information related to the ICRC’s sensitive work that it has provided in confidence to His Majesty’s Government, to stop it being used in court proceedings, except for criminal proceedings. The Government consider this provision necessary, but proportionate.

Treatment as an international organisation includes the provision of privileges and immunities necessary to meet the functional needs of the CPA and ICRC in the UK. In providing these privileges and immunities, we will strengthen our partnerships with both the CPA and ICRC respectively. It will enable these two key partners to better deliver their objectives.

The list of privileges and immunities that might be conferred on the CPA and ICRC have been informed by the 1968 Act. That will allow the Government to agree a framework that is unique and appropriate to each organisation’s unique mandate. The actual suite of privileges and immunities to be accorded, including relevant exceptions and limitations, will be determined based on the functional need of each organisation and will be specified in secondary legislation and Order in Council. For example, the arrangements will make it clear, as is standard practice, that there will be no immunity from legal suit in the case of a motor traffic offence or damage caused by a motor vehicle.

The financial implications of the Bill are minimal, and there will be little or no loss of revenue as a result of the fiscal exemptions or relief, which again will be granted by delegated legislation through the provisions in the Bill. As is standard practice for international organisations, certain taxes will be refunded in accordance with the separate arrangements between the Government and the CPA and ICRC, respectively. In response to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke—the shadow Minister kindly gave me advance warning that she would also raise it in her speech—I am happy to reconfirm that the specific arrangements will be drawn up in active consultation with the CPA and with the ICRC, respectively.

[Dame Maria Miller]

I realise that the Minister is making a Third Reading speech so it is important not to go into detail, but this element was introduced in Committee, and we did not have the advantage of a Report stage. I would like to press the Government on this particular point, because the privileges and immunities section of the Bill is clearly set out but it is important that those affected by the Bill understand that those privileges and immunities are yet to be agreed with the Government. It is important that they are agreed well in advance of being laid before Parliament, so that everybody can be sighted on what they mean in practice.

[Edward Argar]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is right. Therefore, subject to the passage of this legislation and prior to those regulations being introduced, until they come into force, they do not come into force. We will work closely with those organisations so that when those regulations are laid and approved, hopefully there will be no surprises in them because they will have worked collaboratively with us to draw them up.

The arrangements will detail the day-to-day management of the privileges and immunities granted to both organisations on a functional need basis, and other facilities. Furthermore, administration of the arrangements will be resourced from the existing resources responsible for managing privileges and immunities with international organisations in the UK.

The Bill strengthens our commitment to the work of the Commonwealth and our support of democratic legislators through our work with the CPA. It will also support the FCDO’s global humanitarian objectives, ensuring that the UK remains at the heart of an unrivalled global network for economic, diplomatic and security partnerships through our work with the ICRC.

Hon. Members raised a couple of points, which I will turn to before concluding. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for a wide ranging, informative and typically well-informed contribution. Craving your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take just a minute, as I am conscious that my hon. Friend has announced that she will not seek re-election at the next general election, and who knows whether I will get another opportunity at the Dispatch Box? Let me put on record my gratitude to her for everything she has done. She and I served together as fellow ward councillors on Westminster City Council before I was elected to this place and she was subsequently elected. She is a fierce champion for what she believes to be right for her constituents and her community, and she has demonstrated that as a councillor and leader of the council and now as a Member of Parliament. She will be hugely missed by her constituents and by this House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) asked what support His Majesty’s Government will give, beyond this legislation, to both the organisations that we are debating. His Majesty’s Government give the ICRC £48 million of core funding annually, and up to £100 million in bilateral donations. We have a long-standing and robust relationship with the ICRC and a track record of supporting it. My understanding is that we fund CPA International to the tune of £196,000, and we give CPA UK £235,000. We support them through not only this legislation and what we say in this House but tangible financial support.

In an ever more challenging global context, His Majesty’s Government and my right hon. Friend the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Secretary remain committed to working with and supporting the work of the CPA and the ICRC. This Bill gives both organisations the status in legislation that they need and deserve to continue their international operations without impediment; it reflects our commitment. I once again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. The Government continue to support the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With the leave of the House, I call Dame Maria Miller to wind up the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What steps he is taking to reduce violence in the secure youth estate.

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

The number of children in custody has fallen by nearly 70% in the last decade, but that means that those in custody are more complex; 71% of them are detained for violent offences. Although the rate of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults declined by 7% between July and September 2023, compared with the same period in 2022, the rate of assaults on staff increased. That is why all sites have a safety strategy reflecting local drivers of violence. That includes tackling the use of weapons, and training staff in conflict resolution. Much has been done, but there continues to be more to do, and we remain focused on doing it.

[Stephen Doughty]

Those strategies are clearly not working. There were 320 assaults on staff between July and September 2023, of which 24 were serious. That is a 9% increase, year on year, in assaults in the children and young people’s estate. When will the Minister put in place a proper plan to cut violence in the youth estate and keep staff safe?

[Edward Argar]

The plan we have put in place is working, but there is more to do. The hon. Gentleman highlighted statistics that, as he will accept, I acknowledged from the Dispatch Box. We believe that our approach to tackling violence and to conflict resolution in our youth estate is right, and we will continue to press forward with it to reduce rates of assault on our hard-working and dedicated prison officers and staff.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Government have decided to change the use of Cookham Wood youth offender institution to an adult prison. That follows a lack of progress in improving young people’s access to education, and increased violence on the prison estate. The behaviour management method of keeping young people in their cells has failed. This decision puts a spotlight on the wider crisis in adult prisons. When the young people are transferred, how will the Minister ensure that the practice of keeping them in their cells, and the cycle of violence, will end?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her question about Cookham Wood. As she will be aware, a number of specific local factors at work in Cookham Wood led to the urgent notification, and the challenges in addressing that. As for those young people and their transfer to other institutions, a number of them will be released before Cookham Wood closes. Those still in custody will be assessed individually, and they and their families will be engaged with to ensure that they are placed in institutions that are best suited to their needs, and that give them the greatest opportunity to progress and make positive life choices for when they are released.

[Janet Daby]

It is a shame that the Minister did not address the violence specifically. Violence is a challenge across the youth estate, not just at Cookham Wood. Recently, a girl with challenging behaviours and complex needs at Wetherby YOI was restrained and then stripped—not once, but twice—by male officers. In the context of rising violence and extreme self-harm, does the Minister believe that is acceptable, and what alternative provision does he have in mind other than the Keppel unit in Wetherby YOI?

[Edward Argar]

I did address the point about violence on the estate in response to the original question from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). The hon. Lady asked specifically about a case highlighted by the chief inspector of prisons in his recent report.What happened there was clearly against policy. It was clearly wrong and concerning, but I do have to correct her: the individual involved was at no point strip-searched. That was inaccurate reporting. At all times, the modesty of the individual was protected with a blanket, so I am afraid that what was said in reporting that it was a strip search is not correct. Clothes were removed under a blanket in order to protect life where there was imminent risk to it. Those officers made a difficult decision in the circumstances to protect life. It is right that we look into the specifics of what happened, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I have done. I think we just need to be a little cautious at this point about accepting everything that was reported as fact.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of violence against prison officers.

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

All assaults on prison staff are utterly unacceptable. That is why we have taken steps to protect our staff. I put on record something that I suspect those on both sides of the House share, which is our gratitude to all those who work in our prisons. To protect staff, we have rolled out PAVA—pelargonic acid vanillylamide—spray in adult male prisons, and body-worn video cameras. The maximum penalty for those who assault prison officers has been doubled, and we have completed our £100 million security investment programme to clamp down on the illicit items that fuel prison violence. The rate of assaults on staff in the 12 months to September 2023 was 10% lower than in the 12 months to September 2019—before the pandemic—but it is still far too high.

[Chris Elmore]

I know the Minister cares about this issue and wants to see solutions for how we protect prison officers across the prison estate, but according to the Prison Officers Association and the Community union, serious offences against prison officers are up 10% on last year. Some 750 of those assaults are deemed to be serious, and 23 attacks are being recorded every day on the prison estate across England and Wales. There are huge concerns about overcrowding. The level of prison officers is 10% lower than in 2010. It is positive to hear the Secretary of State talking about opening new prisons, but if there are no prison officers to work there, how will we resolve these issues? More worryingly, prison officers are taking to the media to say that they are frightened for their lives to work on the prison estate. I do not think the plan is working. I believe the Minister wants to fix it, but what is the next plan to resolve things and ensure that prison officers remain safe on our prison estate?

[Edward Argar]

No one, in any walk of life, should be in fear of assault at work, and that obviously includes dedicated prison officers. I have already highlighted the steps we are taking to tackle some of the root causes of that violence. We have the £100 million security measures to tackle illicit drugs and mobile phones—the sorts of things that fuel the violence—and the ability to deploy PAVA spray. The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the importance in this context of the number of prison officers. That is why I am pleased that in the latest statistics published at the end of last year, numbers are up by 1,500, and retention rates are improving, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. How many prisoners have been released early under the end of custody supervised licence scheme since October 2023.

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

End of custody supervised licence began in October 2023. Analysis of and statistics on its use will be based on one year’s worth of data and published on an annualised basis in line with other statistics, such as deaths of offenders in the community. We consider that to be the appropriate approach.

[Chris Evans]

Earlier this month, the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is in his place, said that prisons are at “bursting point”, while the Prison Governors’ Association said that without the extension of the ECSL scheme, our criminal justice system

“may have ground to a halt”.

Meanwhile, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner labelled the plans as

“dangerous to domestic abuse victims”.

Is the Minister satisfied that the scheme manages the prison population while keeping the victims of crime safe? If so, when will he release data about which prisoners have been released?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There are a number of points there. The ECSL is a response to, yes, acute capacity challenges, but it is a targeted scheme operating in prisons as required and where necessary. I gently say to him that a similar scheme ran from 2007 to 2010. In that case, it bore significant differences to what is happening now. ECSL, as operating now, contains a range of important safeguards that were simply not in place between 2007 and 2010. The 2007-10 scheme released some people straight into the community without any supervision and led to the early release of some prisoners convicted of terror offences. This scheme is totally different. It plays a role in managing the prison capacity challenges, but it has those important safeguards in place to protect victims and society.

[Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

Our prisons are full, so much so that the Government are sanctioning the early release of inmates to make space. At what point will we prioritise the deportation of foreign criminals who are taking up one in nine of our prison cells, so that we can get back to zero-tolerance policing and ensure that no crime is too small to go unpunished?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she is quite right to highlight that a key element of tackling the prison capacity crisis is sending back, through deportation, foreign national offenders. She will be reassured that 18,000 have been deported in the past four years and we continue to drive that target ever higher.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is telling that the Minister is refusing to come clean with the public on how many prisoners are being released early under the scheme. As we know, the public are overwhelmingly in favour of an early release scheme if it were applied to his colleagues in a general election. [Laughter.] Does he have any intention, before that happy day, of releasing the truth about how many prisoners are being let out early?

[Edward Argar]

It is always a pleasure to face the gentle barbs of the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time. As I have made very clear on a previous occasion in the House, and indeed just a few moments ago, we consider that an annualised publication of these statistics is the most appropriate approach, in line with the publication of similar statistics such as those relating to deaths of offenders in the community.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

12. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of legal aid for immigration cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

T6. Since 27 February, there have been six sudden deaths at HMP Parc in Bridgend, and it appears that at least four of those tragic deaths were drug-related. What are the Government doing to ensure that inmates at Parc are kept safe and walk out of prison safe and well at the end of their sentence?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting a serious and important issue. I am happy to meet her to discuss it further, if she wishes.

In line with established protocols for deaths in custody, we are not able to comment on individual cases until the relevant investigation by the prisons and probation ombudsman has concluded, but HMP and YOI Parc has mobilised a range of actions to gather intelligence on drug entry points and on what has happened. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this matter privately.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

When the National Crime Agency briefed Members who are interested in the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill, it estimated that between 550,000 and 800,000 serious sexual offenders are at large in this country. What are the Government doing to identify them? How many more prisons will we have to build to accommodate them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He is right to highlight that there are occasions when it is not possible to make all the information public, but it is important that there is as much transparency as possible. If it would be helpful, I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.

[Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)]

T10. Selby is classed by the Law Society as a legal advice desert for housing, education and family legal aid. What are the Minister’s plans to fix that?

James Bulger Murder: Public Inquiry

Edward Argar Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Henderson. At the outset, may I join right hon. and hon. Members in acknowledging the dedication and determination of Mrs Denise Fergus, James’s mother, in campaigning on this petition and successfully securing a debate on this hugely important matter through the Petitions Committee? Sadly, in this Chamber and in the main Chamber we are, on occasion, called upon to debate deeply sombre, traumatic and saddening matters, but it is right that we do so and that we cast that light upon them. I am grateful for the tone adopted by all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken; it is appropriate that this debate has been conducted in that manner.

I pay tribute to Denise Fergus for her and her family’s tireless and dignified campaign to obtain justice for her son James, who was so cruelly taken from her in February 1993 when he was just two years old. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) about the circumstances, which to this day remain shocking and harrowing. No one can fail to be shaken by them still, even after the passage of time.

The murder of James was a crime that rightly shocked the nation and continues to do so. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), highlighted the harrowing images on CCTV. I recall seeing those images when I was still at school, many years ago. I recall the dreadful inhumanity—the evil—that we all realised had taken place. I remember not just the horrendous events themselves, but the shock that they were carried out by two 10-year-old boys.

I am grateful for the recognition in the course of this debate that many of the decisions made in the context of the case were made by independent bodies: the Crown Prosecution Service, the sentencing judge and the Parole Board. I will turn to that point in a moment. As has been said, Thompson and Venables were released in 2001 on the recommendation of the Parole Board, subject to a lifelong anonymity order granted by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, to which you quite rightly drew our attention, Mr Henderson.

Thompson has remained in the community on life licence without further offence. However, Venables has twice been recalled to custody and subsequently convicted of further offences involving the possession and sharing of illegal images of children: first in 2010, when he was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, and then, having been re-released on the direction of the Parole Board in 2013, again in 2018, when he was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment. Since Venables became eligible to be considered for release on life licence, following recall, the Parole Board has found on three successive occasions, most recently in December last year, that it remains necessary on the grounds of public protection that he remain confined to custody.

Against that background, I think anyone could well understand the concerns surrounding the first release decision in 2001 and, specifically, understand and appreciate the call for a public inquiry. However, although I fully appreciate the significant concerns that have been expressed and the strength and sincerity of feelings on the issue, I am afraid that I am not today in a position to announce a public inquiry. I appreciate that that will be disappointing to those in the Public Gallery, as well as to Opposition Members. If the right hon. Member for Knowsley considers it helpful, I am open to meeting him and his hon. Friends to have a further conversation about the matters that we are debating.

As hon. Members have highlighted, the then Government commissioned the Omand review, which was published on 23 November 2010. The review did not question the decision that the Parole Board made in recommending Venables’s release in 2001, based on the evidence at that time. The review looked in considerable detail at the management of Venables and made detailed recommendations to address the shortcomings in supervision that had marked some of that period. The subsequent period of supervision, from 2013 to 2017, was consistently tight; in fact, it was the means by which the further offending came to light and a successful prosecution could subsequently be mounted.

I fully understand why the nature of that further offending gives rise to significant concerns as to whether the decisions to release Venables were defective. It may be helpful if I briefly provide a little more explanation about how the Parole Board determines whether prisoners serving life or other indeterminate sentences are released. For any offender sentenced to life imprisonment, a minimum period for that imprisonment is set for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. After the minimum term has been served, by law the prisoner may continue to be detained in custody only so long as their risk requires it—in other words, unless the prisoner’s risk can be effectively mitigated and managed in the community by means of the obligations and restrictions of a post-release licence.

Where it issues a release direction, the Parole Board is concluding that the probation service and partner agencies, taking account of the powers that arise from a post-release licence, have the means to mitigate remaining risks and so prevent the public from being exposed to undue risk. Obviously any such decision involves a judgment, and regrettably the Parole Board can never be completely certain that any prisoner it releases will not reoffend. When the Parole Board determined in 2001 that Thompson and Venables were safe to be released, it took account of risk assessments and reports provided by various professionals. By the time of their release, each had completed their minimum term.

When Venables was recalled to custody in 2010, the then Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, asked Sir David Omand, the former permanent secretary to the Home Office, to undertake a comprehensive review of the management of Venables and set the terms of reference for that review. A version of the review was published in November 2010; I say “version” because, as hon. Members will be aware, it was redacted to comply with the terms of the court anonymity order. The redacted version is available on gov.uk.

In his review Sir David noted that Venables had been detained at Red Bank secure unit, run by St Helens Borough Council. During his time at Red Bank, an allegation was made about an incident involving Venables. I am aware of the press reports speculating about the nature of that incident, but I have seen no contemporaneous official account of it. I appreciate that this will potentially be frustrating for those listening, but I therefore believe that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the basis of the press reports alone.

[Jess Phillips]

I do not think anybody here would expect that; we are not judge and jury in this building. However, as the Minister said, Jack Straw was the last person to ask for a review. If, as the Minister has outlined, he cannot commit to a full public inquiry, is there not a case for another review to look into not only Red Bank, but the period of further mistakes since 2010? All we have currently is a review covering 2001 to 2010. Surely there were errors made post that period that need some transparency.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. At the risk of potentially damaging her reputation, let me say that I have huge respect for her; I did a lot of work with her when I was the victims Minister and she held the role of shadow safeguarding Minister. I appreciate her point. Without prejudice to any decision made, I have made the offer to meet with the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I am happy to have a conversation; I hope the hon. Lady knows from our previous interactions that I do not like to raise expectations that I cannot meet, so I do not intend to do that, but I will have a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman.

