Jake Richards MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · Open Prisons: Policy on Convicted Paedophiles · Hansard source

  More

  Prisoners are moved to an open prison as part of the rehabilitation process, but only after they pass a thorough risk assessment. Every prisoner, including those serving a sentence for a sexual offence, is subject to an individual risk assessment. They will not be allowed to move to an open prison unless they are assessed as presenting a low enough risk. A prisoner can be immediately returned from an open prison to closed conditions if their risk increases.

• 19 May 2026 · Open Prisons: Policy on Convicted Paedophiles · Hansard source

  More

  This Government are undertaking the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era. We will be building 13,000 new places by 2031. We inherited a prison capacity crisis from the Conservatives, so it takes some chutzpah for them to start asking questions about prison building. We are committed to the prison building programme that we announced in 2024, and we are confident that we will match it. We are fixing the mess that they created.

• 19 May 2026 · Open Prisons: Policy on Convicted Paedophiles · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, each case is considered on its own circumstances, and the risk is assessed by the professionals. I am very happy to look into that case and make sure that the appropriate officials look into it too.

• 19 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to raise this. I am very proud that this Government have listened to victims. I have met with the Victims’ Commissioner and an array of victims who have been complaining about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We have been able to modernise it by allowing an out-of-time route for victims and bereaved family members to refer sentences outside the 28-day limit. Clearly, 28 days is sometimes not appropriate for families who are deeply distressed, so we have been able to make that change, working on a cross-party basis. I am proud that this Government are putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system.

• 19 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is a member of the Justice Committee, and she raises an important and practical point. The Government recognise the hugely important civic duty role that jurors play day in, day out across the country, and we will always keep remuneration and travel costs under review. We have heard the