His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service: IPP Sentence Annual Report 2025-26
Jake Richards Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Justice (Lord Timpson) has today made the following statement:
Today, I am laying before Parliament the HMPPS 2025-26 annual report on the IPP sentence, pursuant to section 67 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
This report sets out the activity across HMPPS for the financial year of 2025-26 to support those serving the IPP sentence in prison to work towards a safe release, and those in the community, towards the termination of their licence.
The latest published statistics show that as at 31 March 2026, there were 896 unreleased and 1,433 recalled IPP prisoners, compared to 1,012 unreleased and 1,532 recalled IPP prisoners on the corresponding date in 2025. As at 31 December 2025, there were 891 offenders serving IPP sentences in the community and 207 prisoners in hospital for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983, compared to 1,376 offenders in the community and 233 prisoners in hospital on the corresponding date in 2024.
The Sentencing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 22 January 2026, introduced further reforms to IPP licence termination on 1 June 2026. These reforms: reduced the qualifying period for licence termination from three years to two years following first release; and enable individuals whose licence is not terminated at the end of this period to apply for a further Parole Board review one year later, prior to automatic termination.
The IPP action plan 2026-27 is included as part of this annual report, which sets out planned HMPPS activity for the year, including six measurable targets. Through the IPP action plan HMPPS has committed funding to sustain vital services such as the IPP approved premises pilot, and to trial a new IPP advocate role, designed to provide more personalised support to those serving IPP sentences. Further successes include:
Additional funding for psychology services, enabling greater access to specialist assessments for individuals facing the most significant barriers to progression.
The phoenix unit at HMP Aylesbury is due to open later this summer as a purpose-designed residential unit to support IPP prisoners who have become disengaged from progression.
A release on temporary licence model has been agreed for all four progression regime prisons—Humber, Warren Hill, Erlestoke and Buckley Hall—to enable IPP ROTL.
Strengthened recall processes by: streamlining the documentation required for a recall request, to ensure that the reasons for recall are robustly and clearly stated; enhancing quality assurance for decision-making; delivering additional training for public protection casework section staff who formally revoke an offender’s licence; and ensuring that only senior managers in PPCS can revoke the licence.
In addition, HMPPS used the risk assessed recall review power to re-release 61 recalled IPP prisoners between 1 November 2024 and 31 December 2025, in some cases months ahead of a scheduled parole hearing.
The Government are determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for all those serving the IPP sentence and an eventual end to their sentence, but only in such a way that does not put the public and victims at risk.
[HCWS204]
Safeguarding in Youth Custody: Review and Government Response
Jake Richards Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Today the Government published their response to Isabelle Trowler’s independent review into the safeguarding of children in youth custody.
No child should ever come to harm, least of all while within our care. That is why safeguarding children within the youth custodial estate, as well as those being cared for by the state more broadly, must be an absolute priority for all of us in Government.
In November 2025, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman published a report into the historical abuse at Medomsley detention centre. There had been shocking and systematic abuse of young men and boys held there, by the very staff who were meant to protect them, between 1961 and 1987. The PPO’s report examined what was known by authorities and identified serious, missed opportunities to act. We must ensure that the failings of the past are never repeated.
While the youth custodial estate has changed significantly in recent years, with fewer children in custody and more held in therapeutic environments such as secure children’s homes and secure training centres, those who remain often present multiple complex needs. Despite clear progress, there remains troubling evidence that safeguarding issues persist.
In the light of this and the findings of the PPO’s report, I commissioned Isabelle Trowler, the chief social worker for children and families to undertake a rapid review of current safeguarding arrangements in youth custody.
I am extremely grateful to Isabelle for undertaking this comprehensive review, and to the whole panel of experts for all their contributions.
The review makes 34 wide-ranging recommendations for the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Custody Service, as well as other partners across Government. It concludes that safeguarding responses within the youth custodial estates are generally robust, but highlights notable failings and areas where more must be done to ensure children’s safety while they are within our care.
Importantly, the report addresses the management of allegations against staff and highlights how important independence and specialist expertise are within decision making that relates to child safeguarding. The recommendations also focus on the role of other key partners within the system, including local authorities, and on strengthening counter-corruption measures. Other important functions within the system are also addressed, such as reinforcing the importance of timely and regular vetting and Disclosure and Barring Service checks. I welcome all of Isabelle Trowler’s recommendations and support the direction they set both within the youth custodial estate and across Government.
We are committed to working closely with our partners across Government to consider how best to deliver these for the whole system. I thank my colleagues across Government for all the work that has been undertaken on these recommendations so far.
The YCS’s capacity and capability is crucial in delivering many of these reforms. That is why we have already begun implementing key changes within the youth custodial estate. We are bolstering expertise within the YCS to ensure there is specialist child protection proficiency, and are establishing a new safeguarding oversight board to provide dedicated scrutiny of risks, allegations and decision making. We have also improved the management of allegations against staff by ensuring that all abuse of trust cases are routinely referred to local authority designated officers and that safeguarding specialists are directly involved in counter-corruption investigations.
As the review makes clear, staff in the secure estate do one of the most demanding jobs in public service. It is our responsibility to ensure that our staff have the support and skills to keep children safe and deliver effective rehabilitation. We are redesigning initial training for frontline youth justice workers and strengthening recruitment to ensure the right people are better equipped in the right roles.
We will be taking forward the Trowler review recommendation for a proactive safeguarding inquiry and will reform the complaints system to allow trusted adults to raise concerns on behalf of children. Ensuring that processes are accessible, particularly for those with additional needs, is also crucial within this work. This will all ensure that children’s voices are heard and acted on.
The Trowler review highlights the importance of a whole-system approach to safeguarding. The youth justice system has a strong history of effective partnership working at a community level. We will further enhance cross-Government governance structures and ways of working, bringing together justice, children’s services and health partners.
The recommended reforms represent significant change to how we support and safeguard children across Government. Some of these measures will take time to implement and will need careful consideration to ensure they are practical and sustainable for the whole system.
Many of these recommendations will be taken forward as part of the forthcoming youth custody transformation plan, which will set out our longer-term vision for a safer and more effective youth custodial system.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the men who survived the horrific abuse at Medomsley, which was the catalyst for this review. While we cannot change the abuse that occurred, I would like to use this opportunity to reiterate the Government’s apology.
On our own behalf and that of past Governments, we are truly sorry for what you endured and for how long it was allowed to continue. Without your courage in coming forward and sharing your experiences, the full extent of the abuse may never have come to light. Hearing directly about the profound and lifelong impact that this has had has only reinforced to me the importance of this work and the imperative of strengthening safeguarding for children in custody today.
I will deposit a copy of “A Rapid Review of Safeguarding in Youth Custody” in the Library of the House. The Government response has been laid before Parliament.
[HCWS192]
Early Release of Prisoners
Jake Richards Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I thank the shadow Justice Secretary for his opening remarks. This is a profoundly serious matter for all Members in this place, victims across the country—including those here in the Gallery—and indeed all members the public.
Confidence in our law and order system must be maintained. We must all, therefore, recognise that we as a country face a challenge: to ensure public safety and protect victims while maintaining a functioning prison estate. I have no doubt that this is a priority for us all.
To begin, it is imperative to recognise the genesis of the Sentencing Act 2026, its implementation and provisions and, ultimately, why we are debating these issues. On 5 July 2024, the Home Secretary, in her first day in office as the then Justice Secretary, was presented immediately with a criminal justice system in crisis. There were fewer than 100 places left in the adult male estate. A day one decision for her was the nature and scope of an emergency release scheme, not whether there should be one. We all remember the chaotic scenes that we saw in the weeks afterwards. There were similar scenes when such last-minute release schemes were implemented by the last Government: judges were told not to jail the most serious offenders due to a lack of prison places and criminals walked away, with a lack of time to provide the most robust community measures.
The Conservative party released more than 10,000 prisoners early for a series of emergency measures taken to manage the capacity crisis they created. Those schemes were introduced at short notice, without the long-term reforms necessary to put the system on a sustainable footing, but there was no option but to act to prevent a collapse of the criminal justice system, which would have seen sex offenders and others able to act with impunity.
A prison capacity crisis is not just a problem for our prisons; it means the unravelling of the criminal justice system completely, with courts unable to hear cases, police unable to make arrests and a grinding halt to law and order in our country. Therefore, in the aftermath, the Government rightly wanted to ensure that would never happen again. The Home Secretary—then the Justice Secretary—commissioned the right hon. Sir David Gauke to undertake an urgent review of how we sentence offenders. On its conclusion, Gauke found that under the previous Administration action was taken only when the criminal justice system was within three days away of collapse.
We recognised then that a two-pronged approach was required. One part was to build more prisons, backed by capital investment. That is how we have been able to embark on the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, with 14,000 new prison places by 2031. Two years into this Government, 3,200 places have already been delivered—contrast that with just 500 extra places over 14 years under the Conservative party.
In the 14 years of Conservative government, 23 prisons were closed. We would not be having this debate if those decisions had not been taken.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is right: prisons were closed that, in my view, might have been kept open. Has he looked at those prisons to see if any of them could be brought back quickly into use? Clearly that would be much faster than building new prisons. Has he looked to other secure facilities that might be used as prisons? During covid, the Government acted quickly, passed laws and put Nightingale hospitals in place. Why can we not have emergency prison places rather than letting these dangerous people on to our streets to do more harm?
Jake Richards
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He has been consistent on this, although we do not agree on everything when it comes to criminal justice matters. The Government have looked at all options, including whether we can reopen those prisons closed by the last Conservative Government. I was struck by the shadow Justice Secretary’s welcoming of the suggestion that there should be new planning reforms around how we build prisons, because every time we try to build a new prison in a Conservative MP’s constituency, the Conservatives oppose it. It has happened time and again, with one thing being said at the Dispatch Box and their MPs arguing something completely different in their local media.
Sir Roger Gale
There are people in the Gallery and in the public out there who want to know that dangerous criminals will not be released at the start of September. That is what they want to hear; we do not want to hear the history. We want an answer from the Minister. He heard the offer from the shadow Secretary of State in reply to my question. We are prepared to back the necessary legislation before the recess to put a stop to this. Is he prepared to take that offer—yes or no?
Jake Richards
What we will not do is put our head in the sand, which would lead to another prison capacity crisis, which would lead to another urgent, chaotic early release scheme as we saw under the last Conservative Government time and again. I cannot look victims in the eye and tell them that is good for them or for the country, and I will not do so. That is why, when the Home Secretary was Justice Secretary—
Jake Richards
Let me make some progress first.
The Home Secretary recognised that alongside prison building, there would be a need to reform sentencing, and for that be done above party politics. That is the principal reason why she asked Sir David Gauke, a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to undertake an independent sentencing review.
Jake Richards
Some Opposition Members still think he is a great man. I do not think that is a universal view on the Opposition Benches.
Following publication of the review, the Sentencing Bill began its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent on 22 January this year. It was explained during its passage that many of its provisions would come into effect only in the autumn of this year. Any Government would continue to assess how best to achieve sustainability in our prison system, while ensuring public safety and confidence. Every decision that this Labour Government have taken has been based on keeping the public safe, protecting our criminal justice system and delivering justice for victims. That will continue to guide all future decisions, under this Prime Minister and the next Prime Minister.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Can the Minister not understand that people out there, such as my constituent Leanne Vaughan—her daughter was killed by a hooligan driver, and she had to wait 28 months before he was sentenced to 66 months in prison, but then was released after 21 months—do not believe what he is saying? It is appalling. People are heartbroken by their losses, and this Government are not meeting their expectations or ours.
