Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Jake Richards Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

Today, I am publishing the second annual statement on prison capacity. This marks the second annual statement delivering the Government commitment to transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system.

This annual statement sets out updated prison population projections and supply forecasts. It shows that, when the impact of sentencing reforms is factored in, supply is expected to keep pace with demand in the central scenario. This is a significant step forward, but there is no single quick fix. The prison estate remains under pressure, and we will continue to take bold action to protect the public and restore confidence in the criminal justice system.

This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. At one point in 2024, fewer than 100 places remained in the adult male estate. Had prisons overflowed, courts would have been forced to suspend trials, the police to halt arrests and public safety put at risk. That was the legacy of years of neglect, during which only 500 net places were added to the estate in over 14 years.

That is why we acted decisively. In December 2024, we published the 10-year prison capacity strategy, setting out plans for the largest expansion of the prison estate since the Victorian era. We committed up to £7 billion between 2024 to 2025 and 2029 to 2030 to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031. This year’s statement shows the significant progress we have made. We have already delivered over 2,900 places and around 5,000 more are under construction, meaning we are on track to meet our target.

However, prison building alone is not enough. Without further action, the prison population is projected to rise by an average of 3,000 annually, outpacing supply even with our build programme.

That is why we launched the independent sentencing review and will deliver reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026. These reforms—including a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences, the extension of suspended sentence orders, an earned progression model, tougher community-based sentences, changes to recall and remand, and earlier removal of foreign national offenders—are expected to reduce the prison population by around 7,500 places by 2028, while keeping the public safe and improving outcomes for victims.

The Probation Service is central to the safe and effective operation of the criminal justice system, to the delivery of the Sentencing Act 2026 and managing demand on the prison estate. The statement therefore outlines key information of probation capacity, including caseloads and workforce. It also sets out progress to date and the steps being taken to strengthen probation capacity over the coming years. This includes investment of up to £700 million in probation and community services by 2028 to 2029, continued recruitment, and ongoing digital transformation to free up capacity and improve performance.

The new Sentencing Act 2026 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament and publish an annual report on prison capacity. This fulfils a promise made in the previous annual statement to commit to making publication a statutory requirement, to ensure future decisions on prison demand and supply are evidence based and transparent. These steps mark a turning point: increasing capacity, strengthening accountability, and building a safer, fairer system for the long term.

[HCWS1291]

Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Jake Richards Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on prison capacity.

Today, the Government are publishing the second annual statement on prison capacity, a copy of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The statement reflects this Government’s determination to be open and honest about the state of our justice system—not to hide the problems or downplay the pressure, but to face reality and act decisively.

Today’s annual statement sets out the latest prison population projections and supply forecasts, and the picture that it paints is clear: our prisons are still under severe strain. The risks that we inherited from our predecessors have not vanished overnight, and the figures show that, without this Government’s action, which was opposed by the Conservatives and Reform every step of the way, our law and order system would be in crisis today, with criminals allowed to roam the streets, and victims failed. For the first time in a very long time, we are no longer forecasting a chronic deficit in prison places. When the impact of this Government’s landmark sentencing reforms is taken into account, supply is now expected to keep pace with demand in our central projected scenario. That is real progress, but let me be absolutely clear: this is no time for complacency. The system remains under considerable pressure, the margin for error is slim, and the work to stabilise it is far from finished. The statement only furthers the Government’s determination to fix the system fundamentally.

Let us remember where we came from. This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. At one point in 2024, there were fewer than 100 places left across the entire adult male estate. Had we allowed prisons to overflow—a risk the Conservative party was happy to take—courts would have been forced to suspend trials, police would have been unable to make arrests, and criminals would have been left to run amok on the streets of this country, as we would have been forced to release thousands of offenders as an emergency measure, the previous Government having left no proper plan in place. We were just one bad day—a protest turned ugly or a surge in defendants in custody awaiting trial—from a total collapse of the criminal justice system. This is not alarmism; that was a dangerously real possibility, and it was the direct legacy of 14 years of neglect by the previous Tory Government. In more than a decade, only 500 prison places, net, were added, while demand surged relentlessly.

The shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), whom I welcome to his place, had a role in this sorry mess. In 2016 and 2017, when he was chief of staff to the then Prime Minister, his Tory Government closed 262 more prison places than they opened. Now, in opposition, they oppose every action to fix the problem that they caused. In short, doing nothing—as advocated by the Tories and Reform—would have risked the total breakdown of law and order in this country. We know that the previous Government chose to stick their head in the sand and not face up to the crisis that they had created, but we cannot ignore this. The alternative—doing nothing—would have been a reckless gamble with public safety, which no responsible Government could countenance.

That is why, in September 2024, when we were faced with the immediate risk of gridlock, we took decisive emergency action. We changed the automatic release point for certain standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40%, to ease the intolerable pressure on the system. That was not an easy decision, but it was the responsible one. Emergency action bought us time, and, in December 2024, we set out our 10-year prison capacity strategy—the most ambitious prison-building programme since the Victorian era. We committed up to £7 billion towards the delivery of 14,000 additional prison places by 2031.

Today’s statement shows that that commitment is not just rhetoric, but a reality that the Government are driving forward. Since July 2024, we have delivered around 2,900 additional prison places, including by opening HMP Millsike in March 2025, and a new house block at HMP Fosse Way in December. Around 5,000 more places are now under construction, including new house blocks at existing prisons, and a brand-new prison in Leicestershire, HMP Welland Oaks, is due to open in 2029. [Interruption.] Major infrastructure projects always carry risk, but based on the latest assessments, the Government have retained our delivery target of 14,000 new places by 2031 —[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am interested in hearing what the Minister has to say, as are our constituents.

[Jake Richards]

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We cannot just build our way out of this problem. Without further reform, the prison population is projected to rise by around 3,000 people every year, outstripping supply even while the largest prison-building programme in generations is under way. That is why wholesale reform is essential. This Government had the courage to act. First, we launched the independent sentencing review, led by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke. Secondly, thanks to that work, we delivered the landmark Sentencing Act 2026, which will ensure that punishment works to cut crime and protect the British public.

Those reforms are about being smart, responsible and honest about what works. They will keep dangerous offenders off our streets, end the revolving door of less serious offenders going in and out of prison, and put victims first, with tougher and more credible punishments outside prison. The provisions in that Act include a presumption in favour of suspending short custodial sentences for less serious offenders, which we know do not work in many cases. Almost 60% of those jailed for less than a year reoffend within 12 months—that means more crime and more victims. This reform is expected to have a particular effect on women in prison. Nearly 80% of women who receive custodial sentences spend mere weeks in prison, which causes huge problems for their prospects of rehabilitation and costs the taxpayer millions. We can do much better.

For offenders who do go to prison, their release will depend on their behaviour while inside. Release at the earlier point will be theirs to lose, and those who behave badly can be kept in for longer, right up until the end of their sentence. That model is based on the one used in Texas, where crime is down, prisons are being closed and the taxpayer is saving money. When offenders are released, they will face a strengthened licence period, with swift recall to custody if they step out of line. New strict licence conditions, such as banning alcohol-fuelled offenders from pubs or keeping troublemakers away from football matches, will be tailored to risk. More offenders will be forced to pay back their debt to victims and the communities that they have harmed, through financial penalties or unpaid work. Taken together, those reforms are expected to reduce the prison population by around 7,500 places by 2028, while improving outcomes for victims and keeping the public safe. To take that further, the Act will also make it quicker and easier to deport foreign national offenders from our prison estate. We have already seen a dramatic increase in the number of foreign national offenders leaving our country under this Labour Government, and the Acts that we have passed will expedite that ambition.

Let us be abundantly clear: today’s figures also show that the Labour Government will keep more prisoners behind bars than ever before by the end of the Parliament—a sustainable system keeping the public safe. We cannot solve this capacity crisis if we do not support our Probation Service, which lies at the heart of these reforms. Probation officers supervise some of the most complex and challenging individuals in our justice system. If sentencing reform is to work, probation must be strong, professional and properly supported. That is why the statement also sets out the state of probation capacity—caseloads, workforce and the action that we are taking to strengthen it. The Government are investing up to £700 million more in probation and community services by the end of the Parliament—a 45% increase on current funding, and the largest ever investment in community justice. In so doing, we are delivering on Sentencing Act provisions, workforce growth and expanded electronic monitoring. At least 1,300 trainee probation officers will be recruited in 2025-26. By September 2027, probation officer staffing levels are expected to have risen to around 6,500.

There is no disguising the challenge ahead. There is an inevitable time lag before new officers can carry full, complex caseloads independently, but the Government are committed to rebuilding probation for the long term, and we are using innovative solutions to assist us. More than 30 digital and artificial intelligence initiatives are under way, including Justice Transcribe, which has already reduced the time spent on note-taking by around 50%, allowing officers to focus on the vital face-to-face work that turns lives around and protects the public.

As we promised in last year’s statement, the Government have, through the Sentencing Act, made the publication of this annual statement a statutory requirement. That locks in transparency, forces evidence-based decision making, and holds future Governments to account. Those steps mark a turning point. This landmark reform was never a choice; it was a necessity—doing nothing was never an option. We are increasing capacity, strengthening accountability and tackling problems in our criminal justice system that have been ignored for far too long. The Government are determined to ensure that Britain never again faces a situation in which there are more prisoners than prison places. Only this Government have been willing to take the tough decisions, invest at scale and reform the system to protect the public. We are facing this challenge head-on, and we will see it through. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

indicated dissent.

[Nick Timothy]

That is true. But I agree that those numbers remain too low, because we should be deporting all the foreign criminals in our prisons. Can the Minister confirm that that is also his aim, and can he tell us how he will stop the European convention on human rights getting in the way? The Opposition are clear that we will leave the ECHR. Will he condemn the actions of his boss, the Justice Secretary, who in opposition actively campaigned against the deportation of foreign rapists?

Finally, I want to ask the Minister a question of principle. He told a journalist this week:

“a pretty big chunk of the overall population… shouldn’t be in prison”.

His colleague Lord Timpson says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. These are my most important questions, and the Minister needs to answer them clearly: is it true that only a third of prisoners should definitely be behind bars, and will he say very clearly that he agrees with me that prison works?

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the new shadow Justice Secretary to his place; I hope he can do a better job than his predecessor. Let me deal with his last question first. If he had read what I said in that interview carefully, he would know that I was talking about the Youth Custody Service; I was not talking about the adult estate. I urge him to go back and read that interview and perhaps come to the House to correct the record.

On the issue of whether prison works, prison can work. I was abundantly clear in the statement that at the end of this Parliament, under this Labour Government, there will be more criminals in prison than ever before, so prison can work. But I gently urge the shadow Justice Secretary to delve a little deeper and look at short-term sentences, for example. Is it the Conservatives’ position today, which it was not by the end of their time in government, that short-term sentences should not be reformed at all? It was proposed in legislation put forward by the Conservative Government in their final year in office that never saw the light of day because of the general election to make exactly the same changes we are making now—but now they oppose it. I am afraid that the Conservative position on sentencing is all over the place.

When it comes to prison building, the Conservatives expect to get some praise for panicking in their last year of government, realising that they had not done anything for 13 years, that they had underfunded prisons and that places were not keeping up with demand, so they started doing something about it. But none of those places was delivered under a Conservative Government. Unless I am hallucinating, I have been to these sites— I opened them; I put the shovel in the ground. It is a Labour Government who are delivering where the Tories completely failed.