The Home Office asked an experienced former prison governor, Arthur de Frisching, to look into the incident at Red Bank. It appears, some years after the event, that no formal reason was found to publish a report into the incident at the time. St Helens Borough Council observed in a public comment that all allegations had been thoroughly investigated, but no copy of that could be found in the archives of either the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice. While the terms of reference for the review began with the preparations for the release of Venables, Sir David stated that he had found nothing in the material that he considered to cast doubt on the fundamental judgments made by the Parole Board at the time that the statutory release test was deemed to be satisfied.

Venables was recalled when police officers, having arrived to escort him to a new address on account of concerns for his safety, caught him trying to remove the hard drive from his computer. That led to an investigation, which resulted in his first conviction for downloading and sharing illegal images of children. In Sir David’s report, he made a number of recommendations designed to strengthen the future management of Venables and indeed of Thompson. Those recommendations recognised that the primary responsibility for supervising Venables lay with the probation service, working closely with the police and other relevant agencies under the statutory MAPPA arrangements. In Venables’s case, that meant the key actions to manage his risks being discussed and agreed at formal meetings attended by senior representatives of the probation service and police services, as well as other highly qualified specialists such as psychiatrists.

When Venables was re-released in 2013 at the direction of the Parole Board, the board set the robust licence conditions that it considered necessary to enable the probation service and its MAPPA partners to manage him effectively, mitigate his risk and help to protect the public. There was now a clear difference between the way he had been managed in the period from 2001 to 2010, as covered by the Omand review, and the way he would be managed from 2013 onwards.

It is deeply regrettable that Venables was discovered in 2017 to have been once again downloading and sharing illegal images of children. However, unlike in 2010, his offences were quickly discovered as a direct result of the monitoring and supervision that had been put in place, and there were immediate consequences, with his return to custody. As I have set out, the Parole Board has now concluded three times that Venables remains too high-risk to be released on life licence. For his most recent review, my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary submitted an overarching Secretary of State view recommending that Venables remain in prison on account of substantial concerns over his risk of reoffending and the risk of harm to the public.

I will endeavour to respond to the specific questions from the right hon. Member for Knowsley with as much information as I can, because I believe that that is important. Before I do so, I note that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) have highlighted, in their different ways, the impact that such matters can have on victims’ trust in the system. As a former victims Minister working with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and others, I saw that at first hand. That transparency, that trust and that engagement are central to building the confidence of those who are or have been victims of crimes in the system.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley talked about notifications—or the lack thereof—of breaches. My understanding is that the supervising agencies concluded, based on a number of those breaches, that the threshold for recall to custody was not met; a recall therefore did not take place. The notification comes where a recall takes place, so because the probation officers and others did not deem the threshold for recall to have been met, there would not have been a notification. However, I am happy to take that point away and reflect on it further. The hon. Lady and I were on a Bill Committee in which we looked at the victims code, notifications and victim liaison officers; I am very happy to have another reflection on that.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will answer two further points and then give way to the shadow Minister.

On transparency, we have made progress since the original Parole Board hearings and the original case. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree for highlighting the steps forward. Victims may now apply for a summary of a board decision; they can also apply for the hearing to be held in public. Discretion still rests with the chair of the Parole Board, who takes into account a range of factors, but there is now the opportunity for a public hearing to be requested and potentially granted in the interests of transparency.

On the shadow Minister’s point about the powers to challenge decisions and suchlike, in July 2019 the Parole Board rules were changed to allow the Secretary of State to apply for the reconsideration of a release decision. Victims of crime and the families of victims of crime can also now make representations to the Secretary of State as to why they should put forward an overarching Secretary of State view calling for the Parole Board to reconsider or not release.

[Alex Cunningham]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for answering the point I raised. I want to go back to the 70 referrals. I accept that they were referrals, rather than confirmed breaches. However, even if 10 or 15 of those referrals were considered to be breaches of his licence, although they may well have been minor, do they not have a roll-up effect, where he is constantly breaching or being referred for breaches, and therefore more serious consideration should have been taken?

[Edward Argar]

The context in which I addressed that was the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley about notifications and thresholds. Those previous breaches—where, cumulatively, there is a breach and another breach—may not bring about a recall, but a probation officer managing the case will look at all those cumulatively in judging whether, when a further breach occurs or anything along those lines, there is a pattern of behaviour. I am wary of speculating on the individual decision making of an individual probation officer, because I will not know what factors they will have taken into account in an individual case, but they do consider those matters.

There were five specific questions raised by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I will try, in so far as I can, to give him some answers, or more information than perhaps is already out there. First, he asked about the evidence presented at the trial. The police and Crown Prosecution Service, which are independent of Government, will have put all relevant evidence to Preston Crown court that they believed was material to securing a conviction when Venables and Thompson were tried for James’s murder.

The specific question of whether particular pieces of evidence should have been presented to the court, and what was or was not is, I am afraid, a matter for the police and ultimately for the prosecution lawyers in building that case on how they determined what evidence to present to secure the conviction they wanted to secure. That would be a matter for the CPS. With the caveat that I recognise and put on the record the independence of the CPS’s decision making and how it conducts the case, I am of course happy to highlight the points made here today to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, who, as hon. Members will be aware, have oversight of the CPS.

[Jess Phillips]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir George Howarth]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then the right hon. Gentleman.

[Jess Phillips]

I apologise if this was what my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley was going to say. We all know the CPS has to build the best case for getting a conviction, and some things will get left out and some things will not. But when the sexual element is left out in a court case, how can the public be certain that it is taken account of in a parole hearing? If the sexual crimes had definitely featured in the court case, the sexual crime element would have been part of the consideration in parole; that is the disconnect that we are concerned about.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As I say, the decisions on what to include are ultimately down to the prosecuting counsel and prosecuting lawyers from the CPS, but I will touch on those aspects when addressing a further question posed by the right hon. Member for Knowsley in a moment.

[Sir George Howarth]

The point my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) was making is that, had that information been available at the time and during the trial, subsequent decisions that had to be made would have taken on a whole new light. She accepts and I accept—I think we all accept—that the judiciary is independent and that prosecutors should be able to decide what evidence they use, but in this particular case that omission could have led, and probably did lead, to decisions being made in later years that would otherwise have been different.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will come on to address, to a degree, that specific point. Notwithstanding how the CPS and how the case itself was conducted and what evidence was used, when recommending the release in 2001, I am advised that the Parole Board would have been given all relevant information. However, I will undertake further inquiries to see whether it is possible to ascertain this far down the line and within what I can reveal publicly, what that might have constituted. In 2013, the Parole Board did of course have full details of Venables’s conviction for downloading and possessing illegal images of children, and it was therefore able to take that into consideration when considering the risk of sexual harm that he presented to children.

In the second question from the right hon. Member for Knowsley—he is always welcome to correct me if I miss one of his questions out—he asked whether Venables’s sexual interest in children was missed by all the experts, or whether it was known. Again, having discussed it with my officials, my understanding is that prior to his recall in connection to possessing illegal images of children in 2010, the supervising agencies were not aware of Venables’s sexual interest in children. However, they were aware of his broader risk to children, obviously arising in large part from the horrendous events of the murder of James, and that risk was then central to their ongoing management of him.

The third question posed by the right hon. Gentleman was whether proper consideration was given at the trial and at later parole hearings to the attempted abduction of another child earlier on the day that James was tragically murdered. Premeditation is relevant when it comes to any conviction for murder, as a necessity for securing the conviction. As hon. Members would expect, it falls to the CPS and the sentencing judge to consider that factor. I understand that the parole reviews in 2001 and 2013 proceeded on the basis that Venables had been lawfully convicted of murder and of the premeditation and planning involved in that. The Parole Board release decision in 2013 records the board’s awareness and consideration of attempted abductions earlier in the day.

As to the question of whether Thompson and Venables were pronounced to be rehabilitated in order to avoid them entering adult custody, I should clarify for hon. and right hon. Members that it is not the role of the Parole Board to pronounce an offender rehabilitated. Instead, it is constrained to applying the statutory release test when considering whether someone should be released—that is, whether it is necessary on the grounds of public protection for the offender to remain confined in custody, based on available evidence.

I appreciate that that may appear to be a legal splitting of hairs, but there is a slight and subtle difference in the statutory release test about whether there is a necessity on public protection grounds for someone to remain in custody or whether they are deemed to be rehabilitated and a reformed citizen. There is a legal differentiation there. Therefore, in recommending their release in 2001, the Parole Board determined, on the basis of its judgment, that the risks that Thompson and Venables presented were capable of being managed effectively in the community through the restrictions and prohibitions available through the life licence.

Finally, the right hon. Member for Knowsley asked whether representations were made by Lord Chief Justice Woolf to the Parole Board. I asked my officials to look into that and advise, and I can advise all hon. Members that I am not aware that any representations were made by the Lord Chief Justice to the Parole Board. At the time, Thompson and Venables were sentenced to life imprisonment. It fell to the Home Secretary of the day to set their tariff, or how long they would serve, taking account of a recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice. Therefore, any recommendations from the Lord Chief Justice regarding the tariff would have been made to the Home Secretary. In respect of the parole question, having asked again and looked into it, I am not aware that any such representations were made—I caveat that by saying that I have answered to the extent of my knowledge.

I will end my contribution by again paying tribute to Mrs Fergus for not only her tireless campaigning for James, but her determination, as reflected in the statements read out by various right hon. and hon. Members, to make a difference in the future, to help people to learn the lessons and to support young people by setting up the James Bulger Memorial Trust, which provides holidays and respite for families of disadvantaged young people who have been the victims of crime, hatred or bullying, and those who have made a positive contribution to the welfare of others or society in general. The charity’s motto is “For James”, as Denise rightly wants him to be remembered positively as

“the beautiful little boy with the big sparkling smile”,

and not for how his short life ended.

I conclude this sombre debate by once again paying tribute to the dignity and the courage of Denise and her family, to the right hon. Member for Knowsley for securing this debate and approaching it in his typically measured, courteous and appropriate tone, and indeed to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. This debate is a testimony to Denise’s resilience and determination, and above all to her abiding love for James. I hope I will be able to continue the conversations around this matter with the right hon. Gentleman and others.

Prevention of Future Deaths Report: Terance Radford

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing a debate on this important issue. It is, as we have all seen, inevitably a sad debate, given the nature of the tragic events we are discussing.

First, I express my deepest sympathy to the hon. Member’s constituents and to Mr Radford’s family and friends. I want to highlight, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), did, the dignity that they have shown throughout what has been an horrific set of circumstances. The circumstances of Terance’s—Terry’s—death are truly terrible, and my thoughts are with them and the rest of his family. I also extend my sympathies to the other victims of Mr Collins’s crimes that day.

The hon. Member for Ashfield has rightly been tenacious in raising and pursuing this matter, and I am conscious that, prior to my appointment to my role in November 2023, he engaged with my predecessor. I have taken the time to read carefully his extensive correspondence with the previous Ministers.

The circumstances of this crime, and the other serious offences committed on 19 April 2019, are not just deeply troubling but deeply upsetting. I am grateful to the coroner for her work in highlighting areas in the home detention curfew policy, as it was at the time, that require action. That helps to ensure that we have updated, improved policies and practices in place to help prevent things like this from happening again.

I note the shadow Minister’s points, but I am going to focus on the specifics of the case, rather than ranging more widely into the broader political sphere. We took the findings and recommendations in the coroner’s report extremely seriously. I will explain the Government’s actions in response, although I fully appreciate that those will not lessen in any way the pain and the loss to Terry’s family and friends. I acknowledge that the internal investigation into the case identified errors and failures, which it is also important for me to speak about.

It may be helpful for me to say a little about the home detention curfew scheme, or HDC, under which Collins was released. It has been in place for over two decades, having been created and introduced in 1999 by the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw. It is a tool in successfully managing the transition of eligible offenders from custody back into the community. It does so by enabling certain prisoners to be released before their normal automatic release date while remaining subject to significant restrictions on their liberty, including a curfew, which is monitored by electronic tag. The scheme is limited to certain types of offenders: all sexual and serious violent offenders, for example, are excluded from it, as are those subject to Parole Board release. Offenders are required to undergo a robust risk assessment to ensure they are released only if there is a plan in place to manage them safely in the community.

I am sorry to say that, having looked into this case following the hon. Gentleman’s tabling of the debate, the process in Collins’s case was clearly found to have fallen short of what was expected and what people had a right to expect. Although the offences for which Collins was serving his sentence were correctly identified as eligible and suitable for HDC, the risk management planning was undertaken without all the relevant information being obtained, as the hon. Gentleman has highlighted. That included information about the mental health of Mr Collins at the time. I will say a little more about the investigation and its findings.

Protecting the public must be our overriding priority, and it is therefore right to keep HDC policy and practice under review, to ensure that it remains as robust and safe as possible. Of course, that must mean learning lessons and taking action when something goes tragically wrong, as it did on this occasion. Every failure or serious incident committed by someone who has been released on HDC is, rightly, taken incredibly seriously, and what happened in the case of Terry’s death was truly appalling.

I should have mentioned at the beginning that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for painting a very human picture and making this House, and those following our proceedings, very much aware that this is a real person. This was someone who served his community, served his country, and was much loved by his family and friends. He was only going about his normal daily life, which he should have been able to enjoy peacefully. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making this a very human story and bringing that across in our debate.

We have taken actions to investigate what happened and address the concerns raised by the coroner. I would never wish in any way to detract—in what I say or in the lessons learned—from the huge impact that that has clearly had.

I will turn now to the lessons learned from the prevention of future deaths report. The report raised three central concerns about the HDC policy that was in place at the time of Collins’s release. First, the coroner —I pay tribute to His Majesty’s coroner, then Her Majesty’s coroner, for the work on this—highlighted that the prisoner in this case, at the time he was released on HDC, was being held in prison segregation due to his poor conduct in custody and concerns about the risks he might present to others in the prison, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Ashfield in his remarks. The coroner rightly raised concerns about release in that context and, as a result, we have since taken action to address that issue.

The policy framework has been amended to ensure that those in segregation are not released on HDC unless the most senior governor in the prison, the governing governor, has specifically considered those circumstances and determined that the offender can be safely managed in the community. It is now the policy that no one is released on HDC directly from segregation, unless the risks have been explicitly considered and a decision actively made at the time of release that HDC remains a safe and appropriate route.

Secondly, the report highlighted that the policy at the time required decision makers to consider the risks that the offender might present to those at the proposed curfew address, but not to the public more widely. Rightly, changes have been made to address that, too. The policy now in place requires that, when considering a prisoner for release on HDC, account must be taken of the risks presented overall to people in the community, not just those at the address the offender is going to. It has been made clear that those wider, more general risks must form part of the process of determining whether an offender is safe to be released on HDC.

Thirdly, concerns were raised that the HDC policy contained insufficient guidance on the need to share information properly between the various agencies and professionals involved in managing releases. I fully agree that such information sharing is vital to ensuring that any risks or concerns about a potential release are picked up and acted on. Therefore, again, the policy framework has strengthened the requirement to draw on information from all relevant departments of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and from external agencies, including the police and social services, when making such HDC decisions. Again, it has been made clear that prisoners are not to be released on HDC if any important risk-management information is missing. The failings—let us call them what they are—and tragic circumstances of this case underline the importance of prisons, probation and the wider system working together to ensure the safe release of prisoners on HDC while maintaining public protection.

The hon. Member for Ashfield, entirely understandably, asks about the officers at HMP Ranby involved in this case, and the decision to release Collins on HDC. A thorough internal HMPPS investigation was conducted by senior managers into the release of Collins and the decisions leading up to his release on HDC, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted. That investigation concluded that Collins should not have been released from on HDC from HMP Ranby in April 2019, as the decision to release was not in line with HMPPS policy—I have already highlighted that not all relevant information about risk had been obtained to inform that decision.

The investigation also found that, as Collins had been subjected to adjudication proceedings, the HDC process should have been paused to allow those proceedings to take place. It also made a number of recommendations about policy and practice that have been taken forward, in addition to the changes I have described to the national policy framework to strengthen the approach to assessments, information sharing and decision making on HDC.

In the light of the investigation, HMPPS did decide that there were sufficient grounds to bring disciplinary proceedings against staff at the prison. As part of any internal disciplinary process, if the investigator finds any evidence that a criminal offence could have been committed, the matter is referred to the police to investigate. No evidence of criminal conduct by the three members of staff at HMP Ranby was found, so the matter was not handed to the police.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the police in that context. I am conscious that he will be aware that the police operate independently of the Government and indeed of the Home Office, their sponsoring Department, for want of a better way of putting it, and they make their own decisions. I am sure that his point will have been heard in that context, and I suspect that, knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, he will have communicated those points directly to Nottinghamshire Police on behalf of his constituents. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that, absent criminal proceedings or public trial, there has been no public process around this.

Concluding that there was no evidence of criminal conduct, HMPPS then took action under its own disciplinary proceedings. I appreciate the points the hon. Member for Ashfield makes, and I understand why he makes them. Although it pains me, I am legally unable to disclose the details of those disciplinary proceedings, as I am advised that to do so would be acting in breach of the law. I totally appreciate and understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes as, prior to taking this portfolio in November of last year, I served for a number of years as the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. I appreciate the importance of closure and of people being able to move on, even in a tiny way.