Jake Richards
I understand. I meet victims all the time in my role at the Ministry of Justice. Before being elected to Parliament, I represented many victims of child sexual abuse every day in courts up and down the country. I understand the issues that victims such as his constituent face. I impress on the hon. Member that the Sentencing Act and the provisions that we are debating today have not yet come into effect. I am happy to speak with him outside the Chamber about that individual case, but I just put that in the context of the Sentencing Act and the provisions implemented by this Government.
I will deal briefly with the specific cohort of offenders cited in the motion. The grooming gang scandals remain one of the gravest betrayals of our time. We are determined to get to the truth behind years of systemic failure on the issue. I am sure that the whole House joins me in paying tribute to the victims and survivors who have so bravely spoken out about their ordeal. As I have said, before entering Parliament I spent the best part of my career representing just some of them. I know personally just how difficult it is for them to speak out.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I took part in Rupert Lowe’s independent rape gang inquiry—
Esther McVey
I took part in the independent rape gang inquiry, meeting victims who had waited such a long time for justice and to see their abusers put behind bars. What does the Minister have to say to those victims who received a letter to say that their perpetrators are back on the streets? Is that a mistake and it will not happen? Ministers had said that those who have committed the most serious and heinous of crimes would not be on the streets. Can he take this opportunity to say that those letters were a mistake?
Jake Richards
I am not sure which letters the right hon. Member is referring to, because none of the letters sent out by the Ministry of Justice has referred to people already being released. I understand the concerns that she raises. We take our engagement with victims incredibly seriously. The purpose of the letter is not merely for communication; it is also so that victims can have a say in licence conditions when offenders are released. Offenders are released as things stand. The Sentencing Act 2026 changes that for certain offenders, and there is a process in place by which probation ensures that the community is kept safe with robust licence measures. That will continue.
We have improved the Probation Service’s powers. We are putting £700 million into the Probation Service, which is the biggest investment for a generation. I understand the right hon. Member’s concerns—I really do—but I gently suggest to her that criminals have been released from prison for a long time. There are measures in place, and we need to ensure that they are as robust as they can be.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Everybody would appreciate some clarity that when we are talking about the letters, those are specifically the letters informing victims that the Sentencing Act 2026 will affect when their perpetrators will be released. The issue that has been raised by many victims is that these are blanket letters; they are not personalised. They do not say which perpetrator. In the letter, it says that “some” will be managed in the community. These victims have been so failed by our justice system at every step that when they receive such a letter, they assume that it means their perpetrator will not be managed in the community. Can the Minister please reflect on the impersonal letter that is sent, sometimes by email, to inform victims that what they thought was true is no longer true, and that their perpetrator may be out sooner than they had expected?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. The hon. Lady’s call for us all to reflect on that will be taken up. I know that the Justice Secretary and the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), who is sitting next to me, will have heard that. There will be further correspondence; it was not a blanket correspondence by any means. The Government and the Probation Service want to engage with victims as much as possible to ensure that their voices are heard every step of the way. I am grateful for the intervention.
Nick Timothy
We have brought this motion to the House. The Labour party has accepted that motion—it will not contest it and the House will not divide. Having accepted what we have put in the motion, will the Minister tell us what the plan is to ensure that rapists and sex offenders will not be released, starting from September? Will the Government bring forward emergency legislation before the summer recess? Will they bring forward new commencement regulations—yes or no? The Minister has our commitment of support if he does that. If he is not in a position to say so, because it is up to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and he does not yet know, the Minister can just say that.
Jake Richards
As happened on numerous occasions under Boris Johnson and Theresa May, in Opposition day debates the Government are quite within their rights not to divide on an issue—an Opposition day is an Opposition day.
This Government are dealing with the prison capacity crisis that we inherited. We are facing a situation where, if the Sentencing Act measures are not implemented, in October or November of this year we will be back where we were in July 2024. The Sentencing Act received Royal Assent in January and some of its measures are being implemented from September onwards. The Government will always balance making sure that we have a sustainable prison system and never going back to the crisis that we saw under the Conservatives with public safety and confidence in the system. That will continue under this Prime Minister and under the next Labour Prime Minister.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time—he is very generous—and for his kind remarks about my consistency. He also mentioned our differences, and I will explore those in greater detail in due course, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I can be helpful to the Minister. This matter seems to go well beyond party politics, because we have a crisis in prison numbers and this is an occasion on which we might find common cause and seek a way forward. Indeed, that offer has generously been made by those on the Opposition Front Bench, so perhaps the Minister, who I suspect is a rather decent man at heart, should take up that offer in the spirit in which it has been made, and see whether we can sort this out in a way that protects all our constituents from harm.
Jake Richards
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s kind words, personally, but I gently say that the Opposition party has no plan for how to deal with the prison crisis that its amendment would have brought about later this year—there is no plan; there is no suggestion; there is no idea of where they would put the criminals we are locking up every day. By the end of this Parliament there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before under a Labour Government. We are building more prisons than since the Victorian era. There is no plan from the Opposition. It is very easy and straightforward to bemoan the changes in the Sentencing Act, which received Royal Assent in January, but the Opposition have to come Parliament with a credible plan for capacity.
Jake Richards
I will not give way another time.
Once prisoners are released, offenders will be subject to strict licence conditions. We are adding tougher restrictions as part of the Probation Service’s toolkit for managing offenders when they leave prison. That includes restriction zones, which can be used for the most serious sexual and violent offenders, pinning the offender to certain areas rather than restricting the movements of victims.
We are ramping up tagging to monitor offenders in the community, with thousands more subject to 24/7 monitoring and curfews. We are already tagging at record levels, and we will invest a further £100 million to expand our ability to monitor even more offenders. That is the biggest expansion of tagging in history. Also, while on licence, offenders can be recalled immediately if they cannot be safely managed in the community.
To carry out all that additional supervision, we need a Probation Service that is fighting fit. That is why we are increasing probation—
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I understand what the Minister is saying about the looming prison crisis, but I just wonder whether he can explain to us how releasing dangerous sexual predators and grooming gang members fits with our manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls?
Jake Richards
I understand my hon. Friend’s intervention. Let us be clear that many of the offenders we are talking about have been released previously and would continue being released but for the Sentencing Act. This is about what measures we put in the community to ensure that the community is safe, and that is why we are investing more than ever before in our Probation Service and why we have recruited a further 1,300 probation officers this year. We are refocusing supervision to devote more time to dangerous offenders so that we can better protect the public. This is ultimately the choice: either strict licence conditions in the community for those who have already served time in prison under the changes; or, simply put, the collapse of the system altogether, leaving sex offenders and others to act with impunity.
I understand how distressing it can be for victims when an offender in their case is released. That is why we are taking steps, as I have already touched upon, to contact those eligible for and opted into the victim contact scheme to let them know how these changes will affect them, but I recognise that this will not cover all victims affected. That is why, through the Victims and Courts Act 2026, we will for the first time provide a new dedicated route for all victims to request information about an offender. We must ensure that we get this right, which is why it is taking some time to implement carefully, but this is proper engagement with victims rather than the chaotic botched emergency release schemes that we had under the previous Government.
Sir Julian Lewis
I have a fairly simple question. Does the Minister have a clear idea of what categories he regards as constituting dangerous offenders, and if he does, what percentage of the prison population is made up of these people? If it is something like 10%, 15% or 25%, that still means that there are 75% or more of other categories of prisoners who could and should be released before those in that dangerous category are even considered.
Jake Richards
Sentencing judges always consider dangerousness and risk to the public, as probation officers do. Every offender has a level of dangerousness, which is risk-assessed by probation as and when they leave prison. That has happened for the last 50 years and will continue to happen under the new Sentencing Act.
I want to end again by reflecting on the horrific grooming gangs scandal, which lays heavily on our national conscience, and the women and girls, often young girls, who were systematically raped and exploited and then disbelieved by those who should have protected them. Those who prey on children must face the full force of the law, but in order to do that, we need a prison system with enough space. The previous Government left prisons on the verge of collapse. We prevented the disaster of running out of places altogether, and the breakdown of law and order it could have caused, but only just. Now we are ensuring that we never again return to that position, building prisons at an exceptional rate and delivering landmark reforms to sentencing to ensure that there is always a cell available for the most dangerous offenders and to end the cycle of capacity crisis.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026
Jake Richards Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The statutory instrument makes a series of technical but important amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and associated regulations. Its purpose is to ensure that legal aid legislation remains consistent and aligned with wider changes to the law around anti-social behaviour orders and national security measures.
The instrument makes changes in three main areas. First, it updates the scope of civil legal aid to reflect the reforms to measures tackling anti-social behaviour introduced by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Secondly, it clarifies the legal aid framework for terrorism prevention and investigation measures, otherwise known as TPIMs. Thirdly, it aligns the legal aid framework for state threats prevention and investigation measures, or STPIMs, with the framework for TPIMs. Taken together, the changes ensure that legal aid will continue to support the vital principle of access to justice while maintaining a coherent and accessible system.
I will briefly discuss each of the main changes, starting with measures that tackle anti-social behaviour. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced respect orders, youth injunctions and housing injunctions. Those measures replace or reform much of the existing anti-social behaviour injunction regime. Civil legal aid is already available for current anti-social behaviour injunctions. The instrument simply ensures that legal aid continues to be available for the new orders and injunctions.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On the application of ASBIs, I noted in the equalities statement that according to a Department for Work and Pensions survey, in 2022-23, around 66% of those receiving legal aid had a disability. Some 40% had a mental health condition, and around 10% had some kind of learning disability. Those figures seem alarmingly large. I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts on that, or perhaps he could go away and look into it.
Jake Richards
That is certainly something we can look into. As my hon. Friend knows from his previous life before becoming a parliamentarian, legal aid is vital for access to justice, especially for those vulnerable groups. Although we are talking about antisocial behaviour measures and terrorism prevention orders, that still applies across the civil and criminal order regime. He is absolutely right, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister comes back to him with the details in due course.
Civil behaviour orders can have significant consequences for those subject to them, which is why legal aid access is so important. The change will make sure that individuals facing an order can continue to access civil legal aid, subject to the usual means and merits tests.
I turn to the amendments relating to national security. TPIMs are civil measures imposed by the Home Secretary to prevent an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activities. STPIMs are a parallel regime designed to prevent and disrupt hostile state threat activity. Both place significant restrictions on an individual’s daily life, including where they can go, who they can meet and who they can speak to.
Given the seriousness of those powers, it is right that the legal aid framework around them is coherent, clear and fair. Civil legal aid is already available for those who are subject to TPIMs and STPIMs, and that will not change. The instrument ensures consistency in legal aid availability for those two measures and fixes some ambiguities in the current drafting.