On foreign national offenders, I do not accept the figures that the hon. Gentleman set out today. Foreign national offender deportations are up under the Labour Government. Through the Sentencing Act 2026, which the Conservatives opposed, we are making it far easier to deport foreign national offenders.

The Conservative Opposition have a real problem. They oppose every single step this Government are taking to solve the crisis they created, and then they step up and moan about it. They should support us. We are getting on with the job—we are reforming sentencing, building prison places and making sure the prison system is fit for the future. They should support us, rather than moaning from the sidelines.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The prison population is comprised in significant part of cohorts of prisoners who, for a variety of reasons, should not be there in current numbers. That includes prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, foreign national offenders, remand prisoners and, according to press reports today, record numbers of recalled offenders, only around 20% of whom have committed new offences. What more can the Government do to reduce the numbers in prison without any threat to public safety? Should the annual statement not also include statistics on rehabilitation, as the Justice Committee called for in its recent report? In the long term, stopping reoffending is the surest method of controlling prison numbers, so will the Minister comment on the hugely disappointing news in his response to our report that core education in prisons—one of the keys to rehabilitation —is being cut by an average of 20% to 25%?

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Let me deal with the education point up front. There has not been a cut to the overall education budget, but it is right to say that there are challenges because the cost of the contract has increased. We are looking at making proposals about how we can ensure that education provision has the appropriate amount of resource. We will make further announcements in due course, and of course, we have an ongoing dialogue with the Select Committee.

On my hon. Friend’s central point about the number of people in prison who some people feel do not need to be in prison, as the provisions in the Sentencing Act—which received Royal Assent just last week—come into force, they will have an effect on some of that population. We have had a regular dialogue about IPP prisoners. Lord Timpson in the other place is leading on that issue and continues to take that cohort under review.

On foreign national offenders, as I have just said to the shadow Justice Secretary, this Government are taking more action than the last Government, and the legislation we have just passed will make it easier to take further action. We have conversations all the time with other nations about prisoner transfer agreements, which will make it far easier and safer to deport foreign national offenders. This is not the end of the way; the Sentencing Act is just the beginning. As I set out in my statement, we continue to work hard to ensure we are never again in the situation we were in 2024.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

This Government inherited a justice system in a shambles after years of Conservative complacency and mismanagement. Overcrowding, administrative failures and cuts to vital services mean the Ministry of Justice too often appears to be moving from one crisis to the next as it tries to fix an entire justice system that has been broken for a long time. We in the Liberal Democrats welcome the long-term provisions the Government have made to reduce pressure on the system, such as the presumption against short sentences and investment in capacity. It is clear from today’s statement that those provisions in the Sentencing Act will have a meaningful impact on demand for prison places in coming years, but I have some questions for the Minister.

The proportion of female prisoners serving less than 12 months is four times that of the male population. Given the presumption against custody introduced by the Sentencing Act, can the Minister outline what, if any, work is being undertaken to consider the capacity that may be freed up in the female prison estate?

The report outlines the Government’s ambition to secure new land for the provision of future prison builds. Can the Minister outline a timeline for that, and for when prison places that are currently under construction will come online?

The Minister laid out plans to increase the number of probation officers to 6,500 by 2027. The retention of officers has been a long-standing issue within the probation system, which has been compounded in recent years by the uptick in less experienced staff. Will he set out what measures the Department will take to improve retention, and whether the Government will meet the HM Prison and Probation Service staffing level of 7,114 officers by the end of this Parliament?

The Minister rightly said that reducing reoffending is key to easing long-term pressure on the system. Education is central to that ambition, as it provides prisoners with the skills they need to rejoin society after their sentences end and avoid making the same mistakes again. Yet prison education is being cut, not strengthened, as the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), said. In fact, last month the independent monitoring board wrote to the Prisons Minister outlining the impact that real-terms cuts beyond inflation rates were having on education. Will the Minister before us please explain how the Government expect to deliver a rehabilitative system and reduce reoffending while prison boards are being forced to make dramatic cuts to education budgets?

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the hon. Member’s questions. As I set out in the statement, the issue of short-term sentences disproportionately affects female prisoners. As I recall, the average sentence that a female prisoner faces when they are sentenced to less than 12 months is around seven weeks, which is often completely absurd and can affect the prisoner and her family detrimentally and not lead to rehabilitation. Our policies on short-term sentences are a massive part of what we trying to do around that cohort. Lord Timpson is leading on the women’s justice board, which is looking at provisions for us to assist that particular cohort, who often have very particular needs.

On prison places, of course there is always market volatility. As the House knows, the Government are trying to build 1.5 million houses, and we have a commitment to invest in infrastructure. That is always complex. It can be too difficult at times, and we are trying to change that. Part of the reason for having this annual statement is to make sure that any Government are held to account for the prison places to which they have committed. We have committed to building and delivering 14,000 by 2030, and I am confident that we will do that.

On probation officers, the hon. Member is right to raise the issue of retention. We are having regular conversations with the relevant trade unions, and of course meeting probation officers on a regular basis is a very important part of my job and that of all Justice Ministers. That work is ongoing and we hope to be able to update the House on it shortly.

I understand the hon. Member’s point on education. We are undertaking a lot of work in this area, often working with the third sector. There is no point in pretending that there is no fiscal pressure in the justice system at the moment. Our twin focus is on ensuring that we solve the prison capacity crisis and deal with the court backlog, but we will make sure that we support educational provision in our prisons wherever possible.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) about there being too many people in prison who should not be there. Part of the problem with prison capacity is that our laws on joint enterprise mean that someone can be convicted of a serious crime without having made a significant contribution to that crime, often leading to multiple people serving mandatory life sentences when only one person was guilty. Locking up multiple people results in a lack of prison capacity, so does the Minister agree that we need urgent reform of joint enterprise laws so that only those who make a significant contribution to a crime can be found guilty?

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend has been a champion on this issue for a long time. I am very happy to meet with her and the group to discuss the complexities of the issue, because it is very complex. I will get my office to arrange that in due course.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. He said that the release of prisoners will depend on their behaviour while inside. Can he confirm that his definition of good behaviour will include mandatory attendance at education and training, which should result in reduced reoffending, and can he advise the House how he will achieve that, given that the Government will commission 25% less education in the coming year? He says the reason for that is that the price has increased. Well, that is because the Government only contract very large quantity contracts. Were he to delegate those budgets to prison governors and give them the freedom to use local suppliers, rather than relying on two or three enormous providers that have the Government over a barrel, the price would fall.

[Jake Richards]

I am sympathetic to the argument that the hon. Member makes. We need to look at how we involve third sector and private sector organisations wherever possible, and we are looking at that. Clearly the adjudication process will be developed and implemented over the coming months, now that the Sentencing Act 2026 has received Royal Assent, but to my mind it is a welcome reform, based on the Texas model, which showed that it was possible to close prisons, reduce crime and save the taxpayer billions of dollars. We hope to achieve a similar outcome.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I remind Members of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the POA.

I want to back up what the Minister said in retaliation to the shadow Justice Minister. Prison can indeed work, but words alone are not enough, and when a party is in office, it has to back them up with action and actually run the prison estate properly. I cannot convey in words just how dangerous the overcrowding got leading up to July 2024. I, for one, will never forget it, as I have said in this House many times. I think it is pretty brazen to come to this Chamber now and claim that all these places were a result of decisions taken in the Conservatives’ last year in office. [Interruption.] Those decisions should have been taken a decade before. Having rushed them in the last year and literally left prisons at the point of collapse, the Conservatives have no jurisdiction to talk on this matter in the House today. [Interruption.]

I thank the Minister for his statement and ask whether he will meet me to discuss what more can be done to increase safety for staff in our prisons. I welcome the decision to introduce PAVA into the youth estate—another decision that was delayed by the Conservative party. I also ask him to look at the national care leavers strategy, because they are grossly overrepresented in our prison system. If we are to reduce the population, we need to look at that in the next 12 months.

[Jake Richards]

I always welcome my hon. Friend’s contributions on this issue. I gently say to Conservative Members that perhaps when a former prison officer, who has worked on the frontline, is speaking in the House, they should listen rather than chunter and shout. [Interruption.]

I welcome what my hon. Friend said about PAVA. She will know that the former Justice Secretary introduced PAVA into the youth estate, it was challenged in the courts, and the High Court gave a judgment on that last week. There are absolutely no plans to change the current position, which under statute we will review in the summer of this year in any event. I am very happy to meet her to discuss care leavers and prison leavers, and how we can make sure that the system properly supports offenders as they re-enter society.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Almost one in six of the prison population is on remand, and more than 2,500, which is the population of all three prisons in Dorset plus the prison in Wiltshire, have been on remand for more than the custody time limit, including my constituent Liam. Many of them are not a flight or reoffending risk, and some may be innocent. Dealing with the backlog will help, but that will take time. Curfews and tags can be used for some of these people, which will create space more quickly but will require court capacity to hold more bail hearings. Will the Minister look at that option?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member will know that decisions on individual cases about remand and bail are for our independent judiciary. She is right that fundamentally this is about the backlog in our Crown courts. I look forward to the Liberal Democrats supporting legislation that will solve that issue in due course.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for updating the House with this important annual statement. Unfortunately, the Jailhouse Café, which is a fantastic rehabilitation initiative for both prisoners and ex-prisoners on Portland, is set to close its doors in the next few days. Expia, the brilliant charity that runs the café, is currently not in a financial position to carry out essential repair works. The funding that it needs to fix up the café requires a 10-year occupancy agreement for the café building, which so far it has been unable to secure. I know that we can find a practical solution to this, so will the Minister work with me and Expia to find a simple solution that supports the Jailhouse Café to reopen later this year?

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for his constituency, and in particular for its cafés, including this one—he has been telling me all about how important it is to the local community. I am very happy to meet him, and we will do everything we can to keep that café open.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

A Crown court judge in Shropshire recently referenced the county’s “shoplifting epidemic”. Page 6 of the Minister’s statement says that

“more credible punishments outside prison…include a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences for less serious offenders—because we know these do not work.”

Does the Minister accept that shoplifting is a crime; that it is not victim-free; and that in many circumstances, a custodial sentence might still be relevant? Despite the Sentencing Act 2026, the retailers and shopkeepers of Shropshire should know that when they go to work in the morning—getting up early, working hard and going to bed late at night—the profits they make are not going to walk out of the door with somebody who is shoplifting, getting away scot-free and getting a free pass from this Government.

[Jake Richards]

I was going to say that I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but he sort of ruined it at the end. Shoplifting is a crime, and the Home Secretary made an announcement earlier this week about ensuring that we prosecute it. There is a presumption against short-term sentencing, but clearly we are not banning short-term sentences; they are vital in lots of cases, particularly in domestic abuse cases and for prolific offenders, which many shoplifters are.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. He has said that the number of extra prison places created since July 2024 is 2,900, but can he say how many cells have been temporarily or permanently closed due to fire safety concerns and other maintenance issues? Can he also state what his Department anticipates will be the result of the Leveson review? Will the Justice Committee—on which I sit—receive his updated modelling, which includes these reforms, and will he come and speak to the Committee about these things?