That said, I am sure that the process and decisions in this case have been looked to very carefully by senior officials in HMPPS. Following the hon. Gentleman’s securing of this debate, as well as the research I have done and the information I have asked to be provided with for it, it is an issue I intend to return to with my officials. I will continue to look into the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If it is helpful to the hon. Gentleman, I offer him a meeting with relevant senior HMPPS officials and me to discuss how that disciplinary process works and the legal implications of it. I suspect he would rightly put across his point there courteously but firmly. If he indicates that is helpful, I would be happy to have that conversation with him. I appreciate it will not go anywhere near as far as he may wish, but it may none the less be of some help. I leave that offer with him.

[Lee Anderson]

I completely understand that the Minister would be breaking the law to tell us what sort of disciplinary measures were taken on the three governors. However, can the Minister confirm whether the three governors are still working in the Prison Service?

[Edward Argar]

I am afraid, as I have said, I am unable to give any details on the nature of that disciplinary process in the Chamber. I hear everything the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope he will take up the offer of a conversation. That is his choice, and I will respect whatever decision he makes on that.

We take our responsibility to keep the public safe very seriously. Where there have been lessons to learn from horrific and tragic cases such as this, where the most horrendous outcome has occurred, we have taken decisive action to address and respond to the issues raised. I am incredibly grateful for the contributions to this debate, for its tone, and for the approach adopted by the hon. Member for Ashfield. I repeat my heartfelt condolences to Terry’s family and friends, who have suffered so terribly. I reiterate my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and allowing us to cast a light on important issues that are of great concern both to those in the Chamber and more widely. I hope he will consider the offer of conversation.

Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2024

Edward Argar Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2024.

In October 2023, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made a statement on prison capacity and, in that context, set out that the Government would review the use of recall to ensure that the system was working effectively and to consider how best to strike the appropriate balance between safely managing any risk posed by offenders and not having people in prison on recall for longer than necessary for that objective. This statutory instrument reflects that.

This Government stand on our record. We have increased sentences for causing death by dangerous driving, for causing or allowing the death of a child, and for assaulting emergency workers. We have ended automatic release for the worst offenders; now, serious sexual and violent criminals serve at least two thirds of their sentence in custody and the most dangerous spend the entirety of their sentence behind bars. We are ensuring that life means life. For the most disgusting and depraved killers, we are changing the law, to make whole-life orders the default sentence. As the Lord Chancellor announced in an oral statement to the House on 16 October, we are changing the law so that rapists and those convicted of equivalent sexual offences spend every day of the custodial part of their sentence in prison, where they cannot be a danger to the public.

This Government are increasing sentences for the worst offenders, while at the same time ensuring that short prison sentences do not ruin the redeemable. We are building the modern prison places needed to turn offenders’ lives around for good, which helps to bring down crime in the longer term and means that fewer victims are created. We are also taking action to ensure that we have enough prison places in the future to continue upholding our duty to protect the public.

Recall—the focus of this SI—is a preventive measure available to the probation service to bring back to custody an offender managed on licence in the community following their release from prison. In the period from 2017 to 2023, the number of people in prison on recall rose by 85% and the average time an offender spent in custody following recall increased by about half. That is due to a number of different factors, including increased numbers of released offenders serving longer determinate sentences, changes to offender behaviour and more offenders being recalled on a standard—that is, indefinite—rather than a fixed-term basis and subsequently spending longer back in custody while waiting for a release decision from the Parole Board, if not the Secretary of State. Probation officers can recall offenders for a range of reasons, including procedural reasons, and these could suggest that their risk while on licence had increased. Examples include failing to keep in touch, missing their curfew, being under the influence of alcohol if licence conditions prohibit that, and failing to reside at their agreed residence.

When recalled, offenders can be issued with a fixed-term recall of 14 days if they are serving a sentence of under 12 months, or of 28 days if they are serving a sentence of over 12 months, after which they are released automatically. Alternatively, offenders can be issued with a standard recall, which means that they are liable to remain in custody until the end of their sentence, unless they are subsequently cleared to be released sooner by the Secretary of State or the Parole Board.

For those serving short sentences, the reality is that there is often too little time for these reviews to take place before the end of their sentence and, as a result, offenders may be held in custody for longer than is actually necessary to protect the public and are then released at the end of their sentence without any licence conditions or the support crucial for rehabilitation and successful resettlement in the community. The period of release prior to the automatic sentence end can be crucial for managing and understanding risk and for achieving reintegration through the conditions of a licence.

Let me be clear: the draft instrument before us today is not a measure that means that prisoners will be released before they have served the part of their custodial sentence required by law. It is a largely technical measure to address recent changes of practice that we have seen in the recall system. It will help to rebalance the application of fixed term and standard recall and in doing so help restore a degree of proportionality in recall decisions and, crucially, give greater clarity and guidance to probation staff.

Since 2017 we have seen a 20 percentage point reduction in the use of fixed-term recall in the wider recall population, and a 27 percentage point reduction in the use of fixed-term recalls in the fewer than 12 months cohort. Given the rises in time spent on recall and the overall recall population, it is right that through this statutory instrument we offer greater clarity to probation practitioners on how we expect fixed-term recall to be used and to provide the legislative backing to give them certainty around the change.

The fixed-term recall order will apply to lower-level offenders who are aged 18 or over serving custodial sentences of fewer than 12 months and who are assessed as requiring recall.

[Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Minister speaks of lower-level crimes and earlier spoke of some very serious crimes. At what point will there be a threshold to determine what is lower level and what is more serious? Will there be guidance for the officials who decide which crime is lower level, and how will that decision be made?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that key point. I will conclude the remarks I was making and then address it.

The cohort of offenders that I have referred to will now be recalled to custody for a fixed period of 14 days and will then be re-released into the community—again, with licence conditions to mitigate risk. They will remain eligible for re-recall by probation at any time should their risk become unmanageable or concerning in the community.

To my right hon. Friend’s point, the order will not apply to higher-risk offenders who are managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements at levels 2 or 3, or who have been charged with a serious further offence under schedule 18 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The sorts of crimes listed under schedule 18 include—these are under the Offences against the Person Act 1861—threats to kill, malicious wounding, abandoning children and causing bodily injury by explosives. There is a whole range, but that gives my right hon. Friend their tenor and they are already listed in the schedule.

In such circumstances the offender will be eligible for a longer recall period and, if appropriate, will be remanded in custody. It is important to remember that this order applies only to those who have received a custodial sentence of fewer than 12 months, which also acts as a filter. Those who have committed the most serious crimes, such as violent and sexual crimes, will almost certainly—not always, but mostly—have received a much tougher custodial sentence reflecting the severity of their crime and thereby excluding themselves from consideration in these measures.

In conclusion, I want to express our deep gratitude for the efforts of all those working in the criminal justice system, including prisons, probation and the police. They deserve huge credit for their enormous commitment and professionalism. This draft instrument is a measure to address the recent changes of practice in the recall system, which is reflected in the fixed-term recall approach introduced in 2008. It will help rebalance the application of fixed term and standard recall and enable the system to work effectively, ensuring that we do not have people in prison on recall for longer than necessary, and it will allow probation to apply the licence conditions to manage risk in the community. This is a proportionate and reasonable measure. I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire and to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, for their contributions. She and I may gently, hopefully politely, tussle with one another, whether in Committee or in the House, but she knows that I have a lot of respect for her. I want to put on the record at the outset my gratitude to the staff of the probation service, as the hon. Lady did.

I am afraid, however, that I have to correct the premise on which she built a large part of her speech. It is already the case that recall is 14 days for sentences under 12 months. This SI is not halving it from 28 days—that applies only to sentences of over 12 months. It is already 14 days for sentences under 12 months. Of course, that comes from the ability to have fixed-term recalls that was put in place by the Labour Government in 2008. Having standard and fixed-term recalls is a sensible measure, actually, and in a sense I welcome what they did then, but this is about making that work.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth talked about what would happen and whether it would put undue pressure on probation staff, which could see people released without sufficient time for their risk or licence conditions to be considered. I would make the point that these people would already be automatically released at this point. What we are talking about is what happens subsequently, should they breach any of the conditions on their licence.

The hon. Lady also raised broader points about the probation service, such as its capacity and how it is working. She and I are united in our respect and gratitude to the probation service for what they do; I do not think there will be any dispute between us on that. Where there may be a dispute, however, is in highlighting what we have done to address the workload of the probation service. In fact, we have had 4,000 new trainee probation officers going through the system since April 2020, who are being trained up and coming into the workforce, so we are supporting the service with staff. We are investing in community payback and in the probation service, with an extra £155 million. Of course, we are doubling the number of GPS tags that are being put in place. Alongside that, as the hon. Lady would expect, I am also looking at the workload of probation officers to see whether it contributes to rehabilitation and public protection. Those are hugely important tasks, and I want officers to be able to focus on those and their statutory obligations. I am also looking at the workload as a whole, and whether officers are doing things that do not contribute to those outcomes and that, therefore, they might not need to be doing.

On prison building, again, I would say to the hon. Lady that we have built two new prisons, with a third one being built, and I would very gently point to the track record of the last Labour Government, who promised three Titan prisons, providing 7,500 places. Did they build them? I am afraid they did not. The difference is that this is a Government who are actually getting on with building new prisons and, of course, providing new prison places—not just by building new prisons, but through rapid deployment cells and new house blocks on existing sites.

The hon. Lady talked about the Sentencing Bill and tried to tempt me to stray into territory that is, perhaps more properly, that of the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip. All I will say is that having known a number of Government Chief Whips well over the years, I am pleased that that is their job and not mine. I would not presume to respond on something that is more properly a matter for them.

I believe that what we are doing here is right. It is proportionate, and it is a sensible and pragmatic measure. The hon. Lady mentioned reoffending rates. Again, I have to say, in 2011-2012, rates were 31.3%; in 2021-2022, they were down to 25.2%. Reoffending rates are coming down, rather than going up. We are clear that there is always more to do, and that is why this Government have set out a clear programme to increase the capacity of our prisons and ensure that capacity pressures are addressed. This measure puts in place a pragmatic step to ensure we restore a degree of proportionality to the difference between fixed term and standard recall.

Question put and agreed to.

Social Media Access in Prisons

Edward Argar Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

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

As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. You will be reassured to know that I do not intend to take all the time available and speak until 10.30 pm, but I am genuinely pleased that in a debate of such significance we have enough time to address the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), whom I congratulate on securing it.

I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathies for my hon. Friend’s constituent Zoey McGill, the bereaved mother of Jack. For Jack’s murderer to have been allegedly using TikTok in prison is sickening, and no parent should have to suffer in this way. That is one of the reasons I stand at the Dispatch Box this evening to respond to my hon. Friend and explain how the Government plan to prevent such incidents from happening in the future.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

How can I say no to the hon. Gentleman?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said that the video had been made in prison, and the other people involved were in prison. Surely, given the clear evidential base, there must be a methodology enabling the governor to take this person to task and impose sanctions to ensure that he spends a longer time in prison.

[Edward Argar]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, because I will turn to that specific point. However, I want to begin by highlighting the close interest that my hon. Friend has taken in this horrific case on behalf of his constituent. As we all know, he is unfailingly courteous, diligent and passionate as a constituency Member, when acting and speaking on behalf of his constituents, but I think he would acknowledge that however diligent he is in relation to all cases, some cases have a real impact on an individual Member of Parliament, and I suspect that this is one of them. He and I have spoken about this case on a number of occasions, and I pay tribute to his work on behalf of his constituent, but I can reassure the House that no sooner did it hit his desk than it hit my own desk and my mobile phone.

I also thank my hon. Friend for raising the extremely important and challenging issue of knife crime—a crime that destroys lives and, so often, not just the lives of those who are not carrying knives and who end up as innocent victims. We also need to remember, and to remind people, that those who carry knives are at serious risk of being victims themselves. The Government take the threat posed by knife crime incredibly seriously, as has been demonstrated by our investment of £170 million since 2019 alone on prevention and enforcement initiatives in the 20 policing areas where violent crime is most prominent. That includes Northumbria, which covers Newcastle, Sunderland, and the surrounding area. Through those initiatives, an estimated 136,000 violent offences across the country have been prevented in the first three years of their operation. As a result of these efforts, together with the broader Home Office serious violence strategy, 120,000 weapons have been removed from Britain’s streets, and knife crime is now 7% below pre-pandemic levels.

I also want to acknowledge the important work of the North East Knife Crime Taskforce. I am aware of the vital work that it does—not least from the representations made to me by my hon. Friend—and of how it brings together victims’ families, representatives of sports clubs, teachers and people from across the criminal justice system to share ideas and forward-thinking strategies to help prevent lives from being lost on our streets. This relatively new organisation, founded last year, has been set up and driven by that national institution The Northern Echo and by brave local parents, including Zoey McGill. Let me take a moment to pay tribute to her for her dignity in the face of a terrible tragedy, and her willingness to put herself out there to try to make a difference and prevent this from happening to other families. In that vein, I should recognise, as my hon. Friend did, Theresa on behalf of Chris, Samantha’s family and friends, and Tanya on behalf of Connor.

As constituency Members of Parliament and as a House, we owe a huge debt to those who have suffered the most unthinkable things, but who want to make a difference and prevent them from happening to anyone else. Tackling knife crime and preventing future victims is a policy area led by my colleagues in the Home Office, but I will be very happy to work with my hon. Friend and Home Office colleagues to see what can be done to work with the taskforce.

My hon. Friend rightly mentioned that Jack Woodley’s murderer allegedly being able to access social media potentially undermines the criminal justice system and, of course, torments the families of victims. That is clearly unacceptable, which is why my Department has invested in the digital media investigations unit. As soon as it spots or is alerted to prisoner misuse of social media, it acts swiftly to work with social media companies to have the content taken down. In the case of Jack’s murderer, the team did just that: they quickly and thoroughly investigated that social media misuse, and successfully worked with TikTok to remove the content—and, indeed, the account—within three hours of it coming to our attention. I appreciate that this will frustrate my hon. Friend, but I must be a bit cautious about speaking about the details of that specific case in the public forum of the Floor of the House.

We are clear that there are robust systems in place to prevent and address poor behaviour in prisons, including serious rule breaking. Under section 40D(3A) of the Prison Act 1952, those caught with a mobile phone can face referral to the police and extra custodial time for the offence of possessing a communications device in a prison without authorisation, while those who are caught smuggling in phones can face the same consequences under section 40B(1)(a) of the same Act. As the Minister responsible for prisons, I am increasingly concerned by photos and videos from custody being shared on social media. Such content traumatises victims, can intimidate prison staff and threatens the security of our prisons. It is indeed a critical issue, and I recognise the impact that this type of online material can have on victims of crime and their families.

In separate cases from those mentioned by my hon. Friend, I was made aware that a parent whose son had been murdered contacted His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service after seeing photos on social media that were posted from prison by their son’s murderer. HMPPS reported the content to the platform in question but, regrettably, it remained online. In another example, the victim of an assault contacted HMPPS about a video of their attacker in prison, who talked for almost 15 minutes about the offence and was disparaging about the victim. Again, HMPPS reported the video to the platform on which it was hosted but, regrettably, it remained online. I cannot imagine the distress that seeing those posts must have caused.

As my hon. Friend stated, we cannot allow prisoners to use illegal phones to engage in criminality from behind bars. The Ministry of Justice has a zero-tolerance approach to illegal phones, and prisoners caught smuggling illicit items can and, rightly, do face extra time behind bars, a loss of privileges and other sanctions. The most serious crimes, including those where a mobile phone has been used for criminal activity or identified as belonging to a prisoner who is a high-risk offender, are also referred to the police, in line with the crime in prison referral agreement. We have a commitment from the Crown Prosecution Service that it will always seek to prosecute in serious cases. Moreover, prisoners are not permitted to have unsupervised access to the internet or any access to social media. Again, they can be punished if they access the internet without authorisation. Under national policy, prisoners can only access the internet in a supervised environment, and only for rehabilitative purposes.

We are clear that harmful social media content posted from prison should not have a home online and that we need to take effective action to remove it. Clearly, the current legislation does not quite go far enough, which is why the Government are committed to supporting the Prison Media Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher). The Bill tackles the issue of harmful media, such as videos and images created within, or showing the inside of, prisons, being uploaded to social media platforms by strengthening existing legislation—namely, the Prison Act 1952. Crucially, the Bill would close existing loopholes, because although it is currently illegal for a person to upload content from inside a prison, it is not yet illegal for a person in the community to upload media that they have been sent by someone in custody. This means that social media companies need to try to establish whether content was uploaded from inside a prison, to determine whether it is unlawful.

The Bill would make the uploading of all unauthorised prison content illegal, regardless of whether it is uploaded from within a prison or from within the community. The Bill will also address loopholes around the creation of prison content. While it is currently illegal to film inside a prison, the law is not clear that it is illegal to film the inside of a prison from the outside—for example, by drone—or to film staff from outside the prison walls. For example, videos taken from above by drone can pose security risks by showing the lay-out of buildings in detail as well as the movement of staff and prisoners, thereby helping prisoners to smuggle in drugs or weapons. The Bill provides a solution to these issues by making it an offence to create or upload unauthorised media of the inside of a prison from outside or of prison workers on prison land. These measures will remove any ambiguity and bring the law up to date.