Legal aid is already available for TPIM cases, but the legislative framework is complex and has some ambiguity. The instrument clarifies the position and ensures that the legislation matches how the scheme already operates in practice. It confirms that legal aid is not subject to a means test, ensuring that individuals can obtain immediate access to legal advice to understand the restrictions on their rights, regardless of their finances. However, legal representation for proceedings is means-tested. That reflects the fact that TPIM proceedings are treated for legal aid purposes as judicial review cases. As with all JR proceedings, the legal aid means test applies. Finally, the instrument aligns the legal aid framework for STPIMs with the framework already in place for TPIMs.
The amendments to national security measures do not change the underlying legal aid policy. Instead, they ensure that legislation reflects how legal aid operates in practice, and that there is a consistent approach across the two comparable national security measures. To conclude, this statutory instrument will help to maintain a coherent and effective legal aid framework. It ensures that legal aid continues to be available as anti-social behaviour powers are reformed, clarifies the position in relation to TPIMs and ensures consistency with STPIMs. The changes provide greater clarity, support access to justice and ensure that the legal aid system continues to operate fairly and consistently. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Jake Richards
I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions. I appreciate the uncharacteristically constructive tone from the official Opposition—there was a party-political barb in there, but none the less, it was a welcome contribution. I greatly respect the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle’s previous career in the police; I know he comes to these issues with some expertise. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford, is absolutely right: there is no point having access to legal aid if there are no legal aid lawyers. The Government have taken huge steps to try to ensure that there are no legal aid deserts, including a huge upgrade in legal aid investment, but there is a lot more work to be done, and we will get on and do that. With that, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jake Richards Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
There are fewer than five transgender women in the general women’s estate. The exact figure cannot be provided without breaching data protection legislation obligations.
Douglas Lumsden
In Scotland two weeks ago, the Court of Session ruled it unlawful to hold biological males anywhere on the women’s prison estate, and even the SNP Government, after a year of dither and hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money wasted, have now been forced to accept this and move biological males out of women’s prisons. Can the Minister set out a timeline for all women’s prisons right across the UK to remove biological males so that they can fully comply with the Supreme Court ruling brought about by For Women Scotland?
Jake Richards
The judgment in Scotland relates to prison rules that apply in Scotland only—England and Wales have separate rules, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt know. I gently remind him that the rules in England and Wales were introduced in 2023. They mean that transgender women with male genitalia or any history of violent or sexual offending are not held in the women’s estate, except in truly exceptional cases that are signed off at a ministerial level. This Government inherited those rules, and Ministers have not approved the placement of any transgender women in women’s prisons. This is a classic case of this iteration of the Conservative party spending all its time in opposition criticising the very policy that it introduced.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010 and that Scotland has taken the relevant steps. The Minister responded to my hon. Friend with a fairly vague answer about what needs to happen in England. We know that there are women who are not biological females in the women’s estate in England and Wales. When will women get the same protections as in Scotland?
Jake Richards
The policy that we are implementing in England and Wales is lawful; it complies with the Prison Rules 1999 and the Equality Act 2010. The guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has come out. We have 40 days to consider and ratify it, and we will do so.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
Given that we are thinking about the women’s prison estate more generally, and given that the Swansea residential women’s centre was due to open in 2024 but now does not look like it will open at all, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Welsh women can access alternatives to custody?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are determined to drive down the population of women who are in prison where it is safe to do so. That is why Lord Timpson set up the women’s justice board, which has taken huge steps not just in improving resources for women in custody, but in ensuring that we have plans to reduce the population wherever possible.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Knife crime is a serious offence, and the courts rightly treat it as such. Immediate custodial sentences continue to be widely used, particularly for repeat possession, with sentence lengths increasing over time. Alongside this, the Government have strengthened powers through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, including tougher penalties and new offences to keep communities safe. No one should believe a word the Opposition say on knife crime—they broke their promise that anyone caught carrying a knife would face a presumption of immediate imprisonment, and they slashed neighbourhood police numbers as knife crime soared under their watch.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the latest figures show that the average custodial sentence for an adult knife or offensive weapon offence is just over eight months. Under the Sentencing Act 2026, there has been a presumption since March that any sentence below 12 months should be suspended, so what action is the Minister taking to ensure that that presumption does not effectively decriminalise many knife offences?
Jake Richards
I am incredibly proud of this Government’s work on knife crime, whether that is taking zombie knives off the streets or ensuring early interventions are used more effectively for children caught carrying knives. That is why knife crime is going down under this Government, having soared under the last Government.
I have two points to make about the presumption introduced by the Sentencing Act. First, it is just that—a presumption. The Conservatives keep talking about scrapping short sentences, but that is nonsense; it is a presumption. Secondly, that presumption was first proposed by the Conservative Government in their final few years in office. They now oppose the very policies they were suggesting.
Bob Blackman
The fact is that more and more young people are carrying knives, supposedly to defend themselves. That leads to knife crime on our streets—certainly in my constituency, it is a serious problem, particularly between young people. We have now experienced stabbings in schools, which is disastrous. Those who are caught carrying knives should face a custodial sentence, because unless we have a deterrent, people will continue to carry knives and, when threatened, they will use them. Will the Minister take the action required to ensure the message goes out that if you carry a knife, you are likely to end up in prison?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is right that deterrence is an important factor. He raises significant cases from his constituency. In my neighbouring constituency, in Sheffield, a young boy was murdered just last year as a result of knife crime, so the issue is close to my mind in my role as a constituency MP and as a Minister. This is a long-standing problem, one that requires education and early intervention. The hon. Member is right that custodial sentences and deterrence play a part, but it is a much more wide-ranging problem and we need to be careful about those interventions early on, particularly with children who carry knives because they feel they need to do so to protect themselves. I am not convinced that a custodial sentence is the right solution in every case.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Ten days ago, 17-year-old Jamal Coombes was killed in my constituency as a result of knife crime. Every young person deserves to live safely and fulfil their potential. His life was taken too soon. What actions are this Government taking right now to have a more co-ordinated approach with schools, public health and the police not only to prevent such awful tragedies, but to ensure that our young people feel safe and do not feel the need to have to carry a knife?
Jake Richards
On behalf of the Government, I send my condolences to Jamal’s family. Every incident of knife crime is a tragedy. Through our plan to halve knife crime over the next decade, we are undertaking a comprehensive, cross-Government approach to reduce violence and protect communities. That includes measures such as banning dangerous weapons and tightening rules around online sales, which has a real effect. We are funding more targeted enforcement activity, in particular in the 280 hotspots where we know, because the data suggests it, that knife crime is happening. We are making sure that our interventions are focused, but there is a lot more to do. Knife crime is coming down, but we are not celebrating that for a minute. Every incident is a tragedy, and we will continue to work hard to bring the rate down.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I know that you are a great supporter of the Parliamentary Knowledge Foundation. Next Thursday, it will be bringing MPs to Empire Fighting Chance, a boxing gym in my constituency that has been involved in the Government and Idris Elba-led anti-knife crime coalition. Does the Minister agree that listening to youth perspectives is crucial in the battle to reduce knife crime and that we should be commending the young people at Empire Fighting Chance for their involvement in what is often a deeply personal issue for them? They have lost friends and family to knife crime, but they want to be part of the efforts to address it.
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right that community initiatives are at the heart of how we confront knife crime and crime more generally. I credit the boxing gym in her constituency. I know that Dinnington boxing club does great work in my constituency, too, and I have been there on numerous occasions. Just last month we published the youth justice White Paper, and at its heart is ensuring that we involve children’s voices so that our interventions, as policymakers in this place and in government, are tailored to the challenges and issues that children are facing. She is absolutely right, and we are getting on with the job of doing it.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent Afzaal Hussain for the work that he does alongside Adele Webb. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have heard in this morning’s session about the tragic consequences of knife crime, and it is so important that the Government and wider society work together to do anything we can to reduce it.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Jake Richards
That is an absolutely shocking figure, and I pay tribute to all NHS staff and frontline public service workers, who often put their bodies on the line, quite literally. I meet the chair of the Sentencing Council regularly to discuss issues, and I will raise this one with her as well.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Jake Richards
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and her constituent. Lord Timpson set up the Women’s Justice Board, which is considering the issues with the women’s estate. We are determined to bring down the population of women prisoners where it is safe to do so. There is a lot more work to do, but we are making progress.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Jake Richards
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. My thoughts are of course with the family of Phillip Tetley, and with Eve in particular. I know that stretch of road very well, as it is on my commute to Retford station, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and Eve to see if I can do anything to help.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
My constituent was repeatedly sexually abused by a family member, who received four concurrent 28-year prison sentences. He threatened to murder her during the trial. After serving about 10 years, he was transferred to the Netherlands, where he was released immediately. My constituent lives in fear of his returning to the UK and carrying out the threats that he made towards her. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this complex case, and will he commit to reviewing international prisoner transfer arrangements that have the practical effect of allowing dangerous offenders to be released far earlier than the UK courts intended?
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Member for her question. She raises very serious points. I am, of course, happy to meet her, and her constituent. We are determined to bring down the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons. We need to do that safely. We recently agreed a memorandum of understanding with Latvia. We have a similar agreement with Italy, and I have been speaking with officials in the Netherlands to try to pursue a deal there, too. It is important that we do that safely, and I am very happy to have further discussions with her about that.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Street Whyze was set up by Danny Mondesir after the tragic stabbing of Oliver Freckleton in 2021. It undertakes targeted work with young people to prevent knife crime, knife carrying and youth offending. In the light of the new cross-Government knife crime strategy, can the Minister say how such programmes will be used to cut youth knife crime?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, 68 is far too late. When will prison officers achieve a fair, just and—crucially—lower retirement age?
Jake Richards
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued championing of this cause. We regularly meet the Prison Officers’ Association and will continue to do so. Prison officers do incredible work every day, up and down the country, and we will continue that dialogue.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
In their 2024 manifesto, the Government made a promise to set up specialist rape courts in every Crown court location. Two years on, how many have been set up?
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The stalker of my constituent Sophie Hall was arrested and deported. Post deportation, there was no monitoring of him at all. The stalking recommenced, and he is now back in prison in the UK. This Government’s progression model means that he will be released early, and will again not be subject to active probation supervision. Can my hon. Friend, who promised this would not happen, tell me how on earth Sophie will now be kept safe?
Jake Richards
I met my hon. Friend and Sophie at the end of last year, and as a result of that meeting, we made changes to the guidance on deportation of offenders. I have not been kept updated on what has happened since then; I will meet her and Sophie expeditiously.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Will the Minister join me in thanking and paying tribute to Carole Gould and Julie Devey from the action group Killed Women? They are constituents of mine and of my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who unfortunately cannot be here due to ill health. Will the Minister pay tribute to the enormous dedication, persistence and courage that they have shown in trying to get changes to sentencing for domestic abuse?
Prisoner Early Release
Jake Richards Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the early release of rapists and child groomers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Those who perpetrate heinous crimes must face the full force of the law. Under this Government, convictions for child sex offences are at a record high. At the end of this Parliament, more criminals will be behind bars than ever before. However, this Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse—at one point, fewer than 100 places were left in the whole estate.
Without the Sentencing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent in January, the courts would be at risk of grinding to a halt, preventing sex offenders and others from being brought to justice. No space in prisons would mean no trials, no justice for victims and no punishment for offenders. That is the choice: strict licence conditions in the community for those who have already served time in prison under our reforms, or the entire collapse of the system, leaving sex offenders and others acting with impunity.