[Jake Richards]

I am very happy to come and speak to the Justice Committee as and when invited. The hon. Member raises an important point about fire safety; I do not have the exact figures to hand, but there are definitely issues with fire safety across the prison estate—of course, safety is the primary focus, but that has an effect on capacity and maintenance more generally. I am happy to write to her with those figures. As for the effect of part 1 of Leveson’s report and the forthcoming part 2, the modelling and assessments will be set out as and when the legislation comes before the House, and I am sure they will be sent to the Justice Committee as well.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Regarding prison capacity, my understanding is that none of the 14,000 prison places that are planned is category A. Can the Minister confirm how much remaining capacity there currently is within the prison system at category A, and is he confident that there will be enough going forward?

Twelve prison projects, including the new prison in Buckinghamshire, were due to be delivered by ISG Construction Ltd before it went into administration, and both the major project portfolio programmes it was working on are red-rated within that. Can the Minister confirm that all 12 of those projects have recommenced, and that a new contractor is now delivering them?

[Jake Richards]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman on his last question—I just do not have the details, and I do not want to mislead him or the House on that particular case. As for high-security prisons, there is an ongoing workstream within the Department to look at the future of that estate, and we will update the House in due course.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he accept that in their rush to free up space, the Government have missed the rehabilitation aspect that is essential to any real reform? How can the Government show prisoners a different way, teach them new skills and give them confidence in their ability to change when sentences are cut regardless of where they are in the rehabilitation process? Bearing in mind that Northern Ireland is similar to England and Wales, reoffending there is significantly higher among those serving short sentences, with approximately 51% of adults released from sentences of less than 12 months reoffending within a year.

[Jake Richards]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He said that there was a rush to free up space —that was because we absolutely had to. If we had not freed up space in our prison system, the criminal justice system would have collapsed, so there definitely was a rush.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned rehabilitation. This Government are absolutely committed to rehabilitation —that is a thread throughout the Sentencing Act, which has just received Royal Assent. Thinking about my diary over the next few weeks, I am going to visit a literacy project in Doncaster and colleges that are linking up with prisons. We have to look at this issue creatively and holistically to make sure we have the services and resources in our prisons to offer educational and work programmes. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), there is no point pretending that there are not fiscal pressures in the criminal justice system at the moment. There are, and we have to think a bit creatively and work with partners to overcome those pressures.

Sentencing Bill

Jake Richards Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 7.

Lords amendments 1 to 6 and 8 to 15.

[Jake Richards]

I begin by putting on record the Government’s welcoming of the new shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), to his job. We look forward to working with him; he is somebody of some intellectual heft, and in any event, he is in the lucky position of having extraordinarily small shoes to fill. Of course there will be policy disagreements, as there should be, but my hope is that the new shadow Justice Secretary treads more carefully on issues relating to the independence of our judiciary and respecting our legal profession—perhaps there will be fewer vitriolic social media videos and more thoughtful analysis.

As for the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—or, as he likes to call himself, the “new sheriff in town”—we welcome that the inevitable has now happened, confirming the fact that Reform is little more than a backwater for failed Tory politicians with an ego. I spent five minutes—five minutes that I will never get back—reading the memo that the former shadow Justice Secretary left lying about. It says,

“Use humour—one of your best skills—don’t be afraid to be self-effacing or have a laugh.”

It certainly got us laughing. His memo also contains the memorable line,

“Don't ‘think’. You ‘know’ things to be true! Get out of the habit of saying ‘think’”.

I happen to think that he should get into the habit of thinking a little more.

The right hon. Member for Newark says that he has joined Reform to be “part of a team”. We are still unclear whether he will remain speaking on justice issues, and he is not in his new place today. Over the weekend, it was said that there would be a mini-reshuffle at Reform—a rather depressing game of musical chairs. Whether its justice spokesperson remains the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), or whether the right hon. Member for Newark takes over, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has a go, or the hon. Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) or for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) join in, the story is the same: failed former Tories who cannot be trusted with our justice system, let alone our country.

The Sentencing Bill will make sure that we are never again in the position that this Government inherited, with prisons at risk of running out of places entirely, leaving us with nowhere to put dangerous offenders; police without the capacity to make arrests; courts unable to hold trials; and a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times. That is why this Bill is vital. It does not kick the can down the road, and it does not shy away from making tough decisions to keep the public safe. Instead, it will end the cycle of crisis once and for all.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is making a powerful speech. He will recognise that the Bill is of huge concern to residents in my constituency, because many victims of crime who are waiting for justice to be served are waiting years for the person responsible to face trial. Does the Minister agree that it is really important that this Government get on top of the backlog and get people in front of courts as quickly as possible?

[Jake Richards]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is a fine champion of this agenda and for his constituents in Harlow, and as he knows, the Bill does more than just fix the crisis we inherited; it will confront reoffending and keep our communities safe.

As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out during the very first debate on the Bill in this House, it takes us back to the fundamental purpose of sentencing, which is punishment that works. Punishment must work for victims, who deserve to see perpetrators face retribution; it must work for society, which wants criminals to return less dangerous, not more; and it must work to prevent crime. We want better citizens, not better criminals—that is what will deliver safer streets and protection from crime. The Bill will restore victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system. I reiterate that nothing is worse for victims than prisons running out of places and crimes going without punishment, which is the situation we inherited when we came into government in the summer of 2024.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister has outlined very clearly what the Government, and he in particular, are trying to achieve. There is a perception among the general public—this is certainly indicated in the press and the media—that the Government are going to be a bit soft on those who carry out crimes, but I am very much in favour of rehabilitation, as I think is the Minister. Can he please outline what will be done to enable those who leave prison to be rehabilitated and to ensure that they do not reoffend? The rising number of those who reoffend is incredibly worrying.

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Over the course of this speech, I will set out what the Government are doing more generally to increase rehabilitation and crack down on reoffending. The hon. Gentleman states that there is a suggestion that this Bill is somehow soft on crime. I say gently to him that by the end of this Parliament, there will be more offenders in prison than ever before, so I completely reject that assertion.

I want to briefly pay tribute to the campaigners who have informed large parts of this piece of legislation and the amendments we are discussing. We are introducing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders instead of the movement of victims. The new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that victims can move freely elsewhere. This was campaigned for by Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation. Once again, I pay tribute to them and all those who have campaigned for this crucial change.

Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which will enable probation services to identify abusers early, track patterns of behaviour and put safeguards in place. I must pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, and in particular to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his tireless campaigning and willingness to work across parties to deliver this crucial change, which I know all Opposition parties support.

More generally, it is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of the independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary, David Gauke. [Hon. Members: “Great man.”] “Great man”, the Conservatives say, but they are voting against every single one of his proposals. I take this opportunity to thank him again for all his work—it was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work.

We are determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible—there is an urgency to this process. I remind the House that alongside this legislation, the Government are building prison places at a faster rate than ever before. In our first year, we opened nearly 2,500 new places, and we are on track to add 14,000 by 2031. In the next four years alone, we will spend £4.7 billion on prison building, but we cannot simply build our way out of the crisis we inherited from the Conservatives. The pressures on the system demand that we reform sentencing, but I remind the House that nothing in the Bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes who are serving extended determinate sentences or life sentences.

The Bill delivers vital reforms to our probation services. We are rebuilding the service that the last Government decimated, increasing investment by up to £700 million by 2028-29—a 45% increase. We are also recruiting; in our first year, we hired 1,000 trainee probation officers, and we are on track to hire 1,300 more this year. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all the hard-working probation officers in our country. They deserve full credit for what they do, and it has been important for us to find the extra resources to put into this service, to grow the numbers and the support available.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

In government, the Conservative party oversaw a disastrous privatisation of probation, which ended in a £500 million bail-out by taxpayers. Our Probation Service plays a critical role in the rehabilitation of offenders and in keeping our communities safe, so can the Minister further set out how the Bill will ensure that our probation systems are strengthened and fit for purpose?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I will come on to the issue that she raises shortly.

While we cannot support Lords amendment 7 as drafted, we fully support the intention behind it of promoting transparency and improving the experience of victims. We agree that robust processes are required to ensure the accuracy of transcripts, but placing a statutory duty on the judiciary to approve the release of all Crown court transcripts could significantly increase workload and undermine efforts to drive down the Crown court backlog.

However, I am delighted to say that we have tabled a Government amendment that will expand the provision of Crown court sentencing remarks. They will be provided to all victims who request them, free of charge. This new clause puts victims firmly at the centre of the process. The new clause delivers a major step forward for transparency, enabling victims to digest sentencing remarks outside the pressures of a courtroom setting, and without charge.

The details on timeframes and processes will be set out in due course, but I can confirm to the House that our intention is to specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. That timeframe will support applications made under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I can assure the House that we are considering the Opposition’s amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would extend that deadline to 56 days, extremely carefully.

I am grateful to Members for their engagement on this issue. This change represents a profound step forward for victims, and for transparency in our justice system. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) have been campaigning on this issue for some time. They deserve great credit, particularly the hon. Member for Richmond Park. For the first time, every victim whose case is heard in the Crown court will have this important right of access, free of charge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

A comment often made to me and my colleagues when I was policing was that as soon as I left the police station in full uniform, I was a sitting target, every single day. Does the Minister agree that the proposal for mandatory whole life sentences for those who murder police officers, prison officers and probation officers sends a clear and unequivocal message that those offenders will be met with the harshest and most serious penalties on offer to the courts?

[Jake Richards]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his service, his contribution, and his support for Lords amendment 1. As I said when I had the great privilege of meeting Lenny’s parents last week with the shadow Justice Minister and Lord Timpson in the other place, this is not just about the technical mischief that the amendment solves; thankfully, these cases are few and far between. This is about sending the signal to the brilliant prison and probation officers that the work they do is respected by people in this place and the country at large. I hope that this small change goes some way to doing that. Indeed, since we have announced this change, I have met prison officers who have intimated their gratitude to Lenny Scott’s parents, and to this place for hopefully making this change, and that is welcome.

Lords amendments 2 to 5 relate to the Sentencing Council. Through the amendments, we have sought to clarify what is expected from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice when they are considering any requests from the Sentencing Council for approval of its business plans and sentencing guidelines. Broadly speaking, the amendments do three things. First, if the Lord Chancellor decided not to approve a business plan, amendment 2 would require them to notify the council. It also requires them to lay a document before Parliament as soon as is practicable, stating the reasons for that decision. Amendments 3 and 4 make similar provisions under different guises.

Secondly, we want to make it clear that a very high bar must be met for any guidelines to be rejected, so amendments 4 and 5 provide that guidelines can be rejected only when that is necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Finally, we have set out in the Bill that any approval requests from the council are to be considered as soon as practicable. Taken together, the amendments represent a significant step by the Government to ensure that these approval processes are surrounded by clear safeguards, transparency and accountability.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

While the Lords have endeavoured to amend the Bill in a number of areas, part 4, which allows foreign national offenders to be deported at any time during their sentence, are important to Northern Ireland. Because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, an assessment has been made that there is a risk that these offenders will not be removed in Northern Ireland, leaving us with a two-tier system in which foreign criminals in Northern Ireland benefit from additional EU-derived human rights protections, rather than being sent home. Will the Minister meet me and a number of my colleagues to discuss this important issue to Northern Ireland?

[Jake Richards]

This issue was raised, I think on Second Reading and on Report, by one of the hon. Member’s colleagues. The legal advice we have received simply states that there is no discrepancy in Northern Ireland. I am happy to have a conversation with her and any other colleagues on that. It is clearly only right that these provisions apply to Northern Ireland, too.