This is a wide-ranging problem with real-world impacts. I have mentioned a just few examples today, but in 2022 and 2023 combined, HMPPS identified and reported over 1,200 pieces of harmful prison content. The Bill will support the work of HMPPS’s specialist digital media investigations unit that I have already referenced. Last year this Government passed the Online Safety Act 2023, placing world-first legal duties on social media platforms to protect the public from harmful online material. If this additional Bill passes, we will explore how content created of or inside prisons could be added to the list of priority illegal content in the Online Safety Act, meaning that social media companies would be required by law to proactively remove it.

My hon. Friend touched on the significant investment already made by the Department in stopping mobile phones being smuggled into the prison estate. We finished delivering our £100 million security investment programme in March 2022. We continue to adapt and develop our countermeasures to tackle new methods as they emerge. That investment included the deployment of 75 additional X-ray body scanners, allowing staff to see whether prisoners are smuggling illegal contraband, including phones, internally. This means that we have the ability in every single closed adult male prison to detect illicit items via X-ray. This is particularly important as some phones, known as micro-mobiles, are no bigger than a matchbox. They are small, easily concealed and hard to detect. Between July 2020 and October 2023, the X-ray body scanners have recorded 46,925 positive indications, helping to tackle the supply of mobile phones and drugs into prisons.

The programme also delivered airport-style enhanced gate security at 42 high-risk prison sites across the private and public prison estate, implementing routine searching of staff and visitors. This investment paid for 659 specialist staff, 154 drugs dogs and more than 200 pieces of equipment, including archway and handheld metal detectors. These are vital tools in stopping mobile phones and SIM cards circulating in our prisons. We have procured, developed and installed a variety of detection and other mobile phone technologies across the estate, targeting prisoners that represent the highest risk of harm through illicit phone use.

I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I always try to be as open as I can in this public forum, but I cannot go into in as much detail as he would wish about the specifics of what the equipment does, where it is deployed or the extent of its capability, or disclose suppliers due to security and commercial sensitivities and to protect the tactics involved. It is vital that those seeking to undermine our defences are not given any information that helps them to do so, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend separately and privately to discuss this area in more detail and hopefully provide him with further reassurance about our capabilities in this respect. He mentioned virtual reality, and that is an area I will look into further. We will consider the merits of potential options that would allow for VR delivery in regard to the training and rehabilitation of prisoners.

As my hon. Friend highlighted, in October 2023 we also introduced new legislation to crack down on criminals using drones to deliver contraband including mobile phones into prisons. The new airspace restrictions make it an automatic offence to fly drones within 400 metres of any closed prison or young offender institution in England and Wales. Drone operators who break the rules could face fines of up to £2,500, while those found smuggling illicit items will face up to 10 years in prison. These restrictions mean that police and prison staff can quickly identify suspicious drones and take action against suspected criminal activity, including the illegal filming of prison establishments. We are also investing in a new digital forensics unit to interrogate devices smuggled into jails, to produce improved evidence that is more likely to bring a successful prosecution in court.

Of course, as my hon. Friend said, there is fundamentally no need for a prisoner to be in possession of a mobile phone. The last installations of landlines across all closed public sector prisons in England and Wales are due to be completed this month. These phones are installed in prisoners’ cells to enable closer family ties and to improve safety on wings where payphones on landings were previously used. A PIN is used to access a prisoner’s account, and credit must be purchased in advance. The calls are restricted to security-cleared numbers and are outgoing only. Furthermore, since 2020, all prisons across England and Wales are able to offer social video calls with approved family members and friends, in addition to existing means of contact including social visits, phone calls and letters.

I commend my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of how young offenders can engage positively with a wide range of rehabilitative endeavours, such as music, helping them to move away from criminality and to rebuild their lives.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) mentioned books, and he alluded to an example from when our parties were in coalition in 2014. He is right to highlight the importance of books but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, we need to exercise a degree of caution. I had the privilege of visiting HMP Leicester last week, and I saw its amazing prison library and the work it does with the Shannon Trust and the National Literacy Trust. I have about 2,000 books cluttering my house, but we all know the power of books to give people new ideas and new opportunities to make a positive start.

I echo the views of my hon. Friend: sentencing has five objectives, one of which is to deter people from committing crime, and depriving people of their liberty represents a significant deterrent. Of course, those sentenced to custody are paying a debt to society and to the people they offended against. Prison also protects the public by keeping in custody those convicted by the courts.

The core role of protecting the public from serious offenders should also extend to giving those in custody a positive choice not to pursue a lawless life but to set out on the straight and narrow. This means that they do not reoffend, which means fewer victims of crime in all the communities we represent. It is important that we recognise that creating and uploading social media content from within prison does not form part of that rehabilitative journey. I urge colleagues across the House to close the loophole by supporting the Prison Media Bill’s Second Reading on Friday.

I pay tribute to Zoey and others who have seen their families ripped apart by the horror of knife crime and other violent crime. They will know that, in my hon. Friend, they have a fantastic champion and a genuinely caring and dogged advocate in this House. I believe we have made significant progress, but there is always more to do, and we are determined to do it.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the rapid deployment community payback pilots.

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

It is a pleasure to respond to my first question from the hon. Gentleman since his election.

As part of the Government’s antisocial behaviour action plan, community payback teams are working in partnership with 11 local authorities to rapidly clean up antisocial behaviour in the community. The pilots started in July 2023, and we are in the process of analysing the outcomes. Initial observations point to the pilots having been successful, with thousands of hours of reparative work being done by hundreds of people on probation within 48 hours of local authority notification, allowing the public to see justice done.

[Alistair Strathern]

These rapid-deployment community payback scheme pilots were supposed to pave the way for the accelerated roll-out of exactly the kind of swift, transparent restorative justice that victims of crime in my constituency are desperate to see. Unfortunately, I understand that, of a planned 20,000 hours of work, only 2,000 hours have been delivered by the pilots. Can the Minister reveal whether that is the case? If so, what can be learned from the clear barriers to success?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the clue is in the word “pilot.” These pilots were carried out in 11 areas, over three months, in the run-up to Christmas, and 175 people completed around 2,000 hours of unpaid work. We are analysing the outcome of those pilots and, based on what that analysis says, I look forward to exploring how we can roll this out more widely across the country.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the length of time that prisoners spend in their cells on reoffending rates.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the length of time that prisoners spend in their cells on reoffending rates.

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

We know that activities such as education and training can help to give prisoners skills that they need to get a job on release, thus reducing the likelihood of reoffending. That is why we launched our new national regime model for prisoners last month. It sets out core expectations for regime delivery, so that prisons are getting the most out of the working day and aiding the rehabilitation of prisoners. Of course, we are also seeing improved staffing numbers to facilitate those regimes.

[Ms Rimmer]

Reoffending costs £18 billion a year, but there is not just the financial cost but the impact on society in general, as well as on the individual. Some young prisoners are still getting only one hour out of their cells, so there is no time for rehabilitation—they can perhaps do a little exercise, but that is not the same. How confident is the Minister that all young prisoners will get the re-education that he has outlined? When does he think all young prisoners—if these people have to be in prison—will get proper rehabilitation and the support they need when they come out of prison to get a home, to have somewhere to stay and to go into further training? Will he please give me some reassurance that better times are coming, not just for young offenders but for society as a whole?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. As she knows, I have a huge amount of respect for her, and she raises a hugely important point. We have heard from the Lord Chancellor that reoffending rates have come down from 31% to 25% since 2010. So we are making progress, but we want to drive them down further. She also rightly highlights the importance of purposeful activity leading to the opportunity on release for employment, accommodation and so on. That is central to the opportunity for prisoners to rehabilitate themselves.

We have seen significant progress made in our youth estate. The hon. Lady talked about young prisoners and rightly said that we need to go further, but we believe the national regime model that we launched in January will go a long way to doing that. The additional staff we have recruited into His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service are central to doing that, as they enable that regime to be put in place. However, she is absolutely right to highlight this issue.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome the Minister’s acknow-ledgement that more education in prisons means cutting the reoffending rate and that clear link to crime. I welcome the national regime model and will be interested to see how it plays out, because I have seen chronic staff shortages and sickness absence, in particular at prisons such as HMP Wandsworth, which I have visited. Those things mean that prisoners are entirely missing out on any education, training and working opportunities. When will I be able to go back to HMP Wandsworth and see the increase in staff and retention that is needed there? When will the Government get a grip on the prison officer recruitment and retention crisis?

[Edward Argar]

Again, I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but I am afraid that what she is suggesting does not entirely reflect the facts. If we compare the figures for 2023 and 2022 for band 3 to 5 prison officers, we see that there are over 1,400 more now, which is an increase of 6.7%. In HMPPS, sick rates are down in the past year, when just over 12,500 people joined and 7,500 left—again, that reflects an increase. We are investing in our prison officers and increasing their number, and that is being reflected in retention. I pay tribute to them for the work they do; we should be talking them up, not down.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I am encouraged by my right hon. Friend’s comments about the number of additional prison officers recruited. I have seen many of them and the fantastic work they do, both at HMP Aylesbury and across the prison estate. Will he say a little more about how we can ensure that we retain them once they have been trained and they go on to the wings? This is an incredibly important career—it is key to reducing reoffending—and prison officers deserve credit and the support of everybody in this House.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. He is absolutely right about the importance of not just recruiting new prison officers, but retaining experienced ones in our prisons. That is why the pay deal done last year with HMPPS staff was hugely important, in recognising the important work that prison officers do day in, day out. It is also reflected in the fact that the leaving rate for prison officers is down in 2023 from where it was in 2022. However, there is more to do and we will continue to do it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

Prisoners are spending up to 23 hours a day locked up in their cells as a direct result of overcrowding and the prisons capacity crisis caused by this Government. However, I hear congratulations are in order following an announcement last month, not on the Government actually delivering any of the new prisons they have promised or on even getting spades in the ground, but on their submitting yet another planning application for the Leicestershire prison that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has already ruled on once. Is not about time that the Minister renamed the new prisons programme the no prisons programme?

[Edward Argar]

For a moment I thought the shadow Justice Secretary was referring to her own party’s record when in government—7,500 prison places in three Titan prisons that failed to be built, whereas we are committed to building six new modern prisons. Two have been built, one is being built at the moment and two have planning permission.

[Shabana Mahmood]

While prisoners are serving their sentence, they are not being allowed to leave their cell, but ironically the Government are also releasing some of them early. Despite a multitude of letters, questions and even a point-blank request from the Justice Committee, the Government are refusing to tell us how many prisoners are being released early and from where. The public and Parliament have a right to know, so will the Minister finally come clean on how the early release scheme has been used so far? If not, can he tell the House what he has to hide?

[Edward Argar]

As the shadow Justice Secretary will know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has made clear that in line with other statistics, for example death in custody statistics, we will publish those figures on an annual basis.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree with me that the rehabilitation of offenders can be greatly assisted by activity and work outdoors, in particular on farms and at horticultural establishments. Will the Minister reassure me that he is committed to increasing the quantity of work available outdoors and let me know what has happened to the prison estates in recent years?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of a range of purposeful activity for those in prison, from skilled industrial work in workshops to outside work. A good example mentioned recently on “ITV Racing”, of all things, was about getting farriers and those working in the equine world into prisons—the example was a prison in Solihull—to teach prisoners about job opportunities in the equine world. There are a range of opportunities out there, and it is important that they are available to those in our custody.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

8. What progress his Department has made on reducing the backlog of cases in the Crown court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Given that the existing prisons in Buckinghamshire cannot recruit to fill staffing vacancies, where does the Ministry of Justice think it will magic up staff and prison officers for the mega-prison that it now has planning permission for in my constituency?

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

My hon. Friend is a champion of his constituents. While we may disagree on this issue, I know that he speaks for a lot of his constituents, and he does so vocally in this House. We have highlighted the increase of 1,400 in the number of prison officers. We are confident that we can staff all the new prisons and that they are necessary to meet our obligations.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

What can I do to change the Secretary of State’s view on joint enterprise? Has he read Lord Finkelstein’s recent and very good article in The Times? Please can the Minister have an open mind and look at it again? There are more than 1,000 young men in prison on long sentences.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

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

In December last year we completed an estate-wide programme of surveys to assess the condition of each public sector prison, and I look forward to seeing the findings of those surveys. By the end of the current spending review period we will have invested nearly £4 billion towards the delivery of an additional 20,000 modern prison places to ensure that the right conditions are in place for the rehabilitation of prisoners, and in the last full financial year we spent more than £200 million on maintenance and upgrades—alongside, of course, our continued investment in purposeful activity within the prison estate.

[Andy Slaughter]

I was delighted to receive an invitation from the Minister’s colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), to join him on a visit to Wormwood Scrubs Prison in my constituency this Thursday, but less delighted when the invitation was withdrawn yesterday on the basis that it had been “issued in error”. Had I been permitted to attend, I would have raised the subject of the letter sent to the Lord Chancellor on 7 December by 10 chairs of independent monitoring boards for London area prisons, including Wormwood Scrubs, which stated that

“prisons are overcrowded, not safe and most of those in prison do not lead a ‘useful’ life”.

In the absence of a reply to that letter, can the Prisons Minister tell us how he intends to make prisons fit for rehabilitation, given that, according to trade union sources, there is a maintenance backlog amounting to £3 billion?

[Edward Argar]

If the hon. Gentleman would like to visit the Scrubs with me—and I am not issuing this one in error—I shall be happy to accompany him on a visit to his local prison.

As I have said, we continue to invest in our prison estate. We also continue to invest in increasing the number of prison officers—to whom I pay tribute for the work that they do day in, day out; I suspect that those on the Opposition Front Bench would join me in that—and to invest in purposeful activity. The efforts that we have put in across the estate are working, as is shown by the proportion of prison leavers who are in employment six months after their release, which has more than doubled in the two years to March 2023. I look forward to discussing this further with the hon. Gentleman in his local prison.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As a Member of Parliament with a prison in his area, I find it disappointing that that invitation was withdrawn from a Member of Parliament with a prison in his own area. That is not how Members of Parliament should be treated, and I hope that the question of why a Member of Parliament has been refused access to a facility in his constituency will be investigated.

[Edward Argar]

I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that the invitation was sent in error by the office—it was not meant to be sent—but I am happy to honour that invitation.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the Minister will look into this, because I am concerned about access for Members of Parliament. I now call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I will not go on about how I might have got people into Wormwood Scrubs in the past in one way or another—[Interruption]—and, indeed, got some of them out!

I am sure the Minister will know that a key point that comes up time and again in reports from His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, and when issues are raised by the Justice Committee, is the lack of purposeful activity. The physical estate is part of that problem, but so are issues relating to staffing and access to education and other provision. Is it perhaps time for a strategy for the whole of the Prison Service with rehabilitation at its centre, and might not one solution to the problem be a statutory definition of the purposes of prison, of which rehabilitation—along with protection of the public—would be a key part? Would that not be a way of holding people’s feet to the fire in order to deliver rehabilitation in the public interest?

[Edward Argar]

I shall certainly be happy to have that discussion with my hon. Friend if he feels that it would be useful. He is right to highlight the importance of adequate staff numbers, but I should point out that they have increased by 6.7% in the past year. I am also happy to tell him that this month we are launching the national regime model, which will require prisons to set out ambitious plans for dedicated purposeful activity—time out of cell. That will indeed hold their feet to the fire, because, as we know, such a regime is central to rehabilitation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The latest figures show that the reoffending rate among those leaving prison has increased. That is partly because prison is failing to rehabilitate—which is no surprise, given how overcrowded, understaffed and dangerously unsafe many prisons are. In one case, after heavy rain, prison officers were having to wade through raw sewage while prisoners remained locked in their cells. Does the Minister accept that the appalling state of our prisons is not only failing to reduce crime, but breeding it?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with her assessments. I would highlight that reoffending rates are down on where they were when we inherited them in 2010. I have highlighted to the hon. Lady the investment in new staff and in our buildings. I would also highlight to her, and I hope that we will enjoy her support on this, the success of tough community sentences in reducing reoffending, compared with sentences of fewer than 12 months. I look forward to her support in delivering those changes.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I am going to remain on the subject of the prison estate. The Minister made a valiant attempt to defend the Conservatives’ woeful record on prisons, but they are failing to build the prison spaces we need to reduce this cycle of crime. Just last week it was revealed that the Government had built only 380 of the 1,000 pop-up prison cells that they promised by the end of 2023. Therefore, can the Minister at the very least confirm when the remaining 620 pop-up places will be built?

[Edward Argar]

I would gently say to the hon. Lady that we will take no lessons on prison building from the Labour party—the party that promised three Titan prisons, with 7,500 places. How many were built? Zero. This is a Government who are committed to building 20,000 new, state-of-the-art prison places. Two prisons have already been built. One is in construction. One has just received planning permission, and I am hopeful that the other two of the six will receive that in due course.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to increase early access to legal advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Between 2010-11 and 2020-21, the overall proven reoffending rate decreased from 31.6% to 24.4%. The Government continue to take action to drive down the reoffending rate even further by investing in initiatives to get more offenders into work, stable accommodation and substance misuse treatment on their release.

[Stephen Hammond]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the key to rehabilitation and ending reoffending is employment and stable accommodation. He has spoken already about purposeful activity today, but may I ask him to look at making the subsistence payment available to all prisoners on release, because that would ensure access to the sort of settled accommodation that is required?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. I am happy to meet him, if that would be helpful, to discuss further his ideas.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which concerns my involvement with organisations related to addiction and recovery.