The previous Government added just 500 prison places to the system in 14 years, in stark contrast to this Government, who are delivering the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era. We have delivered 3,100 additional places in under two years, and are on track to deliver almost 11,000 more by 2031.
Under our reforms, dangerous offenders will continue to be locked up for a long time. More than 18,000 offenders serving life or extended sentences will not be affected by changes to release points and will remain subject to Parole Board decisions. Offenders who are released will face strict licence conditions, closer probation supervision for the most dangerous offenders, exclusion zones, tagging, 24/7 tracking and curfews. This is the biggest expansion of tagging in history, ensuring that dangerous offenders are monitored and the public are protected. If risk in the community becomes unmanageable, those offenders can be recalled to prison.
The previous Government left prisons on the verge of collapse. This Government are safely delivering the reforms needed to end the cycle of capacity crises and protect the British public.
Dr Mullan
Imagine being the victim of a serious crime—as serious as rape or child grooming—and receiving a letter saying that the perpetrator who harmed you is going to be let out of prison early. Appallingly, that is the experience right now for thousands of victims of crime, including the victims of some of the most serious crimes imaginable, thanks to the changes that have been made to our sentencing laws by this Labour Government, helped by the Liberal Democrats.
Before Labour MPs and the Minister tell us again, as he has already done, that this is being done as a result of prison overcrowding, I want every Member of the House to be crystal clear about the actual choice that this Government are making. The previous Labour Government released 80,000 prisoners early; the previous Conservative Government also operated early release programmes, as this Government have—that is not new. However, those schemes excluded serious sexual offenders. Do Labour MPs really want to tell their constituents that they support the early release of rapists and child groomers when there are existing schemes that could be used to avoid that?
I pay tribute to grooming gangs campaigner Fiona Goddard, who, like many others, refused to be silent when she received her letter. Fiona’s abusers were sentenced to between 16 and 20 years in prison in 2019; now, she says that the justice she got in that courtroom is being snatched away from her, and she is right. What did the Labour Government say to the journalist who raised her case? They said that the most serious offences would be excluded. Labour told a victim of rape, sexual assault and grooming that her offenders were not serious enough to be excluded from early release—disgraceful.
We are just a matter of weeks away from these serious offenders coming out, and we still do not know how many are being released and what crimes they have committed, so thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The Government cannot cover up what they are doing to victims any longer; they must tell us today how many criminals—how many rapists and child groomers—are going to be released early, when they are going to be released and exactly what crimes they have committed.
I am confident that when the public understand what is being done in their name, there will be an outcry. Our incoming Prime Minister will have a choice: to act in the interests of rapists and paedophiles or to stand up for victims. What will it be?
Jake Richards
I have listened to the hon. Member speak about this issue a lot, and I must again remind him of his party’s record in government and why the Sentencing Act was an absolute necessity to keep the criminal justice system functioning.
When we came into office, prisons were at bursting point. Only 500 prison places were added in 14 years. Some 10,000 offenders were released by the previous Government, largely in secret. That is the key point, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member has quite rightly and understandably asked how the scheme will be delivered and how victims will be kept informed. Under the Conservatives, it was pure chaos. They lost their grip on the system and did not have a long-term plan for stability in the prison estate, which meant that when they did have to operate early release mechanisms, they gave the victims just a few days’ notice, if any at all. There was complete secrecy and complete chaos. We will not let that happen to the British public again.
There is a choice. No alternative has been offered by the Opposition to the prison crisis that they created. There is a choice: strict—
Mr Speaker
Order. We do not need to worry about what the Opposition’s position is. The question is to the Government—it is about what you are going to do. I also have a constituent who received a letter; I have to say, this is a very serious issue across the country.
Jake Richards
Let me be very clear, Mr Speaker. The Sentencing Act, which received Royal Assent in January, sets out some provisions that will come into effect in September. We are determined to ensure that victims receive due notification in good time, not just because we believe that the Government have a responsibility to let them know, but because we know that victims need to play a role in the licence conditions that we set.
It is vital that victims’ voices are heard. That is why we have already begun communication with victims’ groups and, indeed, with victims who are party to the victim contact scheme. We will go further and ensure that all those who are party to the scheme receive precise information on their case—not just because we want to let them know, but because we want to hear from them to ensure that when we put in the most robust licence conditions in the community, victims’ voices are at the heart of the decisions we make. That is absolutely right, and that is not what happened under the Conservative Government.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
I recognise that very few rapists went to prison under the previous Administration and that the increase in rapists, especially child rapists, going to prison under this Government has been huge. I congratulate the Government on that. It is, however, my opinion that there should be more exemptions within the release scheme, and we should all be working together to see if child rapists can be included in that, should the numbers allow it, because we also cannot let the prison system end.
I would like to ask a really specific question about the risk assessments that will be done on these cases before release. I have to say that my experience of risk assessment in these cases is not great. It does not take account of the victim or public safety more broadly. Can we have an assurance that there has been a change to the risk assessments regime from how it was under the previous Administration, so that any risk assessment done on the release of any prisoner will ensure that we are actually safe in public?
Jake Richards
Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she did both in government and in opposition on these issues. She has raised with me outside the Chamber the issue of pre-sentencing reports, in particular in relation to domestic abuse. As she knows, I have spoken with Lord Timpson and we will come back to her on those specific measures.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of community safety. We have invested £700 million into the probation system—the biggest investment in probation for a generation —and recruited more probation officers than ever before. For the first time in several decades, the caseload of the average probation officer is coming down, in contrast to the record highs reached under the Conservatives.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I pay tribute to the victims and survivors of some of the most appalling, heinous crimes for their bravery in speaking out about the fear they have felt after receiving letters from the Ministry of Justice informing them that their perpetrators might be let out early. I understand that the purpose of the letters is to ensure that victims have the opportunity to engage with licence conditions, but what other support will be available to those victims who understandably feel retraumatised and let down by the justice system?
In the other place, the Prisons Minister made a commitment that those released early would be subject to intensive supervision, supported by a significant programme of electronic tagging. The Liberal Democrats were clear that the Government could bring forward those measures only if the Probation Service was adequately resourced to achieve this in the community. The Prisons Minister agreed to an annual review of the state of probation and its ability to cope with the changes. When can we expect the first review?
Finally, the Government inherited a prison system that was running so hot that they were at risk of losing the ability to lock up any offender. Can the Minister guarantee from the Dispatch Box that no victim will ever again be given just two days’ notice, or in some cases no notice, of their perpetrator being released, as they have suffered in recent years?
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I will deal with her three points. As I said in my earlier response, we are determined to ensure that victims’ voices are heard. We have invested £15 million in victim support services, and victim liaison officers will clearly be involved in many of those cases. The Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), is beside me on the Front Bench and will have heard her very important point.
The hon. Lady is right that public safety can be ensured only by investing in probation. That is why we have made the biggest investment in a generation—£700 million—and that investment is now beginning to bear results, with caseloads coming down significantly for the first time in a long time.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to give due notice to victims of what is happening with their perpetrators so that they are informed and are involved in the process. Under the last Government that did not happen, but it will happen now. I gently remind Members that some victims have opted out of the contact service. We cannot say today that all victims will be contacted, but all those who are involved with the contact service will receive that notice.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
We all accept that the prison capacity crisis requires difficult decisions to be made, but when Parliament passed the Sentencing Act, Ministers assured the House that the most serious and heinous offenders and those who commit the gravest crimes will continue to face the toughest sentences. Does the Minister not accept that most people would regard the actions of members of grooming gangs who have sexually abused, raped and exploited children—and child sex offenders more generally—as falling within the ordinary meaning of the most serious and heinous offences? If so, why are those not excluded from the release scheme?
Can I say, as a local Member of Parliament, that I am disgusted that according to local news reports—the Government have not informed local MPs—Shabir Ahmed, the leader of the Rochdale grooming gang, who was an Oldham resident, is due to be released this week? He was convicted of crimes in relation to Rochdale victims, but we all know that for every victim who went through the court process other victims did not, so the idea that Oldham is somehow not affected by the evil of this person is ridiculous. May I urge the Minister please to look at that case in particular as well as the rules that are allowing this to be normalised? It cannot be allowed to be normalised.
Jake Richards
Let me thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will of course not just look into that case but meet him urgently to discuss it. I gently say that the provisions in the Sentencing Act, which was passed in January, have not come into effect yet; they begin in September. I do not know the details of that case—I will look into them urgently and meet him—but on the face of it the case falls outside the new legislation that we have passed. I will certainly make sure to meet him urgently.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I welcome the news that Keighley and Bradford is finally getting an independent grooming gangs inquiry. It has been a long fight, but for survivors like Fiona Goddard, who I spoke to again last night, the news has been bittersweet. The fact that Fiona and many other victims and survivors of the most horrific sexual violence have been written to by the Government to inform them that the very rapists and paedophiles convicted of abusing them could be released as early as September is an absolute disgrace. Fiona’s life has been turned upside down, and she and many others live in fear right now, and they also fear being retraumatised by a system that is diminishing the horrors that happened to them. I ask the Minister directly: will he guarantee now from the Dispatch Box that Fiona’s perpetrators will not be released early?
Jake Richards
Let me thank the hon. Member not just for his question but for the work he has done in good faith on this issue for a number of years. I gently say to him, as I have said before—this is difficult, no doubt—that the Sentencing Act is only on the statute book because of the failure of the Conservative Government over 14 years to build appropriate prison places.
Before coming to this place, I spent a large part of the previous decade working with victims of grooming gangs. I take this issue incredibly seriously, as I know the hon. Member does, and I respect him for the work he has done on it. But in 2022 Professor Jay’s report offered a series of recommendations on this very important issue for the hon. Gentleman’s community, my community and those across the country, and he will know, as he sits on the Home Affairs Committee, that when she gave evidence to that Committee at the beginning of 2025, she spoke of how she was ignored month after month by successive Conservative Home Secretaries. So we will not be taking lessons on this issue from the Conservative party.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming to the Dispatch Box and answering questions on a particularly important issue. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) in being concerned not only about rapists being released early, but about the low conviction rates in rape cases. What are the Government doing to deal with that? What specifically can the Minister do to assure me that if any prisoners are released early—for whatever crime they have committed—they are being effectively monitored so that residents in Harlow feel safe, particularly given the mess and the two-tier probation service we were left with by the Conservative party?
May I also ask the Minister about tagging? We have all heard stories about tags not being fit for purpose, with people able to take them off. What can we do to ensure that if people are tagged on release, those tags cannot be taken off?
Jake Richards
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I have said, under this Government convictions for child sexual offences are at a record high. There is more work to be done in this area, and I know that my hon. Friend the victims Minister and others are working to ensure that we have even more robust investigation and punishment of those who commit these serious offences. As we set out in the Sentencing Act, we have also implemented the most robust community package ever, including exclusion zones, tagging, 24/7 tracking, curfews and the biggest expansion of tagging in history, to ensure that dangerous offenders are monitored and the public protected. We must ensure that the tagging system is robust, and we will do so.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
In June, 20 grooming gang perpetrators were jailed for offences in West Yorkshire, which included the rape and abuse of three girls of whom the youngest was aged just 12. Abbas Kaji was sentenced to just seven years for rape, and Mohammed Ishtiaq Hussain to just eight. All too soon, these vile men will be back on the streets of the very communities that they terrorised, and the idea that the Government could cut their sentences to be even shorter is terrifying. This is not about the past but about the present and the future, so can the Minister please assure the House that everybody involved in grooming and rape gang offences will, at the very least, serve the entirety of their already too-short sentences?