The Government are committed to greater transparency on prison and probation capacity, and to current and future Governments being held to account. We have demonstrated that by publishing the first annual statement on prison capacity, in December 2024; the 2025 edition will follow shortly. Lords amendment 6 delivers on that promise by making it a statutory requirement to lay a statement on prison capacity before Parliament each year. Legislating on this duty ensures transparency in the long term, and delivers on the Government’s commitment to do so. Never again will we be in the position that this Government inherited after the previous Government overlooked prison capacity for 14 years, leading to the crisis with which we had to deal.

The Government have also accepted Lords amendment 12, which removes the clause that would have introduced a power to publish the names and photographs of those subject to an unpaid work requirement. The purpose of the clause was to increase the visibility of community pay-back, and to ensure that the public could clearly see justice being delivered. We remain committed to ensuring that local communities can see the benefits of community pay-back in their area. However, we have listened carefully to those in both Houses who have raised issues relating to this measure, and, perhaps more important, to the concerns raised by our brilliant probation and prison staff on the ground, and following careful consideration we do not think it appropriate to proceed any further. We are confident that unpaid work, bolstered by wider provisions in the Bill, will continue to be tough and visible without the addition of this measure.

We are pleased to have made further progress on sentences of imprisonment for public protection. We want to do everything we can to enable those who are still serving such sentences to progress to the end of them, but we are not willing to undermine public protection. The amendments made in the Bill strike that careful balance. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 made significant changes to the IPP licence period: the qualifying period for referral to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination was reduced from 10 years after first release to three years for those serving IPP sentences, and two years for those serving detention for public protection sentences who were convicted when they were under 18.

It is over a year since the first of those measures came into force. The licences of 1,700 people were terminated automatically on 1 November 2024, and a further 600 became eligible for referral to the Parole Board on 1 February last year. We have now gone further by giving those serving IPP sentences an earlier opportunity for licence termination, and providing an additional opportunity for license termination to those serving IPP and DPP sentences thereafter. Those serving IPP sentences will be considered for licence termination two years after release, rather than the current three years. That provides suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community, while ensuring that our communities are best protected from harm.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

I welcome the amendments that deal with IPP sentences. This is a matter of concern to many Members on both sides of the House. Can the Minister assure us that following the changes to IPP licence termination, these sentences will continue to provide for community rehabilitation, while protecting communities from harm? Will the Minister also commit to continuing to work to resolve the remaining challenges relating to such sentences?

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend, a member of the Justice Committee, always makes thoughtful contributions on justice issues, but in particular on IPP. A balance must be struck between public safety and ensuring rehabilitation. The Government think that the Bill has gone some way to doing that, but there is always room for further review and assessment as we proceed, and Lord Timpson, who is leading on this piece of work for the Government, will continue to engage with the Justice Committee on the issue.

I am very grateful for the improvements that have been made to the Bill during its passage in the House of Lords. I hope, particularly given the undertakings that I have given on the provision of sentencing transcripts, that all parties will be able to support the Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 7. They represent a major step forward for transparency and for victims.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

There is no doubt that our justice system faces significant challenges. I have always acknowledged that, and during recent debates on a wide range of issues, from sentencing to prison capacity to probation to jury trials, there has been cross-party acknowledgement that for decades, under a number of Governments of different colours, not enough investment or political priority has been given to our justice system. That, however, should not and must not serve as an excuse for this Government to make changes to our justice system that damage it and fail to address the challenges before us. There are alterations that elements of the Ministry of Justice have always wanted to make. We should not let them use the excuse of the current challenges to finally slip them through the net. That is what we see happening in the Bill, in relation to the proposals on jury trials and, even more clearly, in relation to measures that are to the detriment of victims.

I welcome elements of this Bill, and I will discuss some examples. The Minister mentioned the restriction zones and the domestic abuse markers, but these measures are overwhelmingly outweighed by the fact that at the heart of the Bill is a catastrophic blow to victims’ search for justice: it will let thousands of rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier. The Minister mentioned the independent sentencing review; I remind Members that it gave absolutely no consideration whatsoever to what victims and the public think of the proposals on sentencing. The report is an insult to victims and their families, as many have told me directly.

During the Commons stages of the Bill, every party other than Labour joined the Conservatives in voting against these dangerous proposals, including the Liberal Democrats. In fact, a number of Labour MPs bravely abstained. It should be a matter of deep shame for Liberal Democrat Members that they have since joined Labour in voting to let rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier, especially as they have previously articulated why this is wrong. It is a complete betrayal of victims of serious crime and their families.

This is likely to be my final opportunity to say that I am confident that Labour MPs will come to regret these elements of the Bill, and will find it difficult to explain themselves when victims see perpetrators of crimes such as rape, child sex offences and child grooming leave prison—sometimes having served only a third of their sentence—because of MPs’ support for these measures. I will do whatever I can to ensure that victims know who made those choices, although so many alternatives were available to them. However, I have to accept that this Government’s majority, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, has for now ended the campaign against this change, so we should consider the Lords amendments that are before the House today.

As I know that the public greatly value constructive cross-party working, I will begin with an important issue on which we were able to secure Government support. Lords amendment 1 would ensure that when a police officer, prison officer or probation officer, including a former officer, is murdered because of their service, a whole life order is the starting point for sentencing. This proposal originated from the Opposition, and I am grateful to the Government for accepting the principle, following my meetings and campaigning with Paula and Neil Scott, whose son Lenny, a former prison officer, was murdered because he refused a bribe from an inmate.

Parliament has long been clear that those putting themselves in direct danger by confronting and standing up to the most dangerous people in our society should have the greatest possible protection from our law: a whole life order. We had previously legislated to that effect through the introduction of a mandatory whole life order for those who murder police and prison officers who are undertaking their duties, but the case of Lenny Scott highlighted a gap in the law. Lenny was brutally murdered, years after his service as a prison officer, in revenge for handing in a phone that he found in a prison cell search. He had moved into a new phase of his life, and was enjoying work, the gym, and time with his children and the rest of his family, but he was shot in a car park late at night, simply for doing his job. Lenny’s mum told me that she knew something was wrong when Lenny did not come home that evening. She even went out in the middle of the night to look for him, only to have the police arrive at her door at 1 am with the devastating news.

It has been a true privilege to work with Paula, and with Lenny’s dad, Neil. I extend my sincere thanks to Lord Timpson in the other place, and to the Minister, for taking the time to meet them both, and for agreeing to work with them further to see what else we might do to improve protections for our prison officers. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it was clear from the meeting what decent, moral people they are, which explains the sort of person that Lenny was. I am also very grateful to Lord Timpson for bringing fresh thinking to this area by including probation officers in the measure. They too must work closely with dangerous, violent offenders, and sometimes stand up to them to protect the public. They face the same dangers, so they should get the same protections.

Although our wider focus must always be on preventing crime and protecting the public, it is right that clear gaps in the law should be addressed when they arise. The Opposition therefore support Lords amendment 1 in lieu of our amendment, and I know that Lenny’s parents, family and friends have been delighted to see its progress in the House. In my time working with victims on campaigns, I have learned the pitfalls of naming a law after an individual case—there are always others who might warrant the remembrance of their experiences in the naming of a law—but Lenny’s family have every right to call this measure “Lenny’s Law”.

I will now consider amendments that attempt to deliver much-needed reform, but which are simply insufficient. Lords amendments 2 to 5 all concern the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council. Between them, they provide guidelines for specific scenarios in which the Lord Chancellor does not approve the Sentencing Council’s business plan; conditions for withdrawing consent to the Sentencing Council’s issuing of sentencing guidelines; and conditions for withholding consent to a request from the Sentencing Council to issue allocation guidelines, if it is necessary withhold that consent in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. We saw in the debacle of two-tier sentencing just how far the Sentencing Council has strayed, and these measures will not fundamentally correct that. The official Opposition have made it clear—I will restate it—that our firm policy position is that we would abolish the Sentencing Council, restore power to elected Ministers who are directly accountable to the public, and give Parliament a role when it comes to sentencing guidelines.

The functions of the Sentencing Council in delivering consistency through sentencing are well recognised, and it is not our intention to do away with the functions that will be restored to the Lord Chancellor’s Office, but we believe it is for the Justice Secretary to be responsible for our sentencing guidelines, not a group of unelected individuals with no direct accountability to the public and limited accountability of any kind. Consultation with the public is not the same as accountability to the public, and we are clear that Parliament should have the power to act. Therefore, while these amendments are not a point of contention in the Bill’s progress and we will not divide the House on them, I raise them to point out that they would not be part of a Bill introduced by a Conservative Government, as we would abolish the Sentencing Council entirely and fully restore accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased that the Bill will deliver long-term and sustainable reform to our criminal justice system and make sure that we never again end up in the position where dangerous offenders are not being locked up, the police do not have the capacity to make arrests and courts are not able to hold trials. It was a breakdown in law and order like nothing we have seen in modern times, because the last Government increased sentence lengths without reckoning with the consequences of doing so, adding just 500 places during their time in office. That was a dereliction of duty beyond comprehension and something that must not be forgotten in the context of this Bill.

Our prisons were brought to the point of crisis; frankly, they only survived until the 2024 general election because, on the quiet, the last Government released 10,000 offenders early, completely undermining public confidence in our justice system. [Interruption.] Well, it’s true. The shadow Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), is shaking his head. I was working in the Prison Service—I know what went down. I know exactly what happened. While the Bill was born out of necessity, it includes absolutely transformational reforms that Governments of all colours should have introduced in years past.

It is not that we are not being tough on crime—in fact, it is quite the opposite, because as the Minister has laid out, there will be more people in prison at the end of this Parliament than ever before—but, as has been outlined today, anyone who thinks we can simply build our way out of this crisis is not living in the real world and is not serious about public policy. It is welcome that we are deporting more foreign national offenders and bearing down on the court backlog to reduce remand prisoners. All of that is necessary but not sufficient, which is why this Bill is very welcome.

I want to speak specifically about amendments 1 and 14 and the broadening of whole-life orders. When I was a prison officer, I found it incredibly frustrating how little acknowledgment was given by wider society to the serious assaults and injuries that staff often had to suffer. I will take this issue up with the Minister another time, as I know it does not relate directly to the amendments, but I do think it is important that there is public recognition of how dangerous the job can be, including for probation officers. I pay tribute to Lenny Scott’s family, who have worked tirelessly to advocate for this welcome change. I hope that every Member of Parliament from across the House will support those amendments, which send the clear message that this House backs our police, probation and prison staff, given the particular dangers they face, and that we support them today and every day.

Although the Bill may have been born out of necessity—and, frankly, emergency—at the start of this Government’s time in office, I am proud that it is a Labour Government who are introducing the reform that our justice system has long needed. I am proud to support the Government amendments today.

[Jake Richards]

Today is a pivotal day. Subject to agreement from this House and from the other place, the Bill will complete all its stages and shortly become law. I want to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin). Although I was the Minister to take the Bill through the House, his painstaking work in developing the policy was fundamental and he deserves great credit.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); at every opportunity, including this debate, she rightly raises her campaign to clamp down on tool theft and she is a fine champion for her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). She brings huge experience to debates on these issues. We are taking measures to give prison staff further protections, but I am happy to speak with her about what more the Government can do.

We have aired the debate on the Sentencing Council before. The Conservative position was developed by the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).

[Dr Mullan]

It was a team effort.

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member says, “It was a team effort.” I am not sure about that. The Conservatives’ position is an example of real constitutional vandalism. It has never been the case that this Bill would threaten the independence of the judiciary. Our amendments, and the proposal set out in this legislation, ensure that there is a democratic lock around sentencing and that there is a role for this place, but that the Sentencing Council remains independent. That is absolutely the right thing to do.