I acknowledge the positives of rolling out incentivised substance-free living wings, but they do not offer recovery as part of the process. Recovery wings offer a far greater chance of rehabilitation as they get people into recovery while they are in prison and before they are released. Currently, there are only seven planned across the prison estate, and I think that it will take Ministers to challenge civil servants and NHS fundholders to see those rolled out. Will the Minister examine the benefits of expanding recovery wings across the whole of the prison estate?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for both his question and the tone in which he asks it. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of this scheme. As he will be aware, those seven wings are a relatively new step forward. We are seeing how they operate. I think, if I recall, they were initiated by the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), when he was in post in the Ministry of Justice. I continue to look at this very carefully, but I am watching to see how those wings operate first, but I do so with an open mind.

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

14. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure the safety of victims after violent offenders are released.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

15. What assessment he has made of the sustainability of probation officer case loads.

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

We have increased funding for the probation service by £155 million a year to recruit more staff, bring down caseloads and deliver better supervision of offenders in the community. We have also accelerated recruitment of trainee probation officers, particularly in areas with the most significant staffing challenges. As a result, more than 4,000 trainees started on training courses between April 2020 and March of last year.

[Cat Smith]

Probation workloads are too high, which is having a terrible impact on both staff morale and retention as well as public safety. What consideration has the Minister given to the very reasonable proposal agreed between His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and the probation unions to free up staff time by abolishing the post-sentence supervision, which was brought in under privatisation and is seen as simply a waste of time by those probation officers and their employer?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. Although, on partial data for this year, caseloads are going down, she is right to highlight that they are still high. She makes a good point about the post-sentence supervision requirement, which I am happy to reflect on carefully. I understand that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has met representatives to hear their views on the matter.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

16. Whether he is taking steps to help improve the safeguarding of prisoners with mental health needs.

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

We are committed to improving mental health outcomes for prisoners, including recruiting additional staff, because having adequate staffing in prisons is important; investing £625,000 of funding in the Samaritans each year until March 2025, which includes the delivery of the Listener scheme; and working alongside NHS England, which is responsible for delivering mental health support services in the custodial estate to ensure that they are joined up and effective.

[Kate Osamor]

I have been working with a constituent whose son sadly took his own life in Pentonville last year. Although it is well established that there is a high rate of mental health problems among prisoners, the provision of support is insufficient and even reliable data on the scale of the issue is lacking. Will the Government commit to a full review of the support and safeguarding for prisoners with mental health problems?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I hope that through her I can pass on my sympathies and condolences to her constituent. I am not aware of the details of that case, but if she wants to write to me, I would be happy to look at that specific case. Sadly, there are too many deaths in custody and every one is a tragedy, so I am always happy to look at ways in which we can better improve the support available to those with mental health conditions or other health conditions that might make them more vulnerable within a custodial environment.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. Numerous studies have found that the numbers of minoritised and migrant women being held on remand are disproportionately high. For example, 10% of female black and Asian defendants were remanded in custody by magistrates courts, compared with 7% of white women. What steps are the Government taking to address those clear inequalities in the use of remand?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; she will be aware of the work being done across the criminal justice system through both the race disparity review and the Lammy review in that context. Decisions on remand are taken by the judiciary, so it would be wrong for me to comment on judicial decisions, but I am happy to meet her to discuss this further if that would be helpful, and so is the Minister for disparity in the justice system, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer).

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

T5. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Director of Public Prosecutions could take over a private prosecution and discontinue it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

To reduce reoffending we need a strong, locally focused and stand-alone probation service—similar to how things were before privatisation—so why are the Government moving in the opposite direction with their One HMPPS programme, which has triggered a formal dispute with the probation unions because it subsumes probation still further into prisons?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question; it is nice to answer questions from him again, as I did when he was shadow Secretary of State.

The One HMPPS programme is about different parts of the system working well together to create a system that delivers the outcomes that society wants to see. I take the opportunity, prompted by the hon. Gentleman, to pay tribute to all the staff in the probation service. I had the pleasure of visiting some of them in Southwark recently, and I pay tribute to all the work they are doing.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

In a perfect world, the victims of the Horizon IT scandal would have their cases individually assessed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Court of Appeal, but we are not in a perfect world. The scale of the miscarriage of justice is enormous, and there are hundreds of victims who understandably do not want to come forward because they have lost faith in the process. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor now consider the exceptional and unique step of legislating to quash the convictions?

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Edward Argar Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 21—Information relating to victims: service police etc.

Government new clause 22—Meaning of “major incident” etc.

Government new clause 23—Appointment of standing advocate.

Government new clause 24—Publication of reports.

Government new clause 25—Part 2: consequential amendments.

Government new clause 26—Imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences.

Government new clause 37—Restricting parental responsibility where one parent kills the other.

New clause 1—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—

‘(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).

(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.

(4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence.

(5) But the court may not impose a sentence that is a heavier penalty than the sentence that was imposed for the original offence.

(6) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (4)—

(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under the Sentencing Code (see section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020);

(b) the Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).

(7) In this section—

“IPP sentence” means a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act (including such a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of section 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);

“original offence” means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.

(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.

New clause 2—Appointment of an advocate to represent IPP prisoners’ interests—

“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, establish a list of advocates to further the interests of prisoners serving imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may set out minimum qualifications for any person to be appointed as an IPP advocate.

(3) A person may only act as an IPP advocate if the Secretary of State considers that the following conditions are satisfied—

(a) they have had appropriate experience or training or an appropriate combination of experience and training;

(b) they are of integrity and good character; and

(c) they are able to act independently of any other person who is professionally concerned with the qualifying prisoner’s continuing imprisonment.

(4) The Secretary of State may pay to, or in respect of, such a person—

(a) amounts by way of remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities, and

(b) sums in respect of the expenses of the IPP advocate.

(5) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument; and an instrument containing regulations made under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’

This new clause, and new clause NC3 would allow the Secretary of State to appoint a number of independent advocates to act on behalf of over-tariff prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for public protection.

New clause 3—Functions of an IPP advocate—

‘(1) Any IPP prisoner who has exceeded their minimum tariff period is entitled to ask for the assistance of an IPP advocate.

(2) An IPP advocate may not provide legal services or advice to an IPP prisoner.

(3) An IPP advocate may—

(a) visit and advise an IPP prisoner at the facility where they are imprisoned;

(b) subject to subsection (2), appear before the Parole Board on behalf of an IPP prisoner;

(c) visit and advise an IPP prisoner who has been released on licence.

(4) For the purposes of this Act, “IPP prisoner” means a person sentenced to imprisonment for public protection under the Criminal Justice Act, or any successor Act.’

This new clause sets out the functions of an IPP advocate. They will not provide legal advice, but will provide practical advice, support them at the Parole Board and on release.

New clause 4—Parole Board: victim personal statement—

‘(1) It is the duty of the Parole Board to ensure that victims are offered the opportunity to give their views in the criminal justice process by making a personal statement.

(2) Where a victim has opted-in to the Victim Contact Scheme, the Parole Board must record whether the victim has been offered the opportunity to provide a personal statement to the Parole Board before it makes a decision relevant to the victim.

(3) The Parole Board must report annually to the Secretary of State on the data recorded under subsection (2) and on its compliance with the duty under subsection (1).

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of any reports received under this section before Parliament within 15 days of receipt.’

This new clause would place a duty on the Parole Board to ensure that victims are offered the opportunity to give their views in the criminal justice process and require it to report to the Secretary of State on its compliance with that duty.

New clause 5—Duty to develop a single core data set of victims of child sexual abuse—

‘(1) The responsible authority must make arrangements to develop a shared, single core data set concerning victims of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation in England and Wales.

(2) In accordance with subsection (1) the responsible authority must direct children’s social care and criminal justice agencies to collect consistent and compatible data which includes—

(a) the characteristics of victims and alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse, including—

(i) age,

(ii) sex, and

(iii) ethnicity,

(b) the factors that make victims more vulnerable to child sexual abuse or exploitation, and

(c) the settings and contexts in which victims have experienced child sexual abuse or exploitation.

(3) The responsible authority must ensure that the data is published each month.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the responsible authority is—

(a) in England, the Secretary of State; and

(b) in Wales, the Welsh Ministers.’

New clause 6—Assessment of numbers of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors, stalking advocates and specialist support services—

‘Within six months of the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must—

(a) make an assessment of the adequacy of the number of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors, stalking advocates, and specialist support services in each region of England and Wales, having regard to the population in each region, and

(b) publish that assessment.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the adequacy of the number of ISVAs, IDVAs, stalking advocates and specialist support services in each region of England and Wales.

New clause 7—Improving accessibility and awareness of the Victims’ Code—

‘(1) In preparing the draft of the victims’ code under section 2, the Secretary of State must take all practicable steps to ensure that the code is fully accessible to all victims and to promote awareness of the code among those victims and associated services.

(2) For the purposes of this section the Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe—

(a) that criminal justice bodies must signpost victims to appropriate support services, and

(b) that appropriate training is delivered to staff in criminal justice bodies, including by specialist domestic abuse services.

(3) The steps taken under subsection (1) must include steps aimed at ensuring that victims who—

(a) are deaf,

(b) are disabled,

(c) are visually impaired, or

(d) do not speak English as their first language,

are able to understand their entitlements under the code.’

This new clause seeks to ensure that the victims’ code is accessible to all victims and associated services.

New clause 8—Access to services for victims with no recourse to public funds—

‘(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment, a victim of domestic abuse who—

(a) has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom which is subject to a condition that they do not have recourse to public funds,

(b) requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it,

(c) has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given as a result of a maintenance undertaking,

is entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;

“victim” has the meaning given by section 1 of this Act.’

This new clause would ensure that victims of domestic abuse who do not have recourse to public funds are still entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code.

New clause 9—Meaning of “honour-based abuse” —

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument define the meaning of “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of section 1.

(2) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation about—

(a) what conduct should amount to “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of section 1, and

(b) any definition of the meaning of “honour-based abuse” proposed by the Secretary of State.

(3) In carrying out a consultation under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) organisations that appear to the Secretary of State to represent those who have an interest in the meaning of “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of section 1;

(b) any other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’

New clause 10—Sewage Illness Victim Compensation Scheme—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a compensation scheme for victims who have suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct in relation to sewage and waste water.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—

(a) provide for the payment of compensation to people who have become unwell as a result of bathing in water contaminated by sewage,

(b) make provision in relation to the medical evidence required to support a claim for compensation under the regulations.

(3) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’

New clause 13—Duty to co-operate with Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses—

‘(1) The Commissioner may request a specified public authority to co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code.

(2) A specified public authority must, so far as reasonably practicable, comply with a request made to it under this section.

(3) In this section “specified public authority” means any of the following—

(a) a criminal justice body, as defined by subsection 6(6),

(b) the Parole Board,

(c) an elected local policing body,

(d) the British Transport Police Force,

(e) the Ministry of Defence Police.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to—

(a) add a public authority as a specified public authority for the purposes of this section;

(b) remove a public authority added by virtue of paragraph (a);

(c) vary any description of a public authority.

(5) Before making regulations under subsection (4) the Secretary of State must consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’

This new clause would place a duty on specified public authorities to co-operate with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.

New clause 14—Major incidents: duty of candour—

‘(1) In discharging their duties in relation to a major incident, public authorities and public servants and officials must at all times act within their powers—

(a) in the public interest, and

(b) with transparency, candour and frankness.

(2) If a major incident results in a court proceeding, official inquiry or investigation, public authorities and public servants and officials have a duty to assist—

(a) relating to their own activities, or

(b) where their acts or omissions may be relevant.

(3) In discharging the duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials shall—

(a) act with proper expedition;

(b) act with transparency, candour and frankness,

(c) act without favour to their own position,

(d) make full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts,

(e) set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation, and

(f) provide further information and clarification as ordered by a court or inquiry.

(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials shall have regard to the pleadings, allegations, terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, inquiry or investigation but shall not be limited by them, in particular where they hold information which might change the ambit of the said proceedings, inquiry or investigation.

(5) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) shall—

(a) be read subject to existing laws relating to privacy, data protection and national security,

(b) apply in a qualified way with respect to private law and non-public functions as set out in subsection (6), and

(c) not be limited by any issue of insurance indemnity.

(6) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) shall be enforceable by application to the relevant court or inquiry chairperson by any person affected by the alleged breach, or the court or inquiry may act of its own motion. Where there are no extant court or inquiry proceedings, the duties may be enforced by judicial review proceedings in the High Court.’

This new clause would require public authorities and public servants and officials to act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness when carrying out their duties in relation to major incidents.

New clause 15—Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal: life prisoners—

‘After section 32ZA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 insert—

“Referral of release decisions to Court of Appeal

327ZAA Referral of release decisions to Court of Appeal

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a prisoner is serving a life sentence imposed in respect of an offence specified or described in section 32ZAB (the “relevant sentence”),

(b) the Parole Board is required to make a public protection decision about the prisoner under section 28(6)(b) or 32(5A), and

(c) the public protection decision relates to the relevant sentence.

(2) Where the Parole Board has made a decision in a case to which this section applies—

(a) the Secretary of State may refer the decision to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) a victim may apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case be referred to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.

(3) Within [30 days] of an application being made under paragraph (2)(b), the Secretary of State must—

(a) exercise the power under subsection (2)(a) and refer the prisoner’s case to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) provide to the victim a written statement explaining why they have decided not to exercise that power.

(4) This section applies in relation to a prisoner whose sentence was imposed before, as well as after, this section comes into force.

(5) But nothing in this section affects the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner whose release has been directed by the Parole Board before this section comes into force.

(6) In this section, “public protection decision” has the meaning given by section 28ZA(2).

327ZAB Offences for purposes of Court of Appeal referral

(1) The offences specified or described in this section (for the purposes of section 32ZAA) are—

(a) murder;

(b) manslaughter;

(c) an offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime 10 and Victims Act 2004, where a child has died as a result of the prisoner’s unlawful act;

(d) an offence specified in any of paragraphs 41 to 43 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code (specified terrorism offences other than inchoate offences);

(e) an offence that is not an inchoate offence and was determined to have a terrorist connection, within the meaning given by section 247A(7A) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;

(f) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);

(g) an offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);

(h) an offence under section 6 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(i) an offence under section 8 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);

(j) an offence under section 47 of that Act (paying for sexual services of a child) against a person aged under 16;

(k) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9) (rape);

(l) an offence under section 18 of that Act (rape of a young child);

(m) an offence under section 19 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child by penetration);

(n) an offence under section 20 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child);

(o) an offence under section 21 of that Act (causing a young child to participate in a sexual activity);

(p) an offence under Article 5 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (rape);

(q) an offence under Article 12 of that Order (rape of a child under 13);

(r) an offence under Article 13 of that Order (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(s) an offence under Article 15 of that Order (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);

(t) an offence that—

(i) is abolished, and

(ii) would have constituted an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) to (s) if committed on or after the date on which it was abolished.

(2) A sentence in respect of a service offence is to be treated for the 35 purposes of section 32ZAA as if it were a sentence in respect of the corresponding offence.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) “service offence” means an offence under—

(i) section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,

(ii) section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, or

(iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957;

(b) “corresponding offence” means—

(i) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales within the meaning of that section;

(ii) in relation to an offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, the corresponding civil offence within the meaning of that Act;

(iii) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, the civil offence within the meaning of that section.

327ZAC Powers of the Court of Appeal

(1) On a referral of a prisoner’s case under section 32ZAA, the Court of Appeal may—

(a) direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence as soon as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances including, in particular, the need to make arrangements in connection with any conditions that are to be included in the licence, or

(b) decide that the prisoner should remain confined and direct the Secretary of State accordingly.

(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must have regard to whether there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm.

(2A) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must consider—

(a) any statement made by the Parole Board as to the reasons for its decision,

(b) the evidence considered by the Parole Board in reaching its decision,

(c) any representations made to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, by a victim, or on behalf of the prisoner,

(d) any transcript made of a Parole Board hearing in respect of the case.

(3) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of a reference under this section in respect of a sentence they passed.”’

New clause 16—Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal: fixed-term prisoners—

‘(1) After section 256AZB of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 insert—

Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal

256AZBA Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a prisoner is serving a fixed-term sentence imposed in respect of an offence specified or described in section 256AZBB (the “relevant sentence”),

(b) the Board is required to make a public protection decision about the prisoner under a relevant provision of this Chapter, and

(c) the public protection decision relates to the relevant sentence.

(2) Where the Parole Board has made a decision in a case to which this section applies—

(a) the Secretary of State may refer the decision to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) a victim may apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case be referred to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.

(3) Within [30 days] of an application being made under paragraph (2)(b), the Secretary of State must—

(a) exercise the power under subsection (2)(a) and refer the prisoner’s case to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) provide to the victim a written statement explaining why they have decided not to exercise that power.

(4) This section applies in relation to a prisoner whose sentence was imposed before, as well as after, this section comes into force.

(5) But nothing in this section affects the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner whose release has been directed by the Parole Board before this section comes into force.

(6) In this section—

“corresponding power of direction” , in relation to a relevant provision, is the power of the Board to direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner, for the purposes of which the public protection decision is made (see section 237B);

“public protection decision” has the meaning given by section 237A(2);

“relevant provision” has the meaning given by section 237B.