Jake Richards
Once again, I am happy to meet the hon. Lady or indeed the appropriate Member of Parliament to look at the details of that case. We need to make sure that we have enough prison places to ensure that those who commit these serious offences serve time at all, and that is what the Sentencing Act, complemented by the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, will do.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I was contacted by a constituent who had received one of these letters earlier this week. The offender in question was a vile monster responsible for decades of sexual abuse, and he was sentenced to 30 years for 31 counts of sexual assault, rape and processing indecent images. He has served less than five years. Can the Minister explain how these are not the most heinous crimes, and how an offender like this is still eligible for this scheme? Can he also reassure residents that they will be written to as soon as possible to set their minds at rest, if their abusers are indeed going to be part of this scheme?
Jake Richards
I am very happy to meet the hon. Member—and indeed his constituent, if helpful—to discuss those cases. As I have set out before, 18,000 offenders serving life or extended sentences will not be affected by the changes at all, but I am happy to look into the particulars of that case.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The Minister has heard quite clearly from Members on both sides of the House the real concern about what was said at the Dispatch Box about those who had committed the most serious and heinous crimes not actually being released under this scheme. That is where the biggest dispute is in relation to this. Could the Minister please pledge to the House that he will go back to the Department and review this, and ensure that all those who have committed rape or been convicted of child grooming and who look as if they are getting early release are excluded from this scheme?
Jake Richards
We will always do what we need to do to ensure that we have a functioning criminal justice system and a prison system that can keep the public safe, and that is what we will continue to do.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The British people will be absolutely disgusted and revolted that these child grooming gang perpetrators and rapists might be released early. Reform’s position is clear: they should receive mandatory whole of life sentences. If the excuse from this Government is that there is a shortage of places, why do they not get on and deport the 10,000 foreign nationals clogging up our jails?
Jake Richards
Deportation of foreign national offenders is at record highs under this Government and we will continue to work to ensure that we deport those foreign national offenders who should not be here. I think the justice spokesperson for Reform is the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). She recently said that 1.2 million people should be put in prison every year. There is no serious plan from Reform that keeps our country safe.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Last week, the Government announced the first areas to be investigated as part of the rape gang inquiry, yet under their new Sentencing Act, rapists and child groomers will be released early from prison. The Minister must see that putting these criminals on the streets not only makes an absolute mockery of Labour’s rape gang inquiry but goes to prove that Labour was never serious about having one or locking up those perpetrators.
Jake Richards
As I have said, there was an inquiry into these issues, which was begun by the last Conservative Government. The chair of that inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, said that their response was
“inconsequential, insubstantial, committed to nothing.”
Victims waited years for action and got nothing. There were briefings that it was “hysterical and half baked”, and highly emotional, and the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that money spent on child sex abuse inquiries was being “spaffed up the wall”. I will not take any lessons from the right hon. Lady or the Conservative party on this issue.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Lefarydd. Richard Tung of Penisa’rwaun, Caernarfon, is in prison after being found guilty of historical rape and sexual offences against a child in Nottingham. He was reported to Nottinghamshire police in 2022, but his first police interview was not until June 2023. Concerns have been raised with me that Tung remained at liberty and free to work in a restaurant in my constituency until he was sentenced to 12 years in prison on 17 April this year—four years later. Will the Minister advise me on how to find out why Tung was not remanded to custody prior to the court case and, given that this is a cross-border police force issue, what child protection and public safety measures should be put in place between Nottinghamshire police and North Wales police?
Jake Richards
As the right hon. Member knows, questions as to whether a defendant should be remanded are a matter for the judiciary. I am happy to look into the particulars of this cross-border issue and the matter of local protective agencies working together to keep the public safe, and will get back to her.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One reason that the present Prime Minister has lost the trust of the public is his refusal, time and again, to give straight answers to straight questions. My Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), asked a straight question: how many rapists and how many child abusers are scheduled for early release? Either the Minister is not answering because he does not know the answers, in which case he should tell us that, or he does know the answers but is refusing to give them. Which is it?
Jake Richards
When the Sentencing Act went through Parliament, we had a number of debates, and an impact assessment was published. The numbers are contained in there.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Any victim of rape or child sexual abuse will know that securing a conviction is almost impossible. I am absolutely astonished that those incarcerated for raping children are not excluded from this early release scheme. However, given that the Government are including them, and given the absolute mess made of the Probation Service by the previous Conservative Government’s reforms, will the Minister guarantee from the Dispatch Box that the Probation Service is now adequately staffed, funded and equipped to closely monitor these awful perpetrators, who are being let out of prison way too early?
Jake Richards
Yes, Lord Timpson, the Minister in the other place who is responsible for the Probation Service, has undertaken huge reforms to how the Probation Service operates, which are backed up by investment. I am confident that we have a robust probation system that is ready for the challenge ahead.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
During the passage of the Sentencing Act, we were told that the perpetrators of the “most serious, heinous crimes” would not be included in these measures, so can the Minister explain why the Government do not think that the rape of children is one of the most serious and heinous crimes, and how many individuals who committed it will be coming out early?
Jake Richards
As I have already said, more than 18,000 offenders serving life and extended sentences, including rapists and those who have committed the most heinous offences, are not affected by the Sentencing Act provisions at all. I need to be abundantly clear that we will never let happen what we inherited from the Conservative Government, which is that there were no prison places. We were running out of prison places, which meant that the whole criminal justice system was on the verge of collapse. Never again.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
My constituent was recently told that the person who was found guilty of grooming his child on social media could be released as part of the early release scheme. Does the Minister recognise the distress that that sort of news causes victims? Will he also tell the Yeovil constituency what progress the Government have made on increasing prison places and strengthening the Probation Service in the south-west? Victims do not just want to feel heard; they want to feel safe.
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the concern among constituents who have receive these letters, but the purpose of the letters and the engagement is to ensure that we work with victims so they are informed of the situation and their voice is heard. That did not happen under the previous Government, who had to rush out communication because they had completely lost control of the system.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I would expect the Minister to know the numbers, and this question has been asked many times, so I am going to give him another attempt: how many rapists and sexual offenders will be released early under the Sentencing Act?
Jake Richards
As I said, the impact assessment published during the Sentencing Act’s passage through Parliament set out very clearly that 7,500 prison places would be saved as a result of the Act.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister talks a good game about prison numbers, but he will know very well from the many exchanges we have had on the issue that there are a lot of prison places that this Government have yet to deliver. Prison contractor ISG went bust in September 2024, and because the Government sat idle for 18 months without appointing new contractors, 3,500 prison places were not delivered—places that would have meant that the Government did not need to release prisoners early now. I have a male sex offenders prison in my constituency. I appreciate that he will not have the numbers to hand, but can he write to let me know how many rapists and child sexual abusers will be released from that prison?
Jake Richards
I seem to spend half my life writing to the hon. Member, who asks a lot of questions on this issue. Let us be clear about the facts here: under the Conservative Government, only 500 places were built in 14 years. In two years, we have built 3,500 net places and we will have 14,000 by 2031. The hon. Member makes the point, “Well, some of those were apparently planned for or envisaged by the last Conservative Government.” Unless I am hallucinating, I am the one who is opening these prisons under a Labour Government.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Soft-touch fever is spreading across the land because in Scotland, the SNP Scottish Executive are about to start releasing rapists as much as 2.5 years early. Do the Ministers on the Front Bench not realise that they are so out of touch with the public on this issue that they risk the very fundamentals of the justice system?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is right that faith in the justice system is absolutely crucial. That is why the situation we inherited—the criminal justice system teetering on the brink of collapse, meaning no trials and making arrests impossible—was completely unacceptable, and we will never let that happen again.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Surely the Minister must agree that sustaining and instilling confidence in victims is essential to securing and sustaining prosecutions, and therefore any indication that there could be early release of such a person is bound to undermine a victim’s confidence. Last week in Northern Ireland, through the bravery of two young women, we saw Jeffrey Donaldson convicted as a child rapist—a man who passed himself off in this House and elsewhere as a statesman, demonstrating that no one, thankfully, is above the law. But if we get into the business of early release for child rapists, how do we ever hope to sustain victims coming forward?
Jake Richards
Let me put on the record my gratitude for the bravery of those victims that the hon. and learned Gentleman identified for what they undertook to ensure that there was justice. What undermines confidence in the criminal justice system is a system that completely unravels. Without the appropriate prison places and without getting down the Crown Court backlog, which my hon. and learned Friend the Courts Minister is busy doing, we undermine faith in the system completely. We cannot let that happen. That will mean difficult decisions, but we will not shy away from them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions. My constituents are horrified by the early release of rapists and child groomers. If a criminal is sentenced to 15 years for destroying a child’s life or committing a horrific rape, they should serve every single day—indeed, every single hour—of that sentence behind bars. Opening the prison gates early does not fix the justice system; it actively endangers women and children across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will the Minister urgently review these catastrophic legal changes and guarantee that no convicted rapist or child groomer will be given a get-out-of-jail card by this Minister’s Department and this Government?
Jake Richards
We will not shy away from the difficult decisions needed to save the criminal justice system to ensure that we have prison places to put criminals behind bars. By the end of this Parliament, more criminals will be behind bars than ever before. This is not a matter of being soft on crime; it is a matter of ensuring that we can put criminals away in future.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I genuinely seek your guidance and support. I have submitted multiple written questions and freedom of information requests. We have a named day question on this matter that was due to be answered on Friday, which the Government have refused to answer as they should. The Minister said that the information we are after is in the impact assessment, but that is not true. There is not the information on the number of offenders in terms of rapists and child groomers being released. How do we and the public get answers to these very basic, incredibly important questions?
Prison Safety
Jake Richards Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this debate and for bringing attention to this very important subject, which she has raised on numerous occasions in the Chamber and elsewhere. She has spoken to Lord Timpson, the Minister for Prisons, and to me about the issue and has been a champion for inmates and staff at HMP Lowdham Grange, as well as for families.
I also want to thank my hon. Friend’s staff, on the record, because it is not just Members of Parliament who deal with these very difficult, complex and draining issues. I know that staff in her constituency and parliamentary office have very difficult conversations and that they go above and beyond to help her constituents, and sometimes people who are not her constituents. It is right that I place on the record my thanks, not just for bringing the matter to my attention and that of the Government, but—[Interruption.]
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
The debate may now continue until 4.50 pm if necessary.
Jake Richards
As I was saying before we were interrupted by votes, I want to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest, her team, and her neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne), who has raised this issue with me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest intimated in her opening speech, on the back of her representations I visited HMP Lowdham Grange in April. I had an important meeting with the governor and her leadership team where I raised many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and was reassured to a large degree. I felt that the leadership team there understood the issues and were working at pace to attempt to address them.
However, I also want to place on record that I challenged the team about the work that needs to be done. We have seen in the report published yesterday that although there have been improvements, there is absolutely no doubt that there is a long way to go. I hope that the governor and the leadership team at HMP Lowdham Grange would agree with that.