I welcome the degree of consensus on transcripts. The Conservative position on this amendment, at the back end of last week and then early this week, seems to have changed a few times. Our amendment in lieu strikes the right balance. If anyone could seek a free transcript of sentencing remarks, we might be in the position where our court staff, who have a big job in getting a grip of the backlog, spend all their time issuing transcripts.

Let me turn to the issues raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). We have to look into the question of what happens with transcripts when victims are either children, deceased or where there is a lack of capacity. It may be that the victims code does that already for us, but we have to get it right and we will ensure we do so as the policy is developed. She mentioned her concerns about exceptions and omissions and asked me to ponder on examples when those exceptions could be engaged. Of course, this may be relevant when there are issues of national security or public safety, but one would hope that such circumstances would be extremely exceptional. It is important, though, that those provisions are in the Bill.

We believe that our amendments will allow for more openness. They are ambitious but also realistic, considering where the technology is at the moment and the pressures on our court system. Do we want to go further when we can? Absolutely. We believe in the fundamental principle of transparency and openness in our justice system, and where we can, we will.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I apologise that I was not here for the Minister’s opening speech; I was chairing the Justice Committee. I do not think that matters, though, because I agree with him on the amendments. They strengthen the Bill considerably. They bring more openness and transparency, and we welcome all the recommendations here, whether in relation to the Sentencing Council, to the prison capacity report, to the transcripts through the amendments in lieu, or to IPP prisoners. They are all welcome improvements on the Bill. We think that they need to go further in some areas, particularly in relation to IPP prisoners, but this is a good step along the way.

[Jake Richards]

I always welcome an intervention from the Chair of the Justice Committee. As I said following an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), the work on IPPs is an ongoing process led by Lord Timpson in the other place. I know that he is always happy to engage with hon. Members from the Select Committee.

I conclude my remarks by stating firmly that the Bill will solve the mess that this Government inherited and begin to make sure that our prison system is fit for the future. I once again thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. Their expertise strengthens it in many important respects.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.

Jury Trials

Jake Richards Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

It will be quite tough to follow that, but here we go.

This has been a very useful debate. Every single contribution, including those from Conservative colleagues, has commented on the crisis in our courts that we inherited from the Conservatives after 14 years. We have heard some suggestions; the gist of the suggestions from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Opposition is, “Let us get more court sitting days.” Would it not have helped if the Conservatives had not closed half of the magistrates courts in England and Wales? Across the entire estate, they sold off more than 40% of all court buildings for far less than they were worth to the communities they served.

As a result of the Conservatives’ vandalism of our court system, there are nearly 80,000 cases waiting to be heard and that number will continue to rise beyond 100,000 without investment, efficiency savings and structural modernisation. Let us be clear: this Government will bring forward a modernisation package that will drag the criminal justice system into the 21st century, ensuring that justice is done fairly and swiftly, that our system meets the challenges that modern criminal cases bring, and that we never again reach a point at which the public’s faith in the criminal justice system is so severely undermined.

The House has heard today a clear and compelling case from my hon. and learned Friend the Courts Minister, who set out the bold but sensible reform we need, bringing down the backlog by the end of the Parliament. It is rooted in evidence, grounded in reality and driven by a simple objective: to fix a criminal court system under unprecedented strain and put it on a sustainable footing for the future.

[Dr Luke Evans]

When the Courts Minister closed her statement, the principle was not about the backlog: she said that she would have gone ahead with scrapping juries to this extent regardless of the backlog. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Is it a principled position or is it about dealing with the administrative burden?

[Jake Richards]

We absolutely have to drag the criminal justice system into the 21st century by modernising its structures, but the context in which we operate clearly has an effect on that programme. The fact that we have inherited an unprecedented backlog in our criminal court system affects the urgency and radicalism of that reform.

Let me take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Sir Brian Leveson, who is no shield. His independent review has driven the reforms that we are taking forward; it is rigorous, thoughtful and absolutely clear about the scale of the challenge before us. Let us be very straight: the reforms being proposed, which will be set out in due course before this House, are not plucked out of thin air but the result of intensive, careful work undertaken by the most senior lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary. The modernisation programme will be built on evidence. These are difficult decisions and no doubt uncomfortable for some in the legal profession, but they are absolutely vital for a properly functioning and robust system that we can be proud of to take into the future.

Let me bust some of the myths that we have heard in the debate. Some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested that these changes tear up a historical right to a jury trial. Let me be abundantly clear that they do not. Article 40 of Magna Carta reminds us that we must not

“deny, or delay right or justice”,

giving us the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. Sadly, in this country today, justice delayed has become justice denied for far too many victims. The Government will not cling to mythological tradition at the expense of fairness, effectiveness and public confidence. We will rise to meet the challenge of the day, rather than living in the past.

I have heard on countless occasions the assertion that this Government are scrapping jury trials. That is not true. Everyone has and will always have the right to a fair trial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) made clear in her compelling speech. There has never been an inalienable or unqualified right to a trial by jury.

Let us set out the maths in some detail, because this is very important. Currently, 10% of all criminal cases are subject to jury trial. Some 7% of those are pleas, where there is no trial, so just 3% are subject to a jury trial. The reforms before the House would reduce that number to just 1.5%. These are modest reforms affecting a small proportion of the criminal cases in our country.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I have great respect for what the Minister is saying, but I and many others on the Labour Benches still have questions. Will he agree to meet those of us who think, for example, that the proposals from the Criminal Bar Association deserve closer scrutiny, so that we can discuss those proposals in further detail?

[Jake Richards]

As ever, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this or many of the other issues he raises in the House.

Let us be very clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) has set out, this is a modest change to jury trials—something that has happened throughout our history. The Opposition were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) that their party has made modest changes to jury trials in the past. It was Margaret Thatcher, one of the shadow Justice Secretary’s various political heroes, who reclassified crimes including taking a motor vehicle without authority and who raised the threshold for criminal damage. Those became summary-only offences in 1988—they were not subject to juries at all. I wonder whether Conservative Members consider Mrs Thatcher to have torn up the Magna Carta or undertaken constitutional vandalism. It is a rhetorical device that Rumpole would be proud of.

We have heard today about what more we could be doing, but let us set out what we are doing. This Government are investing at record levels; this year alone, we have allocated over 100,000 Crown court sitting days—the highest number ever and 5,000 more than the previous Government. I remind the House again that in 2019, the previous Government cut Crown court sitting days by almost 15%—that is their record and their legacy, but Conservative Members did not mention any of that in their speeches today. The Government have committed £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates and £92 million a year for criminal legal aid solicitors, in recognition of their vital role in the justice system and to fix the problems caused by the previous Government’s mismanagement. We are also looking at match-funded criminal barrister pupillages, with a clear focus on opening up the criminal Bar to more talented young people from every background.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister tells the House that an insignificant number of cases will be impacted. If that is true, what is the point? I am sure he has heard the adage that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. It can only been done through jury trials.

[Jake Richards]

It is a small number of cases, but they take an inordinate amount of time. That is the whole point of what Sir Brian Leveson has put forward, and in due course, when this legislation comes before the House and the impact assessments are put before it, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that for himself.

Others have argued that investment alone, or ironing out inefficiencies, would be enough to deal with the record and rising caseload. We have heard about the problems with getting prisoners to court and about the buildings left with leaking roofs after 14 years of austerity. We are going to fix those too, but Sir Brian Leveson could not have been clearer that that will not be sufficient. Even with record investment, the Crown court caseload is projected to exceed 116,000 by 2029. The demand is simply too great, which is why we are driving forward a full programme of modernisation.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Richards]

I will give way on that point, and then I will make progress.

[Tom Gordon]

The Minister talks about record demand and the pressure on court services. Is he able to outline what assessment has been made of the increase in pressure on the court system as a result of cracking down on the right to protest in legitimate cases?

[Jake Richards]

We treat all cases the same. The hon. Gentleman can make that point in a debate on that subject at another time.

Let me end where I began. The crisis that this Government inherited has no doubt given rise to a heightened need to deliver a more modern, resilient and flexible model of criminal justice: one that protects what is fundamental—such as jury trials for the most serious offences—but is bold enough to change where change is needed so that it truly serves victims, commands public confidence and is fit for the realities of the 21st century. These changes will provide long-term, stable foundations for the criminal courts system and prevent the caseload from ever again reaching its current levels. That should be our focus—not a narrow debate on the merits of tradition versus the challenges of the day, or preserving a system that so clearly no longer works for the British people.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Sentencing: Murder of Police, Prison or Probation Officers

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

[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 announcing that the Government will table an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to broaden the starting point for sentencing for the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of their duty. It will apply not only where the murder occurs during the officer’s duties, but also where the motivation for the murder is connected to their current or former role.

We will also extend this provision to cover the murder of probation officers in connection with their current or former duties.

This change ensures that the exceptional seriousness of murders—such as that of former prison custody officer Lenny Scott—that are motivated by the vital work of these professionals is fully recognised in our sentencing framework.

Police, prison and probation officers perform unique and often dangerous roles, routinely dealing with high-risk offenders in challenging circumstances. Their work is fundamental to public safety and the rule of law.

By making this amendment, we are reinforcing the principle that murders motivated by a police, prison or probation officer simply doing their job and carrying out their duties strike at the heart of justice, and these murderers must face the most severe sentences available.

This amendment is part of a broader package of amendments that the Government are making ahead of Lords Report stage of the Sentencing Bill, in response to points made by parliamentarians. The Government will write to peers with full details and the amendments will be available online.

[HCWS1182]

Oral Answers to Questions

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to ensure Serco delivers prisoners on time at Bournemouth Crown and county court.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

The HM Prison and Probation Service prisoner escort and custody services team ensures that Serco meets its contract obligations and takes action when it falls short. Delays at Bournemouth courts are often caused by issues across the wider criminal justice system. The contract management team continue to work closely with partners to resolve problems and improve service delivery.

[Tom Hayes]

We must ensure that courts like Bournemouth are not being kept idle at a cost of thousands of taxpayers’ pounds every day. After all, we have a backlog that we have got to clear thanks to the Conservative party. Bournemouth piloted the pathfinder model, and it wants to do more, but it is being held back by private contractors such as Serco. Will the Government reconsider their approach and consider alternative ways to deliver prisoners to court on time, thereby saving the taxpayer valuable money?

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the shocking situation in our Crown courts and civil courts that the Government inherited from the Conservative party. We must take action. That is why my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services will be setting out a wide-ranging package that will get a grip of the backlog and ensure that our criminal justice system is fit for the future.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

7. What steps he has taken to improve the security of prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

Prison security is a top priority. We constantly update our countermeasures to keep pace with criminals who try to undermine them. This year, the Government are investing over £40 million in physical security. That includes £10 million on anti-drone measures. Prisons also have X-ray body scanners, airport-style enhanced security and X-ray baggage scanners.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for his helpful reply, but as he knows full well violence, illegal drug dealing and escapes are on the rise in prisons, with a shocking 12% increase in breakouts across England and Wales since 2024. That is risking the safety of all our communities. Dangerous criminals are also being released in error. When will the Justice Secretary take responsibility for this utter shambles, get a grip on the situation to ensure that dangerous criminals remain locked up behind bars and do the job he is supposed to be doing to keep the British people safe?