256AZBB Offences for the purpose of Court of Appeal referral

(1) The offences specified or described in this section (for the purposes of section 256AZBA) are—

(a) manslaughter;

(b) an offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, where a child has died as a result of the prisoner’s unlawful act;

(c) an offence specified in any of paragraphs 41 to 43 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code (specified terrorism offences other than inchoate offences);

(d) an offence that is not an inchoate offence and was determined to have a terrorist connection, within the meaning given by section 247A(7A);

(e) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);

(f) an offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);

(g) an offence under sections 6 to 51 of that Act;

(h) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9) (rape);

(i) an offence under section 18 of that Act (rape of a young child);

(j) an offence under sections 2 to 11 of that Act against a mentally disordered person, as defined by section 17 of that Act;

(k) an offence under Part 4 or Part 5 of that Act;

(l) an offence under Article 5 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (rape);

(m) an offence under Article 12 of that Order (rape of a child under 13);

(n) an offence under Part 3 or Part 4 of that Order;

(p) an offence that—

(i) is abolished, and

(ii) would have constituted an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) to (o) if committed on or after the date on which it was abolished.

(2) A sentence in respect of a service offence is to be treated for the purposes of section 256AZBA as if it were a sentence in respect of the corresponding offence.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) “service offence” means an offence under—

(i) section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,

(ii) section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, or

(iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957;

(b) “corresponding offence” means—

(i) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales within the meaning of that section;

(ii) in relation to an offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, the corresponding civil offence within the meaning of that Act;

(iii) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, the civil offence within the meaning of that section.

256AZBC Powers of the Court of Appeal

(1) On a referral of a prisoner’s case under section 256AZBA, the Court of Appeal may—

(a) direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence as soon as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances including, in particular, the need to make arrangements in connection with any conditions that are to be included in the licence, or

(b) decide that the prisoner should remain confined and direct the Secretary of State accordingly.

(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must have regard to whether there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm.

(3) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must consider—

(a) any statement made by the Parole Board as to the reasons for its decision,

(b) the evidence considered by the Parole Board in reaching its decision,

(c) any representations made to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, by a victim, or on behalf of the prisoner,

(d) any transcript made of a Parole Board hearing in respect of the case.

(4) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of a reference under this section in respect of a sentence they passed.”’

New clause 17—Monitoring compliance—

‘(1) All agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code have a duty to monitor and report how relevant services are provided in accordance with the victims’ code.

(2) In accordance with the duty in subsection (1), the agencies must provide an annual report to the Secretary of State on their assessment of their compliance with the code.

(3) The Secretary of State must make an annual statement to the House of Commons on the delivery of services provided in accordance with the victims’ code.’

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make an annual statement on compliance with the victims’ code.

New clause 18—Compliance with the code: threshold levels—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, issue minimum threshold levels of compliance with each right of the victims’ code.

(2) If a minimum threshold is breached by an organisation in a particular area, the Secretary of State must commission an inspection of that body with regard to that breach.

(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay before Parliament the report of any such inspection.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set minimum threshold levels of compliance with each right of the victims’ code.

New clause 19—Non-disclosure of victims’ counselling records (No. 2)—

‘(1) Subsection (3) of this clause applies where—

(a) in connection with any criminal investigation, access to records of a victim’s protected confidence in a counselling setting is sought (whether pre- or post-charge), or

(b) in any criminal proceedings records containing a protected confidence are to be served as evidence or disclosed by the prosecution to the defendant.

(2) In this section—

“protected confidence” means a communication made by a person in confidence to another person when the confidant was acting in a professional capacity providing counselling, psychological or mental health services;

“victim” has the same meaning as in section 1 of this Act.

(3) Permission for access to, service or disclosure of records containing a protected confidence may only be granted by the court.

(4) The court must direct that access should not be granted, or evidence should not be served or disclosed, if the court finds that doing so would disclose a protected confidence.

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the court finds—

(a) that the information is of substantial probative value, and

(b) that the public interest in disclosure substantially outweighs that of non-disclosure.

(6) In making a determination under subsection (5)(b), the court must take into account—

(a) the need to encourage victims of sexual offences to seek counselling,

(b) that the effectiveness of counselling is likely to be dependent on the maintenance of the confidentiality of the counselling relationship,

(c) the public interest in ensuring that victims of sexual offences receive effective counselling,

(d) that the disclosure of the protected confidence is likely to damage or undermine the relationship between the counsellor and the counselled person,

(e) whether disclosure of the protected confidence is sought on the basis of a discriminatory belief or bias, or

(f) that the adducing of the evidence is likely to infringe a reasonable expectation of privacy.’

New clause 27—Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal (No. 2)—

‘(1) In accordance with section 2(3C), the Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, establish a body to administer the compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal.

(2) The body created under this section must be chaired by a judge of High Court or Court of Session with status as sole decision maker.

(3) In exercising its functions, the body must—

(a) have regard to the need of applicants for speed of provision, simplicity or process, accessibility, involvement, proactive support, fairness and efficiency;

(b) involve potentially eligible persons and their representatives amongst those in a small advisory board, and in the review and improvement of the scheme;

(c) permit the hearing of applicants in person; and

(d) have an independent appeal body which will reconsider decisions of the scheme referred to it.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the body established under this section.

(5) For the purposes of this Act, a victim of the infected blood scandal means any infected or affected person whom the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry, as laid before Parliament on 19 April 2023, recommends should be admitted to a compensation scheme.

(6) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.’

New clause 28—Report on impact on victims of the UK’s reservation in respect of Article 59 of the Istanbul Convention—

‘(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact on victims of the UK’s reservation in respect of Article 59 of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (“the Istanbul Convention”).

(2) The report laid under subsection (1) must contain—

(a) an assessment of the impact on victims of domestic abuse,

(b) an assessment of the impact on the children of such victims, and

(c) an assessment of the merits of implementing the measures necessary for compliance with article 59 of the Istanbul Convention.’

New clause 29—Mandatory training—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require certain police officers and employees of the Crown Prosecution Service to receive training in respect of violence against women and girls.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—

(a) make provision about the content of mandatory training, including training on the impact of trauma on victims of violence against women and girls, and

(b) make provision about the persons for whom this training is mandatory.

(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’

New clause 30—Victims of specified offences: data-sharing for immigration purposes—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that the personal data of a victim of a crime as specified in subsection (3), that is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to the crime, is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.

(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that the personal data of a witness to a crime as specified in subsection (3), that is processed for the purpose of that person giving information or evidence to assist the investigation or prosecution of the crime, is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.

(3) The crimes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are–

(a) domestic abuse as defined by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021,

(b) an offence under any of sections 2, 2A, 4 or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A (1) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001,

(c) an offence under any of sections 1, 2 or 4 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015,

(d) an offence under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or

(e) such other offences as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 shall not apply to personal data processed for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2).

(5) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to those persons mentioned in subsection (10) about the effect of subsections (1) and (2).

(6) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise any guidance issued under this section.

(7) Before issuing or revising guidance under this subsection, the Secretary of State must consult–

(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,

(b) the Victims’ Commissioner,

(c) the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and

(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(8) Subsection (7) does not apply in relation to any revisions of the guidance issued under this section if the Secretary of State considers the proposed revisions of the guidance are insubstantial.

(9) The Secretary of State must publish–

(a) any guidance issued under this section, and

(b) any revisions of that guidance.

(10) The persons mentioned in subsection (5) are—

(a) persons who are victims of or witnesses to the crimes in subsection (3),

(b) persons from whom support or assistance may be requested or received by a victim of crime in England and Wales,

(c) persons providing support to, or conducting investigations or prosecutions with the support of, witnesses of crime in England and Wales,

(d) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality and,

(e) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.

(11) A person exercising public functions to whom guidance issued under this section relates must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.

(12) For the purposes of this section–

“consent” means a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the individual’s wishes by which the individual, by a statement, signifies agreement to the processing of the personal data;

“immigration control” means the exercise of any functions of the Secretary of State and of immigration officers under the Immigration Acts within the meaning of section 61 of the UK Borders Act 2007;

“support or assistance” includes the provision of accommodation, banking services, education, employment, financial or social assistance, healthcare and policing services and any function of a court or prosecuting authority;

“victim”, in relation to a crime, means the particular person who appears to have been affected by the crime, and their dependent, where that dependent is also affected by the crime.’

New clause 31—Duty to notify school safeguarding lead of domestic abuse incident—

‘(1) The police must notify the designated safeguarding lead or officer of a child’s school of any incident that meets the criteria in subsection (2).

(2) Those criteria are that—

(a) the police have attended an incident of domestic abuse, and

(b) the child is a child of an adult party involved in the incident.

(3) A notification under this section must occur before the start of the next school day following the incident.

(4) In this section, “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’

New clause 32—Victims’ rights in relation to data—

‘(1) The UK GDPR is amended as follows.

(2) In Article 21 (right to object), after paragraph 1, insert—

“(1A) The data subject shall have the right to object, on grounds relating to his or her particular situation, at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her, or a third party where that party is a child for whom they have parental responsibility, which is based on points (a) to (f) of Article 6(1), including profiling based on those provisions, if exceptional circumstances apply

(1B) The exceptional circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1B are—

(a) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be suspected to constitute a criminal offence, or

(b) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be considered as being intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the data subject or another living individual.

(1C) The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure prescribe other exceptional circumstances where the right to object mentioned in paragraph 1A applies.”

(3) In Article 17 (right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”)), after paragraph 1(c), insert—

(ca) the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1A).”’

This new clause would allow victims of third party harassment to request the deletion of any personal data which was gathered or held as part of activity which could be considered criminal conduct – preventing third party reporting from causing ongoing distress to victims.

New clause 33—Commissioner for Victims: enforcement of victims’ code—

‘(1) The Commissioner for Victims (“the Commissioner”) may investigate a complaint that a person to whom the code of practice under subsection 2(1) of this Act applies has failed to carry out their duties under the victims’ code.

(2) Where the Commissioner upholds a complaint under subsection (1), the Commissioner may—

(a) recommend action to rectify the breach of the victims’ code, or

(b) impose a fine on the person who has failed to comply with the victims’ code.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in connection with this section.’

New clause 34—Funding for domestic abuse services: review—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of this Act being passed, conduct a review into the level of funding and provision for domestic abuse services.

(2) The review must, in particular, consider—

(a) counselling and advocacy services, and

(b) refuges in the UK.

(3) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) the findings of the review, and

(b) the action that the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to the review.’

New clause 35—Experiences of victims of domestic abuse in the criminal justice system: review—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of this Act being passed, conduct a review into the experiences of victims of domestic abuse in the criminal justice system.

(2) The review must consult, in particular—

(a) victims of domestic abuse who have been through the criminal justice system, specifically ensuring that views are sought from women with protected characteristics, and

(b) organisations, both inside and outside of the criminal justice system, who represent victims of domestic abuse.

(3) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) the findings of the review, and

(b) the action that the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to the review.’

New clause 36—Data collection in relation to children of prisoners—

‘The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data identifying—

(a) how many prisoners are the primary carers of a child,

(b) how many children have a primary carer who is a prisoner, and

(c) the ages of those children.’

New clause 38—Free independent legal advocates for rape victims—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free, independent legal advocates available in every police force area in England and Wales.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

“independent legal advocate for rape victims” means a person who is a qualified solicitor, with experience working with vulnerable people, who provides appropriate legal advice and representation to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes rape.’

New clause 39—Duty to inform victims and families of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 36, insert—

“36A Duty to inform victims and families of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme

(1) The Secretary of State must nominate a Government Department (“relevant body”) to inform victims and their families of their rights under the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme, and such information must include the type of sentence and the time limit for application, and advise that applications must be made to the Attorney General.”’

New clause 40—Unduly lenient sentences: time limit—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 3, paragraph 1, at end insert “, subject to paragraph 1A.”

“(1A) The time limit of 28 days shall be extended in exceptional circumstances, where the relevant body has failed to inform the victim and families of their rights under the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme.”’

New clause 41—Independent legal advice and representation for victims of rape and sexual assault—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Sexual Violence Complainants’ Advocate scheme (“the scheme”).

(2) The scheme must provide free legal advice and representation to victims of rape and sexual offences in England and Wales.

(3) The scheme must—

(a) provide legal advice to victims in relation to requests for access to their personal data;

(b) provide victims with advice on their rights under the Victims’ Right to Review scheme, and assist them with making requests under that scheme;

(c) provide legal advice to victims in relation to sexual history applications under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

(d) provide legal advice to victims in relation to complaints made to justice agencies

(e) provide legal advice to assist victims to negotiate fully informed consent to access to their personal data; or

(f) subject to subsection (4), provide legal representation of victims in relation to the police, prosecutors, or court, where that representation is necessary to prevent irrelevant or excessive material being accessed.

(4) Section 3(f) is limited to those circumstances in which a complainant has rights of audience, including hearings on disclosure of third-party materials where a court chooses to invite participation by a complainant under Criminal Procedure Rules 17.4-17.6

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the scheme”’

New clause 42—Statement on report of Infected Blood Inquiry—

‘(1) Within 25 sitting days of the publication of the final report of the Infected Blood Inquiry, the Secretary of State must make an oral statement to the House of Commons responding in full to the recommendations of the report, including—

(a) how victims of the infected blood scandal will be able to access compensation, and

(b) what steps will be taken to establish a body to administer the compensation scheme.

(2) In this section, ‘sitting days’ means days on which the House of Commons sits.’

New clause 43—Victims of major incidents: registration of death—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a relative to provide information in the connection with the registration of the death of a person who was a victim of a major incident, even if an investigation is conducted under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

(2) Regulations under this section must—

(a) amend form 13 in Schedule 2 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987 as follows—

(i) add an additional section, entitled “victims of major incidents”, to include the name, qualification and usual address of the relative,

(ii) provide for the signature of the relative to be given under the statement “I certify that the particulars given by me above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief”, and

(b) provide that the relative may provide these details during the five day period beginning with the day on which a registrar completes the form.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision consequential on this section.

(4) The power to make regulations under subsection (3) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.’

This new clause would enable a relative of a person who has died in a major incident to have their details included in the registration of the person’s death.

Amendment 160, page 1, line 7, at end insert—

“(aa) witnessing criminal conduct,

(ab) having subsequent responsibility for care because of criminal conduct,

(ac) experiencing vicarious harm due to criminal conduct.”

Amendment 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where a person has entered into a non-disclosure agreement that has the effect of preventing that person from speaking about behaviour that may be criminal misconduct.”

Amendment 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced—

(i) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or

(ii) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph (i).”

Amendment 5, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has experienced adult sexual exploitation.”

Amendment 7, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person is the child of a person posing sexual risk to children.”

This amendment would include children of a person posing a sexual risk to children (that is, paedophiles (including perpetrators of offences online), suspects or offenders) as victims.

Amendment 27, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person is a victim of honour-based abuse (see section [Meaning of “honour-based abuse”]).”

Amendment 28, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct in relation to sewage and waste water”

Amendment 33, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has experienced anti-social behaviour, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014, and the conditions necessary for an ASB case review under section 104 of that Act have been met.”

This amendment would include victims of anti-social behaviour in the definition of a victim.

Amendment 144, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person is a victim of the infected blood scandal, as defined in section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal)(5) of this Act.”

Amendment 147, page 1, Line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has suffered significant harm as a result of, and knows or knew of any other victim of, criminal conduct.”

This amendment would include those who suffer from vicarious trauma after a crime in the scope of the Victims Code.

Amendment 157, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has experienced child criminal exploitation;”.

This amendment would include victims of child criminal exploitation in the definition of a victim.

Amendment 148, page 1, Line 16, at end insert—

“(3A) For the purposes of this section, it does not matter whether the criminal conduct happened within the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”

This amendment would explicitly require that victims do not miss out on support as a result of the crime affecting them being carried out outside the UK.

Government amendment 34.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 5, after “that” insert—

“no report of the conduct has been made to a criminal justice body and that”.

This amendment aims to ensure that a person could meet the definition of a victim without needing to make a report to a criminal justice body.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(c) “adult sexual exploitation” means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls another person to undertake sexual activity.”

This amendment creates a statutory definition of adult sexual exploitation.

Amendment 158, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(c) “child criminal exploitation” means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls a person under 18 to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence;”.

This amendment provides a definition for the term “child criminal exploitation”.

Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) should be provided with information from all state agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code, including the NHS, to help them understand the criminal justice process and beyond, including grant of leave or discharge.”

This amendment would extend the principle that victims should be given information about the criminal justice process to explicitly include the NHS, in order to bring mental health tribunal decisions in line with the rest of the criminal justice system.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

“in a language or format that they can understand;”.

Amendment 11, page 2, line 23, at end insert—

“and should be provided with appropriate support to communicate these views;”.

Amendment 12, page 2, line 23, at end insert—

“and with all state agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code, including HMCTS and the NHS when considering leave or discharge;”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that the NHS and HM Courts and Tribunals Service are included when victims have a right to be heard in the justice process, bringing mental health tribunals decisions in line with the rest of the criminal justice system.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision in relation to people who have experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced—

(a) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or

(b) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph (a).

(3B) Provision under subsection (3A) must include—

(a) provision relating to the enforcement of non-disclosure agreements signed by such victims, and

(b) provision about legal advice and other support for such victims in cases where they are asked to sign, or have signed, a non-disclosure agreement.

(3C) In this section—

“non-disclosure agreement” means an agreement which purports to any extent to preclude a victim from—

(a) publishing information about a relevant complaint, or

(b) disclosing information about the relevant complaint to any one or more other persons;

“misconduct” means—

(a) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, and

(b) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph(a);

“relevant complaint” means a complaint relating to misconduct or alleged misconduct by any person.”