There is more work to do there and elsewhere. Poor safety in our prisons fundamentally reflects a system under strain. In the summer of 2024, this Government inherited a prison system that was in crisis—in utter collapse—and very soon to run out of places completely. Too many prisons are still struggling at or near capacity, with an increased risk of violence hampering their efforts to turn offenders’ lives around, as we have heard.
I will go on to address some of the particular issues, but we have taken fundamental action to reduce the risk linked to capacity challenges. Ultimately, we can only do all the good work on reoffending, education and rehabilitation if we have a functioning prison system. That is why we are delivering 14,000 new prison places—the biggest expansion of the estate since the Victorian era. We are investing £4.7 billion in that prison-building programme over the next four years, and we introduced landmark sentencing reforms in the Sentencing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, to finally put the prison system on a sustainable footing for the future. That Act was not easy. Difficult decisions have been made, but that legislation means that we can reassure the British public, for the first time in essentially a generation, that there will always be prison spaces for offenders when we need them.
However, there is much more to be done on rehabilitation, education and mental health support. I accept that absolutely.
Lee Pitcher
I know that the Minister is a huge champion of mental health, and of men’s and boys’ mental health in particular. In my constituency, I have the Moorland, Lindholme and Hatfield prisons. Will he join me in celebrating the amazing work being done by the Samaritans in those prisons to support people, and Andy’s Man Club as well?
Jake Richards
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am a massive champion of Andy’s Man Club up and down the country, but especially in south Yorkshire. It does really important work with ex-offenders and indeed more generally. We have continued as a Government to fund the Samaritans’ Listener scheme, which trains prisoners to support other prisoners who are in crisis. It is a brilliant initiative and I urge any parliamentarian to engage with it in their area.
I want to touch on what we are doing to try to protect our prison staff, because numerous Members raised that issue. We have invested £15 million in protective equipment, including up to 10,000 units of protective body armour. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest set out in her opening speech, that is a transformative approach to protecting our prison officers compared with what the previous Government were able to do. Half those units are allocated to the long-term high-security estate, including at HMP Lowdham Grange. So, as we roll out body armour across the LTHSE, HMP Lowdham Grange will benefit.
That is why all staff in the adult male estate now have access to body-worn video cameras, batons, rigid-bar handcuffs and synthetic pepper spray as part of their standard equipment. It is why we have introduced PAVA spray in the Youth Custody Service. Very difficult decisions and considerations about the use of such equipment have to be made, but they are the right decisions to ensure that we protect prison officers, both in the youth estate and in the adult estate.
That is why we have trained and equipped up to 500 additional officers in the use of Tasers and why we are already installing up to 50 ligature-resistant cells, in order to prevent self-harm, and have confirmed funding for the installation of more. Because safety and security are innately intertwined, the Deputy Prime Minister has announced an extra £35 million this year to improve security at 17 of our most at-risk prisons, on top of the £40 million that we have already invested in this area. In addition, up to 13,000 new heavy-duty steel window grilles will be in place by next spring. The picture is getting better—we have stabilised the prison system and we are investing in security measures—but there is a lot more work to be done.
The rate of assaults on staff has decreased under this Government by 4.5%. I accept that that is a modest figure, but it is moving in the right direction. The rate of self-harm among prisoners has also decreased, by 8%, but I absolutely accept that it is far too high. As the Minister who shares responsibility for this area with my noble Friend in the other place, I get regular updates about serious incidents in prisons. They are far too frequent and far too serious, and much more has to be done.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for outlining the issues. One of the critical problems in prisons is the mental health crisis. People are coming in with complex needs, including complex emotional needs; sometimes they have addiction issues; and they may have experienced abuse in the past as well. Those things need to be addressed. We can provide all the body armour and other equipment that needs to be provided, as we should, but he and the Government need to address the mental health crisis as well.
Jake Richards
Absolutely. The NHS works in our prisons up and down the country every day, and it does incredible work. We have bolstered the approach to people identified as being at risk of suicide and self-harm. There is a comprehensive package of support for what is called “individualised case management process”. It sounds technical, but it is very important, because it means that for the first time we are treating prisoners, and looking at their needs and their history, in a much more tailored and individualised way. As I mentioned earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), we continue to fund the Samaritans’ Listener scheme, which is really important, but much more needs to be done, so I accept the hon. Member’s point.
I want to touch on security and drugs. Hon. Members will be aware that one of the biggest drivers of serious violence and instability in prisons is the influx of contraband, particularly drugs. In prisons up and down the country, essentially of all categories, the No. 1 issue keeping the governor up at night is security and drugs.
We inherited a prison system that was awash with a shocking amount of drugs. They compromise not only the safety of hard-working staff and the prisoners themselves, but make it far harder for staff to do the important work that turns prisoners’ lives around. That is why we are tackling drugs on every front. We have invested in drug-detecting dogs; we have machines to detect drugs impregnated into paper and fabric; and we now have X-ray body scanners across the whole adult male estate.
Certainly, drones continue to be a significant challenge. We are investing in state-of-the-art technology; indeed, my colleague Lord Timpson was in Ukraine recently to look at the technology that it is using as part of the war effort, and what we can learn in terms of investing to secure our high-security estate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest raised valid specific concerns about safety at HMP Lowdham Grange. She will know that the prison was brought under public management following serious issues with safety and security under the previous private provider. During my visit in April, I was encouraged by the progress being made. I have seen a much stronger approach to managing individuals at risk of self-harm or suicide, and we have supported HMP Lowdham Grange with additional investment in safety resources, better staff training and closer working with healthcare partners.
Through the long-term high-security estate taskforce, further action is being taken to tackle weapons and drugs in our prisons, and those measures are beginning to have an impact. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons conducted an independent review of progress in May and published its findings yesterday, as I said. It confirmed that the prison has made progress and has a clear path to improve safety and security.
I reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest and for Gedling, and others, that I remain fully committed, together with my colleague Lord Timpson, to improving safety at HMP Lowdham Grange and making sure that it receives sustained attention and action from the Government. The governor has also assured me personally that she and her team will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest and other local MPs, and that my hon. Friend will shortly be invited back into the prison to see the progress and ask any questions that she has.
I again place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate, for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents, and for the opportunity to respond. The challenges facing our prison system are significant and we do not underestimate or shy away from them. The Government are investing, modernising and taking action to make our prisons safer for staff and prisoners alike and, above all, better able to deliver rehabilitation, which cuts crime, reduces reoffending and protects the British public. That is the progress we are making, and the work we will continue to drive forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jake Richards Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Government are giving offenders the tools to move away from a life of crime. We are led by the evidence when addressing needs such as housing, employment and substance misuse treatment and support in order to develop personal skills and behaviours. We are also investing £700 million in probation and expanding intensive supervision courts for prolific offenders.
Tony Vaughan
Reach Out and Recover Kent, a brilliant organisation that I met in Folkestone over the weekend, helps people, including ex-offenders, to recover and stay away from addiction so they can gain skills and work to reintegrate into society. However, Ministry of Justice figures show that at the six-month post-release point, the reoffending rate is twice as high for unemployed adults as for those in employment. What are the Government doing to ensure that more ex-offenders in my constituency get tailored and timely support, particularly for addiction, to get them back into work and enable them to leave offending behind them once and for all?
Jake Richards
My hon. and learned Friend is right to raise those issues and the good work that is happening in his constituency. As he knows, Lord Timpson is leading work on what happens when inmates are in custody. That means working with health services to ensure that our prisoners are getting the support they need, as well as with private sector employers to ensure that there are opportunities afterwards. I will ask Lord Timpson to write to him with the specifics about what is happening in his area.
Tim Farron
I had the honour of taking part as a volunteer in a restorative justice programme at His Majesty’s Prison Haverigg in Cumbria a few years ago. Restorative justice gives victims the opportunity to share with offenders the real impact of their crimes and gives offenders the opportunity to take serious responsibility. Studies show that restorative justice reduces reoffending rates by up to 28%, so what is the Minister doing to ensure that restorative justice programmes are delivered in every prison?
Jake Richards
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is an important role for restorative justice in our criminal justice system. Just yesterday we made an announcement on the use of restorative justice in our youth courts, as well as the appointment of Jacob Dunne as an expert adviser. Jacob Dunne, who will be known to many Members of the House, is a great champion of restorative justice, and someone who has experienced it. There is more to do in the adult estate, and the Government will announce measures on re:hub, which is an essential cog of the restorative justice system, in due course.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Government are talking a good game on reducing the cycle of reoffending, but meaningful prison education plays a key role in that objective. Recent analysis has found a significant decrease in the core education hours in public sector prisons. That has been seen most acutely in female prisons, where there has been a fall of 30%. What is the Minister doing to reverse that decline in education hours across all prisons, end the postcode lottery that we see currently, and ensure that obligations to equality are met?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is right to raise the importance of education in our prisons. The scandal with education in our prisons is that there are classrooms and workshops that are left empty day in, day out, because the prison system remains unstable and capacity is going through the roof. This Government have been rightly focused on getting stability into the prison system. We will make announcements about investment into education, but we will also be using the private sector and the third sector, not just Government contracts. Again, Lord Timpson will be making announcements on that in due course.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Prisoners are moved to an open prison as part of the rehabilitation process, but only after they pass a thorough risk assessment. Every prisoner, including those serving a sentence for a sexual offence, is subject to an individual risk assessment. They will not be allowed to move to an open prison unless they are assessed as presenting a low enough risk. A prisoner can be immediately returned from an open prison to closed conditions if their risk increases.
Alicia Kearns
Paedophiles should be behind bars, not roaming our communities. I am afraid that the Minister’s words will ring hollow for my constituent who received a call in January and was told that her abuser, the paedophile, who was only two years into a nine-year sentence, had been moved into an open prison, and now had the right to leave the site freely, and even stay out overnight. Will the Government review these moves? Clearly something is not working. Will the Minister also specifically look into this case, which is utterly unacceptable?
Jake Richards
As I said, each case is considered on its own circumstances, and the risk is assessed by the professionals. I am very happy to look into that case and make sure that the appropriate officials look into it too.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
As an MP whose constituency has a category C prison for male sex offenders that is almost at capacity—HMP Littlehey—I welcome the clarity from the Minister regarding paedophiles in the prison estate.
We know that the Minister is on the hook to deliver thousands of new category C and D prison places. I want to ask him about the prison places he has made almost no progress on since the election because the contractor ISG went into administration in September 2024. I first highlighted the failure of that project last year. Can he confirm whether, since then, all those 12 prisons have had new contractors appointed? When will those prison places be delivered?
Jake Richards
This Government are undertaking the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era. We will be building 13,000 new places by 2031. We inherited a prison capacity crisis from the Conservatives, so it takes some chutzpah for them to start asking questions about prison building. We are committed to the prison building programme that we announced in 2024, and we are confident that we will match it. We are fixing the mess that they created.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Far too many care-experienced people end up in the criminal justice system. Last November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a review of the national protocol for reducing the criminalisation of that cohort. Officials are actively working on that, and we will publish a strengthened protocol later this year.