[Jake Richards]

I am constantly aghast at the chutzpah of the Conservatives, who left the prison system in utter crisis after 14 years. Prison officer numbers reduced under them, and prison places hardly rose at all. We are stabilising the prison system and investing in security measures to ensure that we have a prison system that is fit for the future and safe for the public.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposed ending of jury trials for certain offences on the right to a fair trial.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

We have extended the period of time that certain prisoners on standard determinate sentences are eligible for moves into open conditions. We know that open conditions can lead to better outcomes for offenders and confront reoffending. That is because open prisons give offenders better opportunities to find work and re-establish relationships with friends and family, both of which are significantly proven to reduce the chances of reoffending.

[Mr Snowden]

I agree with what the Minister just said, but through the early release programme, and given the “third, third, third” model that the Government want to introduce to split sentencing in custody, prisons such as Kirkham in my constituency in Lancashire are seeing a much higher turnover among their open prison population; prisoners are increasingly serving shorter sentences and in such prisons for much shorter periods. They are effectively becoming cat C prisons but without the walls, the security or the resources. We are concerned about the knock-on effect that that will have on the ability to run rehabilitation programmes, which are designed for significant amounts of time at the end of prisoners’ sentences. What additional resources will the Government put in place to support rehabilitation programmes in open prisons?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member raises an important point. The Sentencing Bill will hopefully receive Royal Assent next year, and there are certainly operational challenges to ensure that those reforms and changes to sentencing in our prison system work smoothly. One of the major measures in the Bill, which the Conservative party opposes, is to reduce short-term sentences for the reason that the hon. Member set out. I am happy to have a discussion about the prison in his constituency, and ensure that the Department is working with it closely, so that it is ready for the changes that, hopefully, will come into effect next year.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to improve safety in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

We are enhancing security measures and easing crowding to curb violence and improve safety in prisons, as well as looking at measures to improve meaningful activity to increase welfare. We are investing around £15 million in protective equipment to help keep frontline staff working in prisons safe, including expanding the use of Tasers and providing more protective body armour.

[Michelle Welsh]

Lowdham Grange prison in my constituency is a failing prison, and I have been inundated with correspondence from prisoners, families and staff who on a regular basis inform me about unsafe conditions and a toxic culture of bullying, as well as incidents of violence, drugs and self-harm, many of which are not recorded; and there is no access to healthcare professionals. Since the last inspection in 2023, 10 prisoners have died. The prisoners have also had 32 days of lockdown in the past two years, and the prison has the worst possible rating for safety. Does the Minister agree that it is time for the Government to make a direct intervention in this prison?

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important case, which is very much on the radar of the Ministry of Justice. I will raise the issue personally with the Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending in the other place. I am personally committed to this issue, and I will visit Lowdham Grange in the new year, hopefully with my hon. Friend, to meet the governor and others to discuss those critical issues.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The Minister will be aware that a number of prisoners are currently undertaking a hunger strike. They are remand prisoners, and some of them do not have a trial date until 2027. Deep concerns have been expressed by them, their families and their legal representatives about access to medical treatment, as well as how they have been treated when taken to hospital. Would the Minister be able to meet their legal representatives, and their families if necessary, to discuss the situation and try to help with the safety of these prisoners?

[Jake Richards]

No. Luckily, the Ministry of Justice and the Prison Service have robust and proper guidance and procedures for when such scenarios come to fruition. I am satisfied, and the Ministry is satisfied, that those procedures are being enacted, and we will continue to keep that under review.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to support magistrates.

--- Later in debate ---

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

16. What estimate he has made of the number of prisoners eligible for early release under the earned progression model.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

Following the changes in the Sentencing Bill, there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before. Those convicted of the most serious crimes will be unaffected, and will remain in prison for as long as they do now.

[Sir John Hayes]

The salient difference between the Government and the people is that the public expect vile, vicious, violent people to be locked up, so that they can ruin no more lives, whereas the Government want to let them free. About two thirds of rapists and 83% of child sex offenders will be eligible for early release. Is it any wonder that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner have criticised these plans? Will the Government at least exclude those kinds of offenders before implementing this policy? Otherwise, they will wreak harm, hurt and hate on every part of our country.

[Jake Richards]

I had the great pleasure of hearing the right hon. Member’s contributions on Report and in Committee on the Sentencing Bill. I remind him, as I did then, that we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. The worst way to fail victims would be to have no prison places, and to be unable to keep the worst offenders behind bars, and we will not allow that to happen. I remind him again that the Sentencing Bill is informed by the independent sentencing review, led by a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, who offered sensible reforms to ensure that our prison system can cope with demands and is fit for the future. Finally, I remind him that this is not a case of being soft on crime; by the end of this Parliament, under this Labour Government, there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

This week, the Government pledged action on violence against women and girls—an issue that I know many Members across this House care deeply about, including many Labour Members—but this so-called earned progression model will see thousands of rapists, child groomers and paedophiles let out of prison earlier. Shockingly, last week a Government Minister said that the reason why they could not be excluded from the model was that it would increase the risk of inaccuracies in release calculations. Does the Minister think that a single victim of rape should expect the offender to be let out of prison earlier because the Government cannot calculate the release date properly?

[Jake Richards]

We will not take any lessons about violence against women and girls from the Conservatives. Prosecutions for rape went down under the last Conservative Government, but we are taking action to protect women and girls. I will repeat this point: the scenario we faced last summer was that when those who committed the worst offences were convicted, there was not space in prison to keep them behind bars. That is wholly unacceptable, and this Government will never let that happen again.

[Dr Mullan]

The House will have heard that the Government are refusing to exclude those types of offenders. I am pleased to say that a number of Labour Members share my discomfort about the measures that the Government are taking; in fact, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) tabled an amendment to exclude existing offenders from the measures. Why does the Minister think that she did that?

[Jake Richards]

I speak regularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), who was an experienced Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor. When I speak to her, she tells me that the worst scenario for prosecutors who are trying to keep our streets safe is prisons being full, so that offenders cannot be kept behind bars. That was the situation in this country under the last Government, and we are fixing their mess.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I commend the Justice Secretary on the Government’s decision to extend whole-life orders to those who kill prison officers. Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting the parents of Lenny Scott when they came to Parliament. It is absolutely right that we extend whole-life orders to cases in which brave prison officers are killed, either in the course of their duties, or in the exceptional circumstances that faced Lenny Scott after he had left the service. The Justice Secretary can be assured of the support of Conservative Members.

Two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary appeared on Sky News and revealed that 12 more prisoners had been mistakenly released, and that two remained on the run. I have two very simple questions: since then, how many prisoners have been mistakenly released, and how many more remain on the run?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has set out a five-point plan to deal with the long-standing issue of releases in error in our criminal justice system. There were 800 releases in error when the Conservatives were in government, and never once did they come to this House and give an update. We will release much more of that data over the coming months.

[Robert Jenrick]

In all the years that I have been in the House, I have never known a Secretary of State fail to answer the first question from his opposite number, but that says a lot about the man. The Justice Secretary was fine answering questions in the media two weeks ago, when the police investigation was under way, but now he says—or his Minister says, in his stead—that it would be inappropriate to comment in the House of Commons. What utter nonsense! Does he seriously think anyone is buying that excuse? He either does not know the details, or he is covering up his failure, both of which are a dereliction of duty. How on earth can the public assist in the manhunts that are presumably under way across our country and clear up his mess if he will not publish the names or mugshots of the prisoners mistakenly released? Once again, he is endangering the British public.

[Jake Richards]

Utter nonsense! We do not take advice from the Conservative party on the operational challenges that we face when we encounter these issues; we engage with the police directly. We will not give a running commentary on this long-standing issue in a criminal justice system that is failing after 14 years of the Conservative party in government. We have set out a five-point plan, through which we are attempting to grapple with this problem, and Dame Lynne Owens will report back to the Government early next year. We look forward to hearing her recommendations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

To build on the excellent questioning by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), how many prisoners have been mistakenly released, and how many will it take before the Justice Secretary considers his position?

[Jake Richards]

We have already made it clear during this Justice Question Time that we will not be giving a running commentary on the numbers. This Government are taking action to deal with this problem in our criminal justice system, which, by the way, the Conservatives did nothing about over their 14 years.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Rochdale, our police work closely with staff from the sexual assault referral centre in St Mary’s in Manchester, who help rape victims through every step of the legal process. For many rape victims, the most traumatic thing is facing their rapist in court, so will the Government explain how they will help stop victims being smeared by defence lawyers as money grabbers? How can we take evidence of previous domestic abuse into account in court?

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Ministers have responded helpfully to me on two previous occasions regarding the “68 is too late” campaign. On both occasions—last January and most recently in writing in September—the Government indicated that they were prepared to amend or at least review pension provisions. Indeed, a working group was established to examine similar terms currently in place within the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister provide an update on the working group’s proposals and the Government’s intentions?

[Jake Richards]

The Government regularly meet trade unions and the Prison Officers Association. I will take this opportunity to put on record again our thanks to prison officers, who do an extraordinarily difficult job in difficult circumstances, and we will be updating the House on that issue in due course.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, a man was convicted by a jury of sexual assault of a child under the age of 13. This vile perpetrator was given a suspended sentence, with his mental health cited as the reason. He was spared prison and, crucially, his mental health had no impact on his culpability for this horrible crime. My constituents have sought justice, and I agree with them that the sentence is outrageously lenient. Will the Secretary of State please write to the Sentencing Council to stress that this Government believe that those found guilty of sexual crimes against children should go to prison, and that suspended sentences must only be granted in the rarest and most extreme mitigating circumstances?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Forests With Impact is delivering innovative prisoner rehabilitation through horticulture, paid work and accredited training at HMP Haverigg, helping people to gain skills for employment on release while also contributing to environmental recovery. Would the Minister be willing to pay a visit and observe this work at first hand, and will he meet me to discuss how similar schemes could be supported more widely?

[Jake Richards]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. That sounds like a really important initiative. A big swathe of this Government’s agenda is trying to tackle reoffending, which means improving rehabilitative services within our prisons. I look forward to meeting this service with my hon. Friend in the new year.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

One in three rape trials end up being postponed, in some cases more than six times, and 73% of rape survivors say that police treatment worsened their mental health during the process. What improvements will be made in how the police treat rape survivors?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Has the Ministry of Justice had any contact with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland in relation to the looming crisis in criminal justice arising from the fact that on 5 January the criminal barristers will go on strike because there has not been an uplift in legal aid rates since 2005? If contact is made, will the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland be asked why, given her statutory duty to review the rates, she paused the last review in 2022, and why the interim uplift that she announced last year has never been paid?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. and learned Member will know that this is a devolved matter. I met the Justice Ministers from all the devolved nations last week, and we continue to have that dialogue to ensure that justice is served across all four countries.

Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025

Jake Richards Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Before I set out the effect of the statutory instrument, it may be helpful if I first explain the legislation that underpins the change that I am today proposing. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 governs the disclosure of cautions and convictions for most employment purposes. The ROA protects those with convictions from having to disclose those convictions and cautions once they become spent. Although more serious convictions remain disclosable for life, under the ROA, most become spent following a specified period. When a conviction or caution becomes spent, the individual is considered to have been rehabilitated for those purposes. Once a conviction is spent, it does not need to be disclosed when applying for most jobs. That supports the rehabilitation of the offender, helping them to put their past behind them and move on from their offending.