This amendment would require the victims’ code to include specific provision for people who have experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced, sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or other bullying or harassment.

Amendment 13, page 2, line 25 at end insert—

“(3A) In accordance with subsection (3)(e), the victims’ code must include provision requiring that—

(a) all victims of child sexual abuse, including online-based abuse, are entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme,

(b) victims with unspent convictions, whose offences are linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child, are entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, and

(c) victims of child sexual abuse may apply for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme within a 7 year period of whichever of these two dates is the later—

(i) the date the offence was reported to the police, or

(ii) if the offence was reported whilst the victim was a child, the date the victim turned 18.”

This amendment would provide that all victims of child sexual abuse (CSA), including online, are entitled to compensation under the CICS and that those with unspent convictions directly linked to the circumstances of their abuse can access compensation. It would also extend the period by which victims can apply.

Amendment 14, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must—

(a) require criminal justice bodies to take all reasonable steps to identify and record any change of name by a perpetrator, and

(b) require criminal justice bodies to inform a relevant victim when a perpetrator changes their name.

(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)—

“perpetrator” means a person whose conduct or alleged conduct results in another person being a victim as defined by section 1 of this Act;

“relevant victim” means a person who becomes a victim as a result of the perpetrator’s conduct.”

This amendment would require criminal justice bodies to monitor name changes of perpetrators and inform victims of any name changes.

Amendment 15, page 2, line 25 at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision about pre-trial therapy for victims, including—

(a) a requirement that all criminal justice agencies inform victims of their right to pre-trial therapy, and

(b) a requirement that the Crown Prosecution Service annually review their pre-trial therapy guidance and its implementation.”

This amendment would include in the victims’ code a requirement to inform all victims of their right to access pre-trial therapy, and require the CPS to annually review the implementation of pre-trial therapy guidance.

Amendment 29, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision about support for victims of burglaries.

(3B) Provision under subsection (3A) must include a requirement that a victim of a burglary must be visited by a police officer.”

Amendment 142, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must include provision requiring that all victims of the infected blood scandal, as defined in section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal)(5) of this Act, are entitled to compensation.

(3B) Subject to subsection (3C), compensation must be administered by a body established for that purpose by the Secretary of State under section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal).

(3C) The Secretary of State must ensure that an interim compensation payment of £100,000 is made within one month of the passing of this Act in the following circumstances—

(a) where an infected victim died as a child or died as an adult without a partner or child, the compensation payment should be made to their bereaved parents (split equally if separated);

(b) where an infected victim has died and there is no bereaved partner but there is a bereaved child or children (including any adopted child), the compensation payment should be paid to the child or children (split equally); and

(c) where an infected victim has died and there is no bereaved partner, child nor parent but there is a bereaved full sibling or siblings, the compensation payment should be paid to the sibling or siblings (split equally).”

Amendment 143, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) Within one month of the passing of this Act, the victims’ code must make specific provision for a bespoke psychological service in England for victims of the infected blood scandal, as defined in section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal)(5) of this Act.”

Amendment 146, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must include provision about therapy and other support services for victims who are children.

(3B) Provision under subsection (3A) must include—

(a) a requirement that support must be provided to such victims within one month of a request for support being made,

(b) provision relating to the types of support to which such victims are entitled,

(c) minimum standards for the quality of support to which such victims are entitled,

(d) a requirement that support should be available to such victims—

(i) throughout the criminal justice process, and

(ii) after that process has been completed.”

Amendment 159, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must provide that, where a victim has signed a non-disclosure agreement relating to criminal conduct to which they have been subjected, nothing in that agreement may prevent them from accessing services to which they are entitled under the code.”

Amendment 26, page 2, line 34, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must make provision for a person to be able to obtain free of charge, on request, a transcript of a trial in which the person was involved as a victim.”

Amendment 156, in clause 6, page 4, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must publish and implement, in consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, a strategy for providing training on the impact of crime on victims and on victims’ rights for relevant staff of the following organisations—

(a) the Police

(b) the Crown Prosecution Service;

(c) probation services;

(d) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office;

(e) health and social services;

(f) victim support services

(g) maintained and independent schools and colleges of further education; and

(h) such other bodies as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(1B) The Secretary of State must review and update the strategy published under subsection (1A) every three years.”

Government amendments 35 to 46.

Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert “(d) stalking.”

Amendment 16, page 10, line 22, at end insert “(d) modern slavery.”

This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of modern slavery.

Government amendment 47.

Amendment 149, page 10, line 40, at end insert—

“(10) For the purposes of this section, the relevant authorities for a police area, as defined in subsection (2), must together conduct a joint strategic needs assessment.

(11) The Secretary of State must provide a National Statement every three years on support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, including—

(a) volume of provision at the time at which the National Statement is provided,

(b) levels of need, including a breakdown of demographics, including victims with protected characteristics, and

(c) levels of investment in services.

(12) In preparing a National Statement under subsection (11), the Secretary of State must have regard to the joint strategic needs assessments prepared under subsection 10.

(13) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is provided annually to ensure that the relevant authorities, as defined in subsection (2), are able to commission relevant victim support services, as defined in subsection (4).

(14) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient funding to enable ‘by and for’ services to deliver services to, and to increase the capacity for delivering services to, victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.

(15) In this section, “’by and for’ services” means services which—

(a) are designed for and delivered by those that share the same protected characteristic(s) as the victims they are intended to serve, and

(b) provide services to Black and minority ethnic, LGBT+, deaf or disabled victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

(16) The Secretary of State must issue guidance in relation to this section about—

(a) the production of Joint Strategic Needs Assessments by the relevant authorities,

(b) the identification of victims’ need and of gaps in provision by the National Statement,

(c) the principles which must be followed in the application and allocation of funding,

(d) the conditions under which “by and for” organisations that do not have specialism in domestic abuse service provision may be eligible to apply for funding.

(17) In preparing guidance under subsection (16), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) “by and for” organisations working with victims of domestic abuse and of violence against women and girls,

(b) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,

(c) the Commissioner for Victims,

(d) the Children’s Commissioner.”

Government amendments 48 to 52.

Amendment 155, in clause 15, page 12, line 3, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “responsible authority”.

Amendment 17, page 12, line 5, at end insert “(c) independent stalking advocates.”

Amendment 154, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of this section, the responsible authority is—

(a) in England, the Secretary of State; and

(b) in Wales, the Welsh Ministers.”

Amendment 19, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) any other specialist community-based services relevant to the criminal conduct .”

Amendment 18, page 12, line 12, at end insert—

“(c) “independent stalking advocate” means a person who provides a relevant service to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes stalking.”

This amendment ensures that the Secretary of State must also provide guidance around stalking advocates, in addition to guidance about ISVAs and IDVAs.

Amendment 20, page 12, line 12, at end insert—

“(c) specialist community-based service” means a person who provides a relevant service to individuals based on a protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 or the specific nature of the crime faced by the victim.”

Amendment 21, page 12, line 13, leave out “or (b)” and insert “, (b) or (c)”.

Amendment 22, page 12, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) Guidance under this section about service providers under subsection (1) must include provision about—

(a) the role of such providers;

(b) the services they provide to—

(i) victims, including (where relevant) victims who are children or have other protected characteristics, or

(ii) persons who are not victims, where that service is provided in connection with a service provided to a victim;

(c) how such providers and other persons who have functions relating to victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system, should work together;

(d) appropriate training and qualifications for such providers.”

Government amendment 53.

Amendment 23, page 12, line 28, leave out from beginning to “must” and insert— “The service providers listed in subsection (1)”.

Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 18, line 26, at end insert—

“(d) is satisfied that the victim has been informed of their rights in relation to the request.”

Government amendments 54 to 56.

Amendment 25, page 20, line 23, at end insert—

“(d) including a full statement of the victim’s rights in relation to the request.”

Government amendment 57.

Amendment 145, page 22, line 21, at end insert—

“44F Requirements for training in respect of victim information requests

(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require certain persons to receive training in respect of victim information requests.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—

(a) require authorised persons to undertake training relating to the making of victim information requests, including on the meaning of “reasonable line of enquiry”,

(b) require certain employees of the Crown Prosecution Service to undertake training in respect of victim information requests, including training in the appropriate use of material obtained through such a request,

(c) require persons who provide services to victims and who may receive victim information requests to undertake training in relation to those requests,

(d) make provision about the content and delivery of the training required.

(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Government amendments 58 to 99, 150 and 100.

Amendment 152, page 35, line 28, leave out Clause 36.

Government amendments 101 to 112.

Amendment 153, page 38, line 10, leave out Clause 37.

Government amendments 113 to 135, and 151.

Government motion to transfer Clause 51.

Government amendments 136 to 141.

There is a lot of pressure on speakers for this debate, and I would be grateful if people could be conscious of that, particularly on the Front Benches. I am unlikely to impose a time limit from the start, but it would be helpful if those on the Front Benches also gave some consideration to that.

[Edward Argar]

It is a privilege to open this debate and bring the Bill to the House for Report. This important Bill has been long called for by Members across the House, and in progressing it we are delivering on our manifesto. Its central mission, and indeed that of this Government, is to ensure that victims are not just spectators in a criminal justice system, but are treated as participants in it. Victims tell us that they want to be treated fairly, properly, and with dignity. They want clear, timely, accurate information, and the opportunity and help to make their voice heard. The Bill aims to do just that. It will amplify victims’ voices, ensure that they get the high-quality support they deserve, and make services more joined up better to support them. By putting the overarching principles of the victims code on a statutory footing, we will send a clear signal about the service that victims can expect. We will place a new duty on criminal justice agencies to promote awareness of the code so that victims are better informed. The Bill will also create an independent public advocate to speak up for those involved in major incidents such as the Grenfell or Hillsborough tragedies. It will deliver further safeguards to the parole system to protect the public.

Those are critical reforms, and in the spirit in which we conducted Committee and Second Reading, I take this opportunity to thank the Opposition and all Members for their constructive engagement. Although there may be areas on which we disagree, in some areas we were able to work constructively together. I particularly wish put on record my gratitude to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her determination and engagement with a variety of amendments and issues, and for the depth of that engagement. Even where we were not able to agree, I am grateful for the tone and manner in which the debate has been conducted thus far.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Government are fond of saying that they are getting on with the people’s priorities, however much opinion polls may suggest the opposite. I agree entirely that all parties believe that the Bill is needed, and all parties want to get it on to the statute book. Does the Minister share my concern that the sheer weight of amendments proposed, and the widespread group of people who are saying that a number of people are being missed by this glorious once-in-a-Parliament opportunity, mean that the Government should be much more ambitious about ensuring that more victims get the support they need?

[Edward Argar]

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I do not share his characterisation of the Bill. We have sought to draw the definition of those entitled to support under the victims code as widely as possible, keeping it to those who are victims of crime, because that is the nature of the Bill, but not being specific in listing a range of different groups or categories of victims. That is precisely because we want the Bill to be inclusive, rather than inadvertently being too prescriptive and leaving people out, thereby excluding them from services. We have tried to be as broad based as possible in our definition and approach.

To return to that core definition, this is about victims of crime and of criminal acts. To conclude my comments about the tone of the debate, I am grateful to everyone, not just right hon. and hon. Members who have engaged with the Bill, but stakeholders across the criminal justice system, including many charities, campaigners and others. Again, although we may not have always reached the same conclusion, the level of their engagement, and its tone, has been phenomenal and much appreciated, and I think it makes for a better Bill. Indeed, some victims have bravely shared their experiences. It is not easy for someone to share their experience of crime with anyone they do not know, particularly in the context of a much debated Bill, so again, I am grateful to each and every one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

The Minister is aware of the debate we had around child criminal exploitation. Does he believe that that part of the Criminal Justice Bill could cover that definition?

[Edward Argar]

The point that the hon. Lady raises does not directly relate to antisocial behaviour, because often what she is talking about is criminal in many ways. As I set out in Committee, we believe that where ASB is criminal, it would already be captured under this legislation. I suspect that she may develop that point in her remarks later.

Another area that has been raised, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) will speak to, is non-disclosure agreements and how they may prevent victims from being able to seek the support they need. I particularly thank her for her constructive engagement on this important topic. I also thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), although she is not her place. I recognise that non-disclosure agreements are misused if they prevent someone from speaking about what they have experienced, whether it is criminality or equivalent. While this Government recognise that NDAs, also known as confidentiality clauses, can and do serve a valid purpose to protect commercially sensitive information and deliver finality, they should never be used to stop victims of crime getting the support they need. I also note changes in this respect in higher education, if memory serves. I reassure the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend that we continue to work closely with the Department for Business and Trade, which holds overall policy responsibility for NDAs, to carefully consider how best to address the issues they have raised, including, where appropriate, through legislative options as this legislation progresses.

I will touch on some of the concerns raised by Members that do not require legislation, which we will address by bringing forward non-legislative measures. On code compliance, we will set out a non-legislative notification process that shows clear consequences for non-compliance in guidance. We will publish more detail on that shortly. We will also make updates to the victims code, including adding further information on how victims can access pre-trial therapy and get more timely information about, for example, restorative justice and how victims of crime overseas can access support.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on restorative justice, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that he has said that he does not want to use this Bill as a vehicle to take through legislative changes to access to RJ services, but could he set out in a bit more detail the non-legislative measures that he is planning to bring in to help improve access to restorative justice services for victims?

[Edward Argar]

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

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

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

[Edward Argar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will take a brief intervention. Then I will try to conclude, because I am conscious that many Members wish to speak.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister. On many occasions, MPs are asked to refer cases for reconsideration. The Minister has indicated that the appeal board may do that. Can MPs also refer prisoners to be reconsidered for longer sentences or, indeed, for not getting out at all?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The power in the clauses rests with the Secretary of State, acting in his capacity as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State. Of course, Members of Parliament can put their representations to the Secretary of State, but the referral procedure to the upper tribunal will sit with the Secretary of State, not with individual Members of this House.

We are also proposing amendments to change the period at which those on imprisonment for public protection sentences qualify for their licence to be considered for termination. The Justice Committee published its report on IPP sentences in September 2022, and I thank it for its valuable insights. One of its recommendations was to reduce the qualifying period at which an IPP prisoner in the community is referred to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination from 10 years to five years. I am pleased to say that, on reflection, Government new clause 26 will reduce the period from 10 years to three years, which we believe strikes an appropriate balance. It will also introduce a provision whereby, for IPP offenders who have reached the three-year qualifying period and the Parole Board has not already directed that the licence be terminated, the Secretary of State must direct that the IPP licence ceases to have effect after a further two years of continuous good behaviour in the community, which is defined as not being recalled to prison in that time.

Secondly, the new clause will remove clause 33(5) from the Bill in order to decouple the test applied by the Parole Board when considering whether to terminate an IPP licence from other Parole Board decisions in clause 33, such as whether to release a prisoner from prison. The test is replaced by that introduced in clause 47(2)(c), setting out a clear presumption for termination of the licence requiring the Parole Board to direct the Secretary of State to make an order that a licence is to cease to have an effect unless it is satisfied that it is necessary for public protection that that licence remains in force.

We are clear throughout that public protection must remain a priority, but that change in presumption—a rebuttable presumption—will mean that when the Parole Board considers a licence termination for an offender who has already been found safe to be released, it will approach that with the presumption in favour of terminating. I appreciate that does not necessarily go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) might wish—that is evidenced by his tabling new clause 1—but I believe that we have made reasonable and balanced progress. Of course, we will carefully consider any further recommendations.

Before I conclude, it is right that I highlight the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), in respect of the infected blood inquiry. I have considered carefully what she has tabled. She will appreciate that this is a matter for the Cabinet Office. In my opening remarks, I want to acknowledge the huge impact that that scandal has had on people—families and individuals—up and down the country. I do not propose to say much more at this point, because I want to come to that in some detail once I have heard her remarks in moving new clause 27. I have sought to be as comprehensive as possible in my opening remarks—I am grateful to the House for its indulgence—to leave time in my closing remarks to address specific points on that issue and others, once Members have spoken to their amendments.

I am grateful to all who have engaged with the Bill as it has progressed. I will listen carefully to the debate, and I look forward to responding. I commend the Government’s amendments to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With the leave of the House, I call the Minister to wind up the debate.

[Edward Argar]

It is a pleasure to bring this debate on the Victims and Prisoners Bill Report stage to a close. I am particularly grateful for the co-operative and constructive spirit in which the debate has taken place, and for the broad support received for the Bill so far. Given the number of contributions that have been made, I will endeavour to cover them thematically. I am afraid I will be brief, and I apologise to any right hon. and hon. Members whose contributions I do not address directly.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke with considerable and typical courage, and in her typically forthright way. I say to her that I and the appropriate Minister will be happy to have further discussions with her on the issues she raised.

The hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) talked about stalking in the context of Gracie Spinks. As a fellow east midlands Member of Parliament, I am very familiar with that case; we see updates on it regularly on “East Midlands Today”. The hon. Member for Chesterfield highlighted the recent work and publication by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which we will look at very carefully. I know that the Minister for victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), will look carefully at what is contained in the report.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) raised the issue of non-disclosure agreements. We are sympathetic to the concerns raised and will be carefully considering with the Department for Business and Trade how best to take this forward, including considering legislation. We will provide an update in the new year.