John Whitby
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Children in care have often faced significant trauma, instability, neglect or abuse. As a result, many of them end up in the criminal justice system, and care leavers are 10 times more likely to end up in prison. Counselling has been shown to help keep children in care out of prison, which is obviously better for the young people, and saves the state money in the long term. Will the Minister consider changing national protocol guidelines to ensure that trauma counselling is provided to children in care who are identified as being at risk of engaging in criminality?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue. The disproportionate number of care leavers and children who have been in our criminal justice system is a national disgrace. Just yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister met the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister)—the Minister responsible for children’s social care—to look at the issues in the round. As I said, we are looking at strengthening the protocol, and we will publish that in due course.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Of course, the youngest children in care are babies. It might shock the House to learn that there are 36 babies residing, through no fault of their own, in mother and baby units around the country. Given that babies are taken away from their mothers on a case-by-case basis after 18 months, I wonder whether part of the sentencing review should be about whether it is appropriate at all for mothers and babies—particularly the babies—to be imprisoned, apart from in the most serious criminal cases.
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Member for that important question; he is right to raise the matter. Indeed, he raised a similar theme in the Commons just yesterday. Lord Timpson has a particular focus on female offenders and women inmates in prison, and he will make an announcement in due course.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Government are committed to transparency on this issue. We publish data on releases in error each July in the HM Prison and Probation Service annual digest. On 15 April we also published ad hoc data for April 2025 to March 2026, alongside Dame Lynne Owens’ independent review and the Government’s response, accepting, in principle, all the recommendations.
Joe Robertson
Oh dear. My question was about how many prisoners have been released in error under this Government, and the Minister does not seem to know the answer. That is okay, as I can tell him. It is 441, which over a two-year period is the worst on record. Will he now apologise, or will he provide a convoluted excuse about why it is not his Government’s fault?
Jake Richards
That question is a very good example of someone not listening to my answer but assuming that he had. We will release the data for this very serious and important issue, as we should, in due course. We released the data earlier this year on an ad hoc basis. By the way, in 14 years the Conservative Government never released data on prisoner releases in error, so we will take no lectures from the Opposition Benches on that issue. Fundamentally, Dame Lynne Owens has conducted a review of this important issue and set out a series of recommendations on how to solve it, which we have accepted and will begin to implement, so I will take no lessons from the Opposition Benches on this issue.
James Wild
Despite implementing what the Justice Secretary said were the strongest ever checks, every week criminals are being given a “Get out of jail free” card. How many of those 441 prisoners, wrongly let out of prison on Labour’s watch, remain at large, and why is it still taking days for the Prison Service to let the police know when it has wrongly released people?
Jake Richards
The truth is that this is a long-standing issue in our criminal justice system, and it is a disgrace—any release in error is a disgrace. How do we solve the issue? We solve it by investing in our prison system. That is why we are building more prisons than we have done since the Victorian era. We are investing in stabilising the prison population. That is why we introduced the Sentencing Act 2026, so finally we have some sustainability in our prison system, after the Conservatives did absolutely nothing. We are taking action, as recommended by Dame Lynne Owens, and that action will be undertaken rapidly.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
As I said earlier, all prisoners, including those convicted of domestic violence and stalking offences, will be allowed to move to an open prison only when they have been assessed and risk assessed. I am very happy to organise a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and the relevant Minister to discuss this case.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is right to raise this and has done so consistently. I meet justice counterparts from the devolved Governments regularly, and I will ensure that this issue is high on the agenda for our next meeting, because it is very important. There is a lot of good work happening in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. We need to ensure that it is joined up, to address that particular mischief, which is incredibly serious.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Can the Minister assure me and my constituents back home that the changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme will ensure that victims of crime in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the kingdom are better supported at every stage of the criminal justice system?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right to raise this. I am very proud that this Government have listened to victims. I have met with the Victims’ Commissioner and an array of victims who have been complaining about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We have been able to modernise it by allowing an out-of-time route for victims and bereaved family members to refer sentences outside the 28-day limit. Clearly, 28 days is sometimes not appropriate for families who are deeply distressed, so we have been able to make that change, working on a cross-party basis. I am proud that this Government are putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Half of all prisoners lack the basic literacy skills needed to navigate everyday life, only one in three secure employment within six months of release, and a third reoffend within a year. Rehabilitation, reducing reoffending, and improving public safety must be at the heart of our criminal justice system. Will the Secretary of State please commit to increasing funding for prison education, so that offenders can access the basic skills and support they need to rebuild their lives, reintegrate, and contribute positively to society when they leave prison?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend has been consistent in raising that important issue, and we are committed to ensuring sufficient education provision for prisoners. I would gently stress, however, that we can only provide that education if we are able to get prisoners into the classroom. We need to stabilise and get order back into the prison system after the chaos that we inherited, but this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that prisoners have education and work opportunities on leaving prison.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I represent a very rural area, and people have to drive many miles to get to a court. With fuel prices currently so high, why are ordinary citizens reimbursed for jury service at the rate of only 31.4p per mile for travel by car, yet the standard HMRC approved rate is 45p per mile? It does not cover the cost of travel, and penalises those who live in rural areas.
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is a member of the Justice Committee, and she raises an important and practical point. The Government recognise the hugely important civic duty role that jurors play day in, day out across the country, and we will always keep remuneration and travel costs under review. We have heard the question.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am sure it has not missed anybody’s radar that I recently launched a campaign for lifelong sex education, and last week I met some parish councillors, one of whom works in the Probation Service. She thanked me for the campaign because of the amount of re-education they have to do, particularly for young men, on what is acceptable within sexual relationships. Will the Secretary of State, or a relevant Minister, meet me to talk about the importance of lifelong sex education in re-educating potential reoffenders?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
What assessment has the Minister made of the report concerning communication between the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, and the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Karim Khan, regarding the court investigation into war crimes in Gaza? What steps is he taking to uphold the independence of the international judicial institutions that we set up?
Jake Richards
Some of the matters that the hon. Member has raised are perhaps matters for the Foreign Secretary, rather than the Justice Secretary. As he said, we clearly always respect international law and the principle of the rule of law more generally.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Sexual assaults and harassment on trains have risen by more than a third over the past 10 years, yet too many trains and stations still lack adequate CCTV. That evidence gap lets criminals evade justice and fails victims. What steps are the Secretary of State and his colleagues taking to improve CCTV coverage across the whole rail network, so that perpetrators of violence against women and girls can be brought to justice?
Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour
Jake Richards Excerpts(4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing today’s debate on this very important subject. I will attempt to directly answer the questions he posed. All our prison officers, to whom I pay tribute today on the record, deserve protection. Whether that means we should roll out mandatory body armour is a more complex question and requires a more complex answer. Some of the reasons why it is a complex task have been set out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) who quite rightly raises questions about the commitment that we have already made. He then also, quite rightly, asked about the training and the process by which the roll-out will take place, where items will be stored and ensuring that all staff agree with such a roll-out. I accept the premise of his question, but it is somewhat more complex than perhaps it may seem from the outset—and we are working on that.
I also want to directly speak to Claire, if she is watching this debate. What she has suffered is horrific. Like the shadow Minister, I pay tribute to her for powerfully turning a horrific incident into a campaign on a number of issues, through her efforts and those of her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I am very happy to meet her. It may be that Lord Timpson, who is operationally responsible for many of these matters, will also meet her as well. I will look to organise that as soon as possible with her MP.
I will try to deal with as many of the issues raised as possible, and otherwise, I am happy to follow up with hon. Members in writing.
Sir Julian Lewis
On what the Minister said at the beginning, I would be the first to acknowledge that it may take time and be a gradual process before all prison officers are equipped with body armour in practice. What we are looking for from the Minister today is whether he accepts the principle that they should be—then we can work on the timescale and the practicalities.
Jake Richards
I absolutely accept the principle that prison officers should be safe at work and be given the tools to be so. Every prison of each different category has a different context, culture and working environment, and each has to make an assessment of the risks therein.
Sir Julian Lewis
That was not really what I asked the Minister. I was asking whether he accepts the principle that all prison officers are vulnerable to attack in any prison and that, in principle, they should be able to have appropriate body armour as standard?
Jake Richards
I accept the principle that too often there are attacks in all sorts of prisons, but of course there are more acute settings where that risk is greater. I accept that we have to take protective measures in all sorts of prisons. I do not think that I can go as far as the right hon. Gentleman may want me to in accepting the second part of his premise—I can see that he is trying very hard to get me to, but I think it is more complex than that, and I hope I can set out a bit why that is in the short time that we have.
As I said, rolling out protective body armour—as we have committed to, and I am proud to be serving in a Government who are committed to doing what the last Government did not in the high-security estate—is not just about having equipment; it requires thoughtful planning. There needs to be secure and accessible storage so that officers can access their kit quickly while also preventing unauthorised use. There needs to be clear guidance on how to handle and check the armour, and regular inspections and proper replacement schedules so that equipment remains effective. Compatibility with other equipment is also vital. Protective body armour must work seamlessly with body-worn video cameras, radios, batons and PAVA—the synthetic pepper spray. It must fit within existing uniform requirements and the regulatory environment around that. We also need to consider the impact on other staff who are prisoner-facing, but who may not be equipped with protective body armour. Making sure that their safety is not compromised is also vital.
While protective body armour is important, the Government do not feel that it is an instant silver bullet. It is one part of a broader package to improve staff safety. Officers in the adult male estate already have access to PAVA spray, which is used to prevent serious assaults. We also have over 13,000 new-generation body-worn video cameras. Work on that began under the last Government and has been continued under this Government, and it means that every officer in bands 3 to 5 can wear one during their shift. They provide high-quality evidence to support prosecutions and include a pre-record function to help capture the often crucial lead-up to incidents.
We are also going further. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term and high-security estate with tasers. That will improve safety and enhance frontline capability in the most high-risk environments.
Liz Saville Roberts
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) raised how key performance indicators for safety would be one particular driver that the Government could bring in immediately, which would enhance all the factors that the Minister is mentioning. Does he agree that another critical KPI could be staff retention? That is the canary in the mine, because where staff are happy, they stay—and they stay with all their expertise.
Jake Richards
I reassure the right hon. Member that details on violence in both the adult and the youth estate are seen by Ministers, and the Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister, on a regular basis. This is a key concern for all Ministers and the whole Department, and we are doing everything we can to clamp down on it. The same is true for staff retention. I am happy to call it a KPI, but it is absolutely at the top of our concerns about our prisons in this country. There is a long list of reasons why there are issues.
Liz Saville Roberts
The key point is what is measured publicly. I appreciate that Ministers will have the information, and I am delighted that they do, but the sense of what is measured and the standards by which our prisons are held to account—that the public are aware of—are key drivers in creating change within a culture that we know has needed to change for 12 years or more.
Jake Richards
Forgive me; I misunderstood the original question. I am very happy to look into what data is published and what is not, and to make sure that appropriate data—where it is safe, secure, quality assured and everything else that comes with that—is available to hon. Members. I will look into doing that in due course.
As I said, we are going further. HMPPS is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term high security estate with tasers. Violence against any prison officers is totally unacceptable. Perpetrators will face the full consequences of their actions, and measures are being taken to extend the punishment for such offences.
Prison officers do a valuable job in our prisons. They keep us safe, and we must do the same for them. Deploying protective body armour in high-risk areas and a wider roll-out is an important step. We will make sure that frontline officers have the tools to do their job safely. This is also part of our broader approach to reducing violence, strengthening control and, above all, upholding the safety and dignity of the staff who serve with dedication every day.
Members have raised other issues about conditions for prison officers. As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I am very happy to meet Members and representatives of the Prison Officers Association, as I have done previously, to discuss these issues in some depth. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), so wisely touched upon, all these issues come back to the stability of our prison system. Fundamentally, that comes back to issues of capacity and staff retention, training and recruitment. This Department’s No. 1 aim is to deal with and stabilise the prison capacity crisis, invest in our prison and probation staff—these two issues are innately interlinked—and make sure that we have a sustainable prison system that can keep the public safe in the future.
Court and Tribunal Transcripts
Jake Richards Excerpts(4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome today’s debate. There is general cross-party consensus about the need to ensure more open justice and to do everything that we can to ensure that victims in criminal proceedings have access to the information that they need to recover from the crimes that they have suffered.
The tone struck by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), was unfortunate. I genuinely was not going to mention the 14 years of underinvestment in our courts, the fact that rape convictions were at record lows under the last Conservative Government, or the fact that progress on victims’ rights, and indeed many of the issues we have discussed today, was moving at a snail’s pace, if at all, under the last Government. While I was not going to make any of those comments, I felt obliged to do so having been prompted by the hon. Member.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for raising this important issue, as he has done before in the House of Commons and elsewhere. I acknowledge his contribution and all who engaged with the petition. Although the Government knew about this before this petition, the representations underscore a real public interest in transparency across the justice system. That is particularly important to the rights of victims, who were specifically spoken about by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). As I have said on the Floor of the House, the hon. Lady’s work in this area has really led the way. Indeed, that is also true of many others as well, including the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, who raised really powerful cases.
I have met victims—in my role, I have the privilege and humble duty to meet victims regularly—and there is no doubt that our criminal justice system still too often fails them. There is an issue of transparency regarding court transcripts and sentencing remarks, and I hope to deal with some of the specifics raised of why we cannot go as far as many would want us to at the moment. However, from this debate, and more generally, we can see that there are problems of how victims are dealt with within our criminal justice system. We have heard about information as to their trial and advice around their attendance. We are seized upon their advice regarding the unduly lenient sentences scheme in relation to a piece of legislation before Parliament. There are lots of ways, culturally and systemically, in which the criminal justice system fails victims, and there is an acceptance that there is more to do.
I want to set out the Government’s approach, what we have done and what we want to do. In doing so, I hope to deal with some of the detailed questions and challenges that have been posed in this debate. I start by reaffirming that open justice is a foundational tenet of our system. Open justice is the long-established principle that justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that is fundamental to the rule of law. Transparency also helps to build confidence in the justice system, supporting scrutiny and enhancing public understanding of how the law is applied.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the justice system is open and transparent, and we share that priority with the judiciary. Both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Lady Chief Justice have spoken at length about the importance of transparency. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said, new technologies no doubt offer opportunities to meet rising public expectations of access to information, but the principle of open justice is not unfettered; we have a duty to ensure that it is delivered responsibly and in a way that safeguards the administration of justice. It is vital that we protect the rights of victims, witnesses and parties, and that sensitive information is handled with care.
We must ensure that any measures to increase transparency do not undermine the effective operation of the justice system. That is why achieving the right balance is central to our approach to transcript provision. The petition calls for all court and tribunal transcripts to be made available for free in order to increase transparency, enable appeals and support victims. Those are important aims, and ones that I hope every Member of the House would support. However, it is important to recognise some of the practical realities of producing transcripts, as well as the considerable progress already under way to improve access to such information across the justice system. I will expand on that, but practical realities are not just infrastructure within courts and the contractual systems that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley set out, but legal considerations and the context in which all court transcripts are dealt with.
Producing a transcript of court proceedings can be resource-intensive. It is detailed, skilled work requiring rigorous quality assurance. Full hearing transcripts, especially those involving lengthy trials or hearings, multiple parties, interpreters—my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), who has just left the Chamber, touched on that—or sensitive evidence can run to hundreds or even, in my experience, thousands of pages. Ensuring accuracy is paramount because transcripts may be used in appeals or covered by the media. Errors can seriously undermine confidence in the justice system.
Transcripts must also comply with relevant reporting restrictions and data protection requirements. In practice, that means that detailed, manual anonymisation is required to prevent both direct and indirect jigsaw identification of victims, witnesses or other court users, a process that current technology cannot safely automate and requires careful review to ensure that no combination of details could reveal the identity of individuals protected by reporting restrictions. That is a time-consuming, skilled task that requires precision, and often legal advice, to safeguard vulnerable people.
However, the Government have made significant and meaningful progress on transcript provision and wider transparency in the justice system in recent years. In the Crown court, victims of rape and serious sexual offences, and bereaved families in homicide cases—that is, murder, manslaughter and offences of causing death on the road—can request a free transcript of relevant sentencing remarks. That ensures that victims can revisit the judge’s explanation in their own time and use it to inform any decisions they may need to make, including whether to submit representations under the ULS scheme.
Steve Barclay
It is not surprising that the Minister is setting out the concerns that MOJ officials have no doubt raised with him about reporting restrictions and accuracy in the text, which are all valid. However, there is a danger that the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. I have two specific points. First, to what extent could the judge, as the trial proceeds, earmark packages of documents, audio recordings or other information that could be made more readily available, rather than the perfect being the enemy of the good? Secondly, the Government have made a lot of passing a duty of candour. Is the duty of candour complied with if the cost of obtaining a transcript is so high that the victim simply cannot afford it, or if it arrives after the 28 days that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) spoke about?
Jake Richards
The right hon. Member says that we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good, but he no doubt understands that it is paramount that court transcripts are perfect. I will come on to his other points, but I know he accepts that this not quite as straightforward as transcribing other public meetings with the technology we have today and turning them into written documents. Perhaps more can be done with regard to witness statements that appear in the trial as evidence in chief and are not challenged. I am happy to look into that and speak with the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, but it may be an issue for the judiciary, the Crown Prosecution Service or the victim care service.
As I said at the outset, one of my concerns when I deal with the criminal justice system and victims from all those angles—from court transcripts, which have been raised, to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, through which I meet victims all the time—is that there is a problem, culturally and systemically, with how victims are not at the heart of the system and the process. I have fears when it comes to the issue of whether more can be done as a trial is developing, or after it, to ensure that the victim understands what is happening and gets the information that they need. Where it is possible, safe and legal, I have no doubt that more can be done; it may not be as easy as flicking a switch at 102 Petty France, but I am sure that more can be done.
I am somewhat wary of the suggestion from the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) about recordings. We need to be very careful about how we use recordings of criminal proceedings, whether audio or visual. He will no doubt be aware of the sensitivity, but perhaps more can be done. I can take away his suggestion, which is a more manual mechanism for ensuring that victims know and understand what has happened at the criminal trial.
From spring next year, the Government will go further: as has been said, victims will be entitled to be provided with free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case. That is an important extension that will make a meaningful difference to victims’ understanding of the outcomes of their case. As was raised by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and by almost every contributor to the debate, the interplay with the ULS scheme is clear. That scheme is being considered as part of legislation going through Parliament at the moment. The interplay between the provision of the transcript and ensuring that the ULS scheme works for victims is at the forefront of my mind and that of the Minister for Victims.
Robbie Moore
In the Government’s response to the petition, they said quite rightly that by spring 2027 they would expand free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks and that transcripts would be made available to anyone who wishes to utilise the ULS scheme within the timeframe that the scheme provides. As that is 28 days at the moment, can the Minister provide some reassurance as to how the Government will ensure that that level of information is provided within the timeframe? Are the Government looking, as I would wish, at expanding the period for appeal beyond 28 days, which is far too short?
Jake Richards
As I say, and as the hon. Member will appreciate, the interplay between the ULS scheme and the provision of transcripts of sentencing remarks is at the heart of our consideration during the passage through Parliament of the Victim and Courts Bill. Parliament is seized of the issue of the ULS scheme. I completely understand the desire to expand the time limit. We have spoken to victims’ groups and victims who have suggested alternatives, or who are potentially not even in favour. We have to get it right. Watch this space, if I can say that at this stage.
In the magistrates courts, we are making meaningful progress on the recording of hearings. As part of wider reform of the criminal courts’ trial and sentencing proceedings, magistrates courts will now be recorded. That will strengthen transparency and support the accurate production of transcripts when required.
In civil proceedings, parties often do not need to pay for written judgments or orders in their own cases. Those are provided as a matter of course so that litigants can understand the basis of the court’s decision and can consider any next steps, including appeal. While a fee is generally payable for the full transcript of the case, a party can apply to the court to obtain it at public expense. The court can order this when satisfied that it is justified by the financial circumstances of the party and is in the interests of justice.
In the family courts, most proceedings are heard in private. This is to protect the children’s welfare and families’ privacy. Even so, progress is being made to increase transparency, while remaining committed to keeping children and vulnerable individuals safe. Family courts are not usually at the forefront of our mind when we talk about the issue, because they often sit in private, but for many families, particularly in public family law proceedings, the transcript of any fact finding or any final hearing regarding the future of a child can be pivotal to the future care of that child, and indeed to the parents in any appeals or routes to having children returned to their care.
The Government have worked closely with the judiciary to support an increase in the publication of anonymised judgments for family proceedings, which enable the public better to understand the decision making, while ensuring that privacy is protected. Even where family proceedings are heard in private, journalists and legal bloggers can attend most types of hearing. Now, following procedural changes, family courts are encouraged to make orders setting out what information from the hearings can be disclosed publicly. That marks a substantial development in transparency in family proceedings, balancing clarity about what can be reported with the need to protect those involved. We are working with Baroness Levitt and the Family Procedure Rule Committee to review the current rules of court relating to the sharing of information from family cases, to ensure that the rules are justified and proportionate.
Tribunals, which are also covered in the petition, play a vital role in resolving disputes across many areas of daily life. Across many chambers of the first tier and upper tribunals, parties can request fuller written reasons at no additional cost. Tribunals therefore already provide substantial written explanation without a fee.
In the immigration and asylum chamber, the upper tribunal already publishes its decisions, and the Government are working with the judiciary and HMCTS to understand the arrangements required to deliver this in the first-tier tribunal. That involves careful consideration of operational capacity, safeguarding and the significant volume of personal data involved. This work is ongoing and reflects our commitment to increasing transparency and delivering open justice.
To go significantly further at this stage, by extending free provision to every transcript across every jurisdiction, would place substantial operational and financial pressures on the Department at a time when we are rightly focused on implementing the extension of free sentencing remarks and a once-in-a-generation reform in our criminal courts.
Looking to the future, however, the Government are embracing the possibilities that new technology brings. Advances in AI transcription could allow for faster and more cost-effective production of court and tribunal transcripts, while maintaining accuracy and safeguarding. Working with the judiciary, the Government will continue to look at how we can go further and faster in this area. It is essential, however, that any such system meet stringent standards and ensure that reporting restrictions are adhered to and personal data is protected.
In conclusion, I reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to open justice. We have already taken significant steps to strengthen transparency across the system, and we will continue to build on that progress, but in doing so it is imperative that we protect individuals, recognise practical and financial constraints and ensure that the justice system can run smoothly and effectively. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley again for opening this debate and all hon. Members who have contributed. I look forward to continuing to work together to ensure that our justice system remains open, fair and trusted by all who rely on it.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
The mover of the motion has a couple of minutes to wind up.