Although it is generally desirable to facilitate ex-offenders into employment, the public must remain adequately protected. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 lists activities or categories of jobs where those protections are disapplied so that individuals, if asked, are required to disclose spent convictions. That enables greater disclosure of criminal record information for people in specified roles and activities.

The primary rationale behind the exceptions order is that there are certain jobs where a more complete or relevant disclosure of an individual’s criminal record may be appropriate—for instance, roles working with the most vulnerable and/or involving a high degree of public trust, such as those with children. The exceptions order is therefore a counterbalance to the ROA in favour of the protection of the public, providing a greater level of disclosure for individuals performing roles or activities that require additional safeguards.

This statutory instrument amends that exceptions order. The Government are proposing to make four amendments to the exceptions order. First, we are adding self-employed individuals or people acting in a personal employee capacity—meaning someone who works at the employer’s home to provide domestic or personal services—engaging in regulated work with children and vulnerable adults. Secondly, we are adding employment concerned with the delivery of electronic monitoring and field services, such as monitoring offenders by a contractor in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, we are adding registered healthcare professionals employed or engaged by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or by contractors or subcontractors working for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Fourthly, we are adding pedicab driver licences in London. These amendments mean that a person’s spent convictions may be taken into account when assessing their suitability to engage in this work or hold such a licence.

There is a compelling case, I submit, to justify requiring individuals to disclose all spent and unspent convictions in these circumstances. First, I will outline the reason for adding self-employed individuals or personal employees working closely with children and vulnerable adults. This amendment is about strengthening safeguarding and closing a clear gap in the current system. At present, only those working for organisations such as schools or hospitals, or those working for an agency, can get the highest level of Disclosure and Barring Service checks, yet families increasingly hire professionals directly as private tutors, carers and therapists, who often work in unsupervised settings.

Without this change, those individuals could undergo only basic checks, which reveal only unspent convictions. That is not sufficient when the safety of children and vulnerable adults is at stake. By extending eligibility for enhanced DBS checks, including access to the barred list, we give parents and carers the same level of assurance they would have if hiring through an organisation. This amendment also delivers on a key recommendation from Professor Alexis Jay’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse to make greater use of the DBS service to protect the vulnerable. In short, the amendment ensures parity, strengthens safeguarding and puts power in the hands of families to make informed decisions about who they allow into their home.

The second change relates to the staff employed by the Ministry of Justice’s contracted provider of electronic monitoring and field services. Those roles are critical to monitoring compliance with court orders and conditions of release from prison custody. Among other duties, the relevant contractor staff install and configure monitoring equipment, monitor compliance with conditions such as curfews or exclusion zones, and report violations to the responsible agencies. At present, those positions can access only basic criminal record checks, unless the specific duties of the individual qualify for counter-terrorism clearance.

That is not sufficient, given the level of trust and responsibility involved. The risk of corruption is real, as staff may be offered incentives to make monitoring less onerous, which could allow individuals to breach conditions, commit further offences or evade detection altogether. Such failures undermine public confidence in the justice system and compromise public safety. Enabling standard disclosures would help providers to identify candidates who may be vulnerable to corruption and ensure that those entrusted with monitoring compliance meet the highest standards.

The third group—registered healthcare professionals employed or engaged by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, or by contractors and subcontractors working for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions— supports the public through the benefits system and assessment process. That includes psychologists, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, paramedics and pharmacists. Approximately 2 million health assessments are undertaken each year for people with long-term conditions or disabilities, many of whom are among the most vulnerable in society.

At present, the ROA prevents the Department for Work and Pensions and its delivery partners from requiring the disclosure of spent convictions for those roles. Without the ability to check spent convictions, the DWP cannot fully assess a candidate’s suitability, creating a potential risk to the public. This change removes that risk by bringing those roles within the scope of the exceptions order. It ensures that the DWP and its contractors can require the disclosure of spent convictions and cautions, ensuring essential safeguards for those who depend on these services.

Finally, I turn to pedicab drivers in London. Until recently, London pedicabs operated in a legal grey area, unregulated and outside the licensing framework that applies to other forms of public transport. The Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 removed that anomaly by giving Transport for London powers to introduce a licensing regime. For that regime to be effective, TfL must be able to require enhanced with barred list DBS checks, including spent convictions and cautions, just as it does for taxi and private hire drivers.

Without this change, TfL would be limited to basic checks, which do not provide the assurance that passenger safety requires. This change enables pedicab licences to be brought into line with existing standards for taxis and private hire vehicles, both in London and nationally. It strengthens confidence and ensures that those responsible for carrying passengers on London’s roads are subject to the same safeguarding requirements as other transport operators.

In conclusion, adding self-employed individuals or personal employees working closely with children in vulnerable states, people working for the relevant electronic monitoring contractors, registered healthcare professionals employed or engaged by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or DWP contractors, and pedicab licence holders in London to the exceptions order is a necessary safeguarding measure. The criminal records disclosure regime is designed to protect the public, particularly children and vulnerable adults, while enabling those who have offended in the past to move on with their lives. We believe that the proposed measure strikes that balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s support for these provisions. I will write to him with an update on the specific measure that he mentioned and whether that work will be completed by the end of the year—I do not have that information today, but I will make sure that I formally respond. I also thank him for his comments on the specifics.

In answer to the hon. Member’s last question, he is absolutely right that there is no point having more adequate protections in place if the system is clogged up. We speak regularly with Home Office colleagues and the police about the management of the DBS and other relevant offender management programmes. We need to ensure that this is working. I am confident that the changes will not greatly add to the burden on the police, but we will continue to work with them to ensure that that is the case.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister write to me, in conjunction with the Home Office colleagues, with an overview of where he thinks performance is across the different areas?

[Jake Richards]

That might be a question for Home Office colleagues to respond to, but I will look into it, and if I can respond, I certainly will.

Question put and agreed to.

Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry

Jake Richards Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing this debate, and on her characteristically powerful speech on this important issue. I join her in praising all the campaigners, and in particular the 37 whose names she read out. I also declare an interest as a proud member of the GMB trade union, and praise that union’s work on this important issue.

As we have heard, in 1984, 37 workers were involved in an occupation at the Cammell Laird shipyard at Birkenhead in a bid to stop compulsory redundancies. Those 37 men were sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment for contempt of court after defying a judge’s order to leave a partially built gas rig. They were imprisoned for 30 days in HMP Walton. They were subsequently dismissed from their jobs, and lost their right to redundancy and a pension. I recognise that what those 37 workers suffered was a disgrace, and although this case occurred before I was born, I recognise the issues that it raises, and the profound effect it has had on those workers and the communities that my hon. Friend represents. I am deeply sympathetic to the case and the individuals affected by it, and recognise that due to the passage of time, some of those individuals have sadly passed away.

Before I turn to the specific question posed, I would like to emphasise that this Government are committed to tackling injustice and ensuring fair and progressive rights in the workplace, so that these types of malpractice never happen again. I am about to set out the many measures that the Government are hoping to introduce through their Employment Rights Bill, but first I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is in the Chamber, and who has done so much work on this issue, both in opposition and in government.

The plan to make work pay sets out the Government’s ambitious agenda to ensure that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth. That plan will bring our employment rights legislation into the 21st century. The Government fulfilled their manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation within 100 days of entering office by introducing the Employment Rights Bill. As the House will no doubt be aware, the Bill is going through ping-pong. It is the first phase of delivering our plan to get Britain moving forward, and to create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth.

I stress that blacklisting is completely unacceptable and has no place in modern employment relations. Any individual or trade union who believes that they have been a victim of blacklisting can, and should, enforce their rights through an employment tribunal or the county court. The 2010 blacklisting regulations are reinforced by powers in the Data Protection Act 2018, which protect the use of personal data, including information on trade union membership and sensitive personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office regulates the use of personal data and investigates data breaches. It has the power to take enforcement action, including searching premises, issuing enforcement notices, and imposing fines for serious breaches.

The question posed in this debate is whether there is merit in holding a public inquiry into the imprisonment of Cammell Laird workers in 1984. I recognise that this question has already been discussed in the Chamber; it is an issue of abiding parliamentary interest, and was the subject of a Westminster Hall debate in February 2023, before I was a Member of this place. That debate was brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and was attended by hon. Members who have been in Parliament for some time, and who have long campaigned for justice in this area.

Public inquiries are independent investigations into matters of significant public concern. They are established by the Government and led by an independent chair. They are usually asked to establish the facts surrounding a serious issue and consider the lessons to be learned from what has happened, as well as make recommendations intended to correct deficiencies for the future. For example, an inquiry may be established to look at the cause of a major disaster, accident or other event involving significant damage or loss of life.

The Government will consider whether a matter is sufficiently serious to warrant an inquiry, and an inquiry might take a number of forms. An inquiry could be established under the Inquires Act 2005. Critically, although the Ministry of Justice owns the Inquiries Act 2005 and the Inquiries Rules 2006, Justice Ministers do not decide whether to set up an inquiry. That falls to the Department with policy or operational responsibility for the issue under consideration. Industrial relations and how they were historically dealt with are not a matter for me or the Ministry of Justice, and as such it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the potential merits of an inquiry.

As has been touched on, and as was set out by a predecessor in the Ministry of Justice in the Westminster Hall debate, document disclosure is a vital part of any inquiry, or any assessment of whether an inquiry is necessary. As the Government have previously disclosed, my Department has conducted extensive searches of our records within the court and prison systems, and nothing has been found in relation to the Cammell Laird strike action or the strikers. Other Departments have likewise previously confirmed that they do not hold potentially relevant material. I have heard what my hon. Friend has had to say, and tomorrow morning I will go back to my Department to make sure that those searches are done again, and I will send correspondence to the relevant Departments to ensure that they do those again, too.

It is important to note, as has been accepted, that inquiries do not determine civil or criminal liability. They are not a substitute for court proceedings, and they do not determine guilt or award compensation. The appropriate route for challenging a conviction and/or sentence is by way of appeal. Once the appeal route has been exhausted, it is possible to apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Where a person believes that they have been wrongly convicted of a crime in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, a request can be made to the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission, which can investigate and, where appropriate, refer cases back to court.

[Kim Johnson]

The Hillsborough campaign fought for an independent panel, and it was through an independent panel that information was brought to light that enabled the campaign to move forward. Does my hon. Friend believe that an independent panel would help the 37 campaigners to move their case forward?

[Jake Richards]

I take the suggestion seriously. As I have said on document disclosure, which I think is the first step for the campaign, and in my hon. Friend getting what she is seeking, tomorrow morning I will go to my Department and looking at this issue again. Her speech, this campaign and the Adjournment debate have meant that will happen. I can assure her that I will do that, and I take that seriously. We consider no options to be off the table.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

One of the areas that is worth exploring is the Cabinet papers and the discussions that took place. These Cammell Laird workers are the innocent victims of a political strategy that was devised in Cabinet to suppress all opposition to the introduction of monetary policies—monetarism—under the Thatcher Government during that period. The Minister may not have been born at the time, but I was. In any areas where there was resistance to the Government, the resistance was suppressed. I was a Greater London Council councillor, and the GLC was abolished. In Lambeth and in Liverpool, councillors were surcharged and removed from office. Individual trade unionists were suppressed in a way that was more brutal than we ever thought possible. The Government inflicted damage, having forced trade union action, and there was also the imprisonment. This is about the Cabinet discussions that took place at the time, and Nicholas Ridley and so on. As we saw in the Shrewsbury campaign, there is also the matter of the influence they had on the courts.