The duty of candour was raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and I am grateful for his typically reasonable tone throughout his contribution. The full position on the duty of candour will be set out shortly in an oral statement setting out the Government’s response to Bishop James Jones’s report. To respect the process, we cannot pre-empt that statement prior to it taking place on Wednesday. However, the Criminal Justice Bill, which is before the House already, includes an organisational duty of candour aimed at chief officers of police, making them responsible for ensuring that individuals within their remit act appropriately and with candour. We believe that that legislative vehicle, and that legislation, is the right place for that important debate to take place.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and the shadow Minister talked about free legal advice for victims of rape. The Law Commission is currently considering the merits of independent legal advice as part of its wider review on the use of evidence in sexual offences prosecutions. This is an important issue, but we believe that we should receive and consider the findings of that extensive piece of work before committing to further action.

I turn now to amendments 142 to 144 and new clauses 27 and 42. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the shadow Minister for raising this extremely important topic. The infected blood scandal should never have happened. My thoughts, and I believe those of the whole House, remain with those impacted by this appalling tragedy. I confirm on behalf of the Cabinet Office, which is the lead Department, that the Minister for the Cabinet Office will make a statement ahead of the House rising for Christmas on Government progress on the infected blood inquiry, and that we will commit to update Parliament with an oral statement on next steps within 25 sitting days of the final report being published.

We have studied carefully the proposals made by the right hon. Lady, which are supported widely across the House. The Government, as she said, have already accepted the moral case for compensation, and we are grateful for the work of Sir Brian Langstaff. We have great sympathy with new clause 27 and the intention to ensure that the legal groundwork is in place to enable a delivery body to be established. I therefore confirm that, when the Bill reaches the Lords, we will bring forward our own amendment, which will put in place the necessary legislative framework and timescales for a delivery body for compensation for the victims of infected blood to be established, in line with the overall objectives set out in her new clause. That will ensure that the Government can move quickly, as soon as the inquiry reports.

I turn to IPP prisoners. While I appreciate that the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), would wish us to go further with resentencing, I believe that we have made considerable progress in what we have set out to the House.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I have listened to what has been said by Front-Bench Members on both sides, but they will have heard what was said by Back-Bench Members and the strength of feeling that more needs to be done. Before the Bill goes to the Lords, where this matter will certainly be raised, will the Minister meet me and other concerned Members to discuss further ways in which we may find a formula that will take this measure further forward?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We will listen carefully to what their noble lordships say when the matter comes before them, but I am always happy to meet him to discuss this matter and others.

Amendment 28 and new clause 10 would include people who have suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct related to sewage and waste water in the definition of a victim, and introduce a sewage illness compensation scheme. Let me be clear that the Government and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as the lead Minister, take the issue of water quality extremely seriously, and sewage being discharged into our waterways is completely unacceptable. That is why we are the first Government to take such significant action on this issue, with record fines, new powers to hold water companies to account and the largest investment programme in water company history to tackle overflows once and for all, totalling £60 billion.

We understand that criminal conduct relating to sewage and waste water can have a significant impact on individuals. Where individuals have been impacted by water quality or suffered harm, they will be able to access support services where the issue fits the eligibility criteria. I reassure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—we may not always agree, but he knows that I have a lot of respect for him as a Member of this House—that there are existing routes for individuals who suffer harm as a result of criminal conduct to seek compensation where there is evidence of personal injury, loss or damage. Those can be pursued through criminal proceedings, where a compensation order can be sought, or through separate civil proceedings through our legal system. Water companies must not profit from environmental damage. That is why the Government support Ofwat’s new rules on water company dividends and bonuses so that consumer bills never reward pollution.

I turn briefly to antisocial behaviour. I, like everyone else, recognise the significant impact that persistent antisocial behaviour can have on individuals and whole communities. We are committed to supporting the victims. That is why we are bringing forward a number of important measures through the Criminal Justice Bill, introduced to the House on 14 November, to tackle the core concerns raised in this Bill’s Committee. We consider that the best and most appropriate vehicle in which they can be considered.

Finally, new clause 43 tabled by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) would give relatives the ability to register the deaths of their loved ones following a major incident. As she set out, the proposed changes to digitise death registration would mean that the approach adopted of a signature, which we have discussed, would not necessarily work. We cannot support the new clause as drafted, but we are incredibly sympathetic to its purpose. I can confirm that the Government intend to launch a full public consultation on the role of the bereaved in death registration following an inquest, including those impacted by a major disaster. I look forward to working with her and the families who have been so dreadfully impacted in the past. I am grateful to all Members for their positive contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

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

As is appropriate on these occasions, I want to put on record, if I may, my gratitude and my thanks to the officials who have worked on this Bill in the Ministry of Justice and my private office; the fantastic Nikki Jones, who has managed this Bill through the Commons as an official; the Whips, the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and the Lord President of the Council for her assistance; and my Parliamentary Private Secretary until he was made a Whip a few short weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). Most importantly, I would like to thank the victims who have contributed to this, as well as the stakeholders, the organisations and the campaigners. I should also express once again my gratitude to Opposition Front Benchers for their constructive approach and tone throughout, particularly on those long days in Committee, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).

This Bill has as a central objective to ensure that victims are treated like participants in the justice process rather than bystanders. It is no less than they deserve, and it represents a major step forward, building on the progress made for victims in the last decade. The Bill has been a long time in the making, but getting it into law will strengthen the voice of victims of crime and major incidents in our criminal justice system so that they can be supported to recover and see justice done. It is not only the right thing to do; our hope and belief is that it will also enable us to bring more criminals to justice, keeping the British people safe and providing them with the support they need.

This Bill in many ways represents the very best of this House and its ability to make meaningful change for the people who send us here and the people we serve, and I pay tribute to Members on both sides for their contributions in getting us to this point. Mindful of the tone and spirit in which these debates have been conducted, I will conclude to allow the shadow Secretary of State to put her thanks to her team on record as well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

HM Prison Bedford

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

If I may briefly crave your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to put on the record my tribute to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, on the news of his sad passing. He was a man of intellect, integrity and ability, and had a deep commitment to public service. He will be missed by all in this House. We send our condolences and sympathies to his family.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for securing this important debate. As he knows, I am deeply concerned by the recent findings of HM inspectorate of prisons at HMP Bedford, particularly in regard to safety and living conditions, and I have been clear that the situation needs to improve quickly. This is, as he set out clearly, the second time that an urgent notification has been invoked at HMP Bedford. I agree that the circumstances leading to it are not acceptable. Before I turn to the specifics that he raised about the situation at Bedford, I hope that he will allow me a moment to remind the House of the context—his speech rightly ranged more widely than Bedford alone—and of the steps that we are taking to improve prisons and justice across the country, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor set out in his statement of 16 October.

On prison capacity, the House will be aware that we are building six new prisons as we create an additional 20,000 places to deliver the biggest prison expansion in over a century. We have already delivered just shy of 6,000 of these additional places, and the brand-new category C resettlement prison, HMP Fosse Way, opened its doors in May this year and will house up to 1,715 prisoners. At the same time, we are creating thousands of places through the expansion of prisons with additional house blocks and major refurbishments at existing prisons, and by rolling out rapid deployment cells across the estate—the first 380 or so have already been delivered at six sites.

The hon. Gentleman raised a specific point about Bedford. There are no plans to re-roll Bedford Prison at this point. I appreciate that he may be disappointed by that, but it is important that I am open with him, as I will seek to be throughout my speech. I would gently say, in respect of prison capacity, that we are getting on with delivering that increase in modern, effective rehabilitative prison places through those six new prisons. By regrettable contrast, the plans under Jack Straw in the last Labour Government were to build 7,500 places in three Titan prisons, and, to the best of my recollection, they never got built at all.

In respect of staffing, I join the hon. Gentleman in rightly paying tribute to all those who work in our prisons—prison officers and all the staff in a range of capacities—for their work. Since March 2017, we have also increased the number of prison officers in public sector prisons by 4,655, and we made a commitment in 2021 to hire up to 5,000 prison officers across public and private prisons by the mid-2020s. As he alluded to, the increase in numbers means that, as we grow the workforce, which is a positive thing, we are also bringing new joiners and staff to the prison service, who will, by logic, have fewer years of service under their belt. It is important that we continue doing what we are doing to retain experienced officers alongside them as part of their mentoring and the development of their skills.

We have improved starting salaries for officers, which have risen from £22,000 to £31,000 since 2019. The staffing picture is improving in prisons across the country: in the 12 months from last September—the latest figures I have—the number of officers has increased by 1,441 full-time equivalents. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that we are also improving the retention of staff: the resignation rate among frontline prison officers is down by almost three percentage points compared with last year. There is more to do, but that is progress, and it is important that we continue on that trajectory.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly highlighted prison safety, which I will address in a broader context before I turn to his local prison. We continue to take the necessary action to make our prisons safe both for frontline staff and for prisoners. The overall rate of assaults is 26% lower than prior to the pandemic. Of course, every assault is one too many, and we continue to work to improve the security of our prisons and reduce violence and the number of assaults within them, but I highlight that degree of positive progress to him.

The measures that we are putting in place to reduce violence in our prisons estate include our £100 million security investment to clamp down on the weapons, drugs and mobile phones that fuel violence and crime behind bars, and the continued rollout of PAVA—a synthetic pepper spray—in the adult male estate to protect staff and prisoners from incidents of serious violence, alongside de-escalation training for officers, which is also playing an important part.

Before I turn specifically to Bedford, let me address some of the broad-brush points that the hon. Gentleman made. He was right to highlight the five key purposes of sentencing. I highlight to him—although I am doing so from memory, so I will write to him to correct myself if I am incorrect—that reoffending is down by 9%, so again, that is working, but there is always more to do. He is right about the importance of substance misuse treatment programmes in getting people off substances that may drive their criminal behaviour. Their importance extends beyond prison, to when people are on release. My recollection is that there is a 54% reduction in reoffending if those programmes are continued in the community, the treatment is sustained, and the NHS, local authorities and prison authorities work together to make sure that it is in place. We are seeing positive outcomes there.

The hon. Gentleman quite rightly talked about the approach to sentencing at headline level, and the challenges of short sentences. They are often so short that we cannot get to grips with the underlying challenges that an individual faces, but long enough to break fragile ties and affect relationships, jobs and accommodation. I am very pleased that, on this issue, he appears to be following the approach set out by the Lord Chancellor, who suggests tougher sentences for those who commit the most heinous crimes, and tough community sentences as an alternative to short custodial sentences, though obviously discretion will rest with the sentencer. Also, while there should be a clear focus in the custodial estate on people paying their debt to society, they should also be able to make positive life choices about what they intend to do when they come out of prison, so that they can make a positive contribution and live life on the straight and narrow.

I turn to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about his local prison, HMP Bedford. As he set out, His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons has highlighted significant concerns about the condition of cells and overcrowding at Bedford. I reassure him that I am treating that with the utmost seriousness. He asked a number of questions about measures that we will put in place in response to the urgent notification. In accordance with our usual protocol on responding to the inspectorate, the Lord Chancellor will publish his response to the urgent notification, and the action plan, no later than 15 December; there is 28 days in which to do that. That will be the detailed response. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the time he spared me earlier this week for a conversation, in which he set out and amplified his key concerns. I hope that I can engage with him as we finalise the action plan. I also highlight my gratitude to the governor for giving me her time when we spoke last week.

The findings are, as the hon. Gentleman said, deeply concerning. Notwithstanding the fact that there will be a formal response within 28 days, I can update him—and indeed you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House—on a number of immediate actions that we have taken to drive improvement. These include providing additional resourcing support to the prison, equivalent to 15 additional prison officers, to improve the prison’s safety and security, and to improve the regime; I think the hon. Gentleman asked for additional support for the governor. We are undertaking a cell cleaning and painting programme to improve the physical environment, and completing a joint audit with our maintenance contractor to identify works and key priority areas, so that we can ensure that the work is done. We are introducing a cell conditions agreement to ensure that all cells are in good condition before they can be occupied. Decency checks to address concerns about cleanliness will be overseen by the governor; that will help directly with improving living conditions.

A working group has been set up, led by the governor, to understand issues regarding fair treatment. The hon. Gentleman raised that point when we spoke. The group will particularly focus on allegations of racism and other inappropriate behaviours. He has highlighted his concerns on that issue to me. We have made a number of new senior appointments at the prison; they include a new head of violence reduction, a new head of reducing reoffending, and a new head of education, skills and work.

His Majesty’s chief inspector noted in his letter to the Lord Chancellor that Bedford has

“consistently failed to provide good outcomes for prisoners”

since the inspection in 2016. The series of concerning inspections at Bedford is, of course, deeply troubling, and it may be useful if I briefly set out the improvements that we have made in response to previous inspection reports. Of course, they clearly have not resolved all the underlying issues, hence the hon. Gentleman’s securing this debate, but it is important that we highlight what has been done.

In response to His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons’ first urgent notification about HMP Bedford in 2018, a comprehensive safety strategy was implemented to support violence reduction, and a dedicated young adult unit was introduced to provide targeted support for prisoners and upskilling for staff. That resulted in lower levels of violence for that demographic group. We also provided additional staffing, including a safety hub manager, and a dedicated use of force co-ordinator in the safety team. In addition, we upgraded the head of safety post from a band 7 to a more senior band 8. Refurbishments also took place to improve decency and living conditions; they included improvements to showers and flooring.

HMP Bedford has also received support from the prison performance support programme, which offers tailored support for a maximum period of 18 months to prisons that face numerous complex challenges. The support for Bedford included over £1 million of additional funding focused on improving security and living conditions. Following the taking of those steps, the inspectorate undertook an independent review of progress in 2019 and found that although there had been some progress since 2018, progress on many of the inspectorate’s recommendations was insufficient. Inspectors found that despite the pandemic, improvements in living conditions had been made, including extensive, good-quality refurbishment of the communal shower rooms. However, previous concerns about violence and safety persisted.

In early 2022, the inspectorate visited Bedford to undertake a full inspection. It noted improvements at the prison, including strong leadership and an improved prison culture. Further improvements had also been made, such as investment in new windows and flooring and the installation of enhanced gate security. Alongside this, the capacity of the prison had been reduced by 76 spaces to allow residential accommodation to be refurbished. The inspection recognised that challenges remained, but it acknowledged that the prison was heading in a positive direction, and the oversight that followed the urgent notification of 2018 was removed from Bedford in October last year.

Even after the removal of urgent notification oversight, Bedford continued to receive support, for example through an ongoing compliance project, in which management checking systems were built to ensure that rules and regulations were fully followed by both staff and prisoners. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the latest inspection concluded that standards had slipped back at the prison, as the hon. Gentleman said, and a second UN was issued. It is also worrying that the contents of that urgent notification, which I considered very carefully, were, to my mind, similar to those of the 2018 notification. As I say, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for discussing these matters with me earlier this week, and I hope that he will feel free to come to me with any specifics that he would like considered in the next few weeks, as we put together our response—and, indeed, if he would like more regular engagement as we work through what needs to be done to improve the prison in his constituency.

When we met, the hon. Gentleman raised a couple of points that I would like to address. He raised his concern about the impact on constituents who live near the prison; he mentioned people entering the gardens of properties that neighbour the prison in an attempt to throw things over the prison wall, and broader impacts. Speaking as a constituency MP, I entirely understand his concern when constituents bring him those issues. It is right that he makes those points to me as the Minister, and to the House more broadly. The prison has worked to enhance partnerships with both the local council and the police, so that it can tackle such behaviour; as part of that, the prison checks directly, on a weekly basis, on any complaints from residents, and follows up on them, if they have not been raised with Bedfordshire police. If it is helpful to him, he may wish to raise specific issues with me outwith this Chamber, in confidence.

The hon. Gentleman touched on his concerns about the inexperience of some staff at Bedford. Notwithstanding the benefits of increasing the number of staff in prison officer roles, we recognise the need to continue training rigorously. There is now a learning and capability manager in place to directly support all new staff at HMP Bedford. We have also provided for a full-time welfare post for HMP Bedford staff, so that they have that support, independent of local care team arrangements, should they need it. Having previously deployed standards coaching teams at the prison, I intend to redeploy them in the new year, to again help drive progress.

The HMIP findings are of course deeply concerning, and we are committed to improving the conditions at Bedford and at the other prisons where UNs have been triggered over the past year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will be monitoring the situation at Bedford very closely in the coming weeks and months to ensure there is sustained improvement. Although I have had this specific brief for only about two and a half to three weeks, the hon. Member for Bedford will have had experience of dealing with me in other ministerial roles, and I hope he will recognise that just as I did in those roles, I will seek to work collaboratively with him where I can. We share the desired outcome of making improvements.

I also confirm on the record that the Lord Chancellor’s response to the urgent notification will be published by 15 December, as required. The hon. Gentleman will be able to obtain it, but I will make sure that a copy is sent to him for his records. A wider-ranging full action plan will also be developed in the longer term to address all HMIP recommendations and hopefully tackle some of the long-term underlying challenges that he has highlighted. I anticipate that that will be published in March 2024, but I will inform him when we have a more precise timing for that. I am grateful to him for bringing this important issue to this Chamber for debate, and look forward to working with him and the prison in the coming months to address the issues that have been highlighted.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Following the Minister’s opening remarks, I place on record my own sadness on learning of the death of Alistair Darling. He was a distinguished Member of this House, and one who I regarded from the Opposition Benches as a friend. The political landscape of the United Kingdom will be the bleaker because of his loss.

Question put and agreed to.