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention. My point about the passage of time was not me being flippant about this serious issue. The Orgreave events occurred in my constituency, and I am pleased that this Labour Government have launched a public inquiry. I will not comment from the Dispatch Box on individual disclosure searches in different Departments and particular conversations; I am sure that he can appreciate that that would not be appropriate. I have given a commitment to look at this issue again when I go back to my Department tomorrow morning. I take that seriously, and will keep him and other Members updated.

One of the difficult aspects of the Cammell Laird workers’ imprisonment is that we are talking about committals for contempt of court, which is a civil matter, rather than convictions for criminal offences. This is a technical issue, but it means that the case does not meet the criteria for a miscarriage of justice, which relates to wrongful convictions. That might appear to be an issue of semantics, but distinct processes apply in cases in which a person has wrongfully been convicted of a criminal offence, so it is important for us to be clear about the distinction between a miscarriage of justice and what we may term a historic injustice. The Law Commission is reviewing the law on contempt of court, at the Government’s request. The first part of its report, on liability for contempt, was published last month. The second part will be published next year, and will include a review of the routes of appeal and the sanctions that courts are able to impose for different types of contempt.

I am deeply sympathetic to the case, to the campaign, and to the individuals who are affected by this. Industrial relations and how they were historically dealt with are not necessarily matters for the Ministry of Justice, but I have made a number of commitments from the Dispatch Box to looking at certain issues again as a result of this Adjournment debate. That is this House working. I confirm those commitments, and I will report back to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside. I thank her for initiating the debate, and for the opportunity that she has given me to respond to it and take action as a result of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Domestic Violence: Support for Victims’ Families

Jake Richards Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing this important debate. I would like to start by sending my sympathies to the family of Paula Leeson and responding to Neville, who spoke in this Chamber through his MP, by telling him that he is not alone; he has a fine champion in his Member of Parliament, who has brought this issue to the House. I can reassure him and the House that I am seized of this matter and will certainly be looking at all the issues raised in my hon. Friend’s speech.

The tragedy that the Leeson family have suffered is simply unimaginable. They continue to campaign in Paula’s memory with extraordinary dignity and courage, and I commend them and their MP, my hon. Friend, for bringing this matter to the Government’s attention. As they will no doubt be aware, the legal decision at the heart of their case is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, which is rightly independent of Government. Members will be aware that I am unable to comment on the details of that specific decision by the DPP, but I am very happy—indeed, I am keen—to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents to discuss this case in more detail, if they would find that helpful. I have made inquiries this afternoon and am informed that the Director of Public Prosecutions would also be happy—indeed, keen—to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents to discuss the case.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 clearly has to strike a balance between ensuring there is finality in criminal proceedings and, as the Act attempts to do, offering a recourse to look again when it is appropriate. I am happy to have that conversation and look again at whether that legislation strikes the right balance.

Before I go on to speak about wider Government initiatives to assist victims of domestic violence and abuse, I want again on behalf of the Government to send my deepest condolences to all those who knew and loved Paula Leeson. That the justice system has seemingly confounded their pain and suffering is deeply regretful, and I assure them that I will look into any aspect of our system to make sure that this cannot happen again. As I said, I am aware that the DPP has been in touch with the family and is very happy to meet again to discuss the details of this case.

Let me be abundantly clear: this Government are committed to putting victims at the heart of the justice system, especially when it comes to confronting the scourge of violence against women and girls. Working with Home Office colleagues, we at the Ministry of Justice will always keep victims at the forefront of our mind, investing in more support, reforming our justice system to ensure justice is served—and served expeditiously —and clamping down on the tools that too often allow those who abuse women and girls to thrive.

When the history of this Government is written, it will speak of the incredible work done by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), on the violence against women and girls strategy—ambitious but practical, reforming the fundamental injustices that too many victims face in our law and order system and protecting those women and girls who need protection.

I know that the domestic abuse and violence that was suffered, or allegedly suffered, by Paula Leeson has an impact on entire families, not just the direct victims, so I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West about some of this Government’s initiatives to support victims of domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already recognises the profound impact domestic abuse can have on children. Section 3 makes clear that where a child sees, hears or experiences the effects of abuse perpetrated by or against a parent or relative, that child will also be treated as a victim of domestic abuse. That is an important measure, making it easier for children to access support such as mental health services.

Domestic abuse can have lifelong impacts on victims. Victims and, where appropriate, their families need vital support to help them cope and rebuild their lives and engage with the criminal justice system. Ensuring victims receive the right and timely support is a key part of this Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls. That is why the Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years—the biggest investment in victim support services on record. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year over the course of this Parliament, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery, to ensure that these vital services can continue to offer victims the support that they need.

We know that many police and crime commissioners use the funding that we are giving to commission specific support for victims and their families in their areas. Some areas use wider sources of funding and work in collaboration with local partners, such as the South Yorkshire, Cleveland and Essex police and crime commissioners who have commissioned outreach work in schools with child victims of domestic abuse.

Police and crime commissioners also have a current role funding vital victim support roles, such as independent domestic violence advisers who provide emotional and practical support to victims of domestic abuse. Earlier this year, we published statutory guidance on IDVAs, which aims to improve the consistency of support delivered to victims and raise the profile of the IDVA role. We recognise the important work that police and crime commissioners and mayors do to commission vital support services for victims and witnesses. Ensuring ongoing support to victims in future governance arrangements will be a key priority for this Government.

The MOJ has commissioned national services, such as the 24/7 live chat service, which can be accessed anonymously and provides 24/7 support to victims of all crimes, and the My Support Space platform, which provides informative guides for victims and those supporting them. In the tragic case of bereavement by homicide following domestic abuse, the National Homicide Service, delivered by Victim Support, can provide emotional, practical, specialist advocacy and peer support.

We are taking steps to improve the justice system’s response to domestic abuse and violence, from the first time someone calls the police, to court, all the way through to the way that perpetrators are managed after sentence, which is the issue that my hon. Friend has brought to the House. We have introduced domestic abuse specialists in 999 call centres in selected areas so that, when a victim calls the police, specialists can support first responders to properly and rigorously assess the risk, and ensure that there is an appropriate response. The Sentencing Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, will create a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing. This will help prison and probation services manage offenders effectively and will ensure victims that are better supported.

We are taking action to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse and their children are better protected in the family courts. We are expanding the pathfinder courts, which are helping to ensure that more children’s voices are heard and victims are better supported. Under the pathfinder model the proportion of children seen by social workers increases from around 30% to 80%. That means their wishes and feelings can be ascertained directly and in a manner of their choosing.

Tackling domestic abuse is important right across Government. The Home Office has invested a further £19 million to provide vital support to victims of violence against women and girls. That includes over £6 million for the national helpline supporting victims of domestic abuse, honour-based abuse, revenge porn and stalking, and £450,000 to provide additional advocacy to families who have been bereaved by domestic homicide, as well as suicides and unexpected deaths that have taken place following domestic abuse.

I hope that my remarks setting out the broad policy agenda that this Government are pursuing have reassured hon. Members and those watching that this Government take this issue particularly seriously. We are committed to making sure that the right support, help and protections are in place for victims of domestic abuse and violence and their families.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West for raising this case, which he has raised repeatedly in the House since he was elected last summer. As he accepts, it raises complex issues around our criminal justice system, which I will continue to look into. I will conclude where I started by sending my profound condolences to those who have lost loved ones connected to the debate and commending all those who fight and work for change.

Question put and agreed to.

Reconsideration Mechanism and the Parole Board Rules 2019

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing this important debate and raising this critical issue on behalf of his constituents and us all. I start, where we all should, by recognising the appalling crimes of double child rapist and murderer Colin Pitchfork. It is important to pay tribute to the victims’ families, who continue to live with his crimes. They must always be at the forefront of our minds whenever we discuss these quite technical issues of criminal law.

The function of the Parole Board is of paramount importance to our criminal justice system: to assess whether very serious offenders who have completed their minimum term in prison could be safely managed in the community if they were to be released. The board takes that responsibility extremely seriously, and rigorously examines all the evidence before reaching a decision. Only about one in four cases the board reviews results in a decision to release, and in the majority of cases, the board concludes that the offender must remain in custody for the protection of the public. Indeed, that was the board’s conclusion in their most recent review in the case of Colin Pitchfork, to which the hon. Member for South Leicestershire referred. These decisions are of such importance to victims and the public, and I welcome any opportunity to discuss how they are made and how safeguards such as the reconsideration mechanism are used.

I will begin by setting out the Government’s approach to the Parole Board’s reconsideration mechanism rules, their origins and their purpose. The approach was adopted following the case of John Worboys and the flawed parole decision in 2018, which was met with understandable public outrage. The decision was eventually quashed, but only as a result of third-party application for judicial review. That led to the introduction in 2019 of the reconsideration mechanism, ensuring that decisions that may be flawed can now be challenged without resorting to lengthy and costly judicial reviews. Alongside those measures, the Parole Board rules were comprehensively updated to modernise procedures, strengthen victim engagement and improve case management.

To avoid what might be called a Worboys scenario, the then Government introduced changes to permit the Secretary of State to have a direct, quick and effective mechanism to challenge a Parole Board decision, with similar grounds to that of a judicial review: error of law, irrationality or material procedural error. Crucially, the opportunity to challenge the decision was available to both parties of a Parole Board decision—the Secretary of State and the prisoner or offender. That must be right, as it would be offensive to the laws of natural justice to allow one party a route to appeal but not the other.

The Government’s view of the mechanism, as things stand, is that it has been broadly successful. Of more than 17,000 Parole Board decisions last year, there were only 257 applications for reconsideration. The argument—it was not made, but could be—that this mechanism is being abused in some manner on a wide scale is not correct.

The case of Pitchfork, however, has proven deeply problematic. First, there have been unusual and wholly unwelcome delays—unusual in the sense that they do not and have not occurred in other cases. His 2021 application for reconsideration was only heard in 2023, and the 2023 application for reconsideration of that Parole Board decision was only heard in October this year. He has until Thursday to apply for further reconsideration of the latest Parole Board decision.

There were various legal and evidence-gathering explanations for those delays, but I wholly appreciate, considering the decision in 2021 and the controversy at the time, the enormous anxiety that such delays create for families. The Government are always determined to ensure that justice and Parole Board decisions are undertaken as expeditiously as possible. In most cases, however, the rarely used reconsideration mechanism has been quick and efficient.

Further measures are being enacted to empower public protection in Parole Board decisions and appeals. Ministerial oversight of release decisions made by the Parole Board will be strengthened in the Victims and Courts Bill through a fresh determination. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor are looking to enact that provision quickly. We have also taken measures to improve transparency and victim involvement in the process, including allowing victims to observe and play a greater role in Parole Board hearings, with certain measures having already been rolled out earlier this year.

I also accept that there is a potential mischief for historic offenders sentenced prior to whole life order provisions, whereby a prisoner makes hopeless applications, wasting time and money, and—more importantly—putting families through unnecessary strife. I will look at what can be done to mitigate this risk, but I must stress that this mischief would be incredibly rare, and I repeat the assertion that the previous Government’s changes in this area have been broadly positive.

It is also worth noting that a prisoner would continue to have opportunities to challenge a Parole Board’s decision, or a decision not to hear a prisoner’s case, in our common law. I will write to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire on those specific measures over the coming weeks, and I am very happy to meet him, or any other Members who want to discuss this issue, either at the Ministry of Justice or in Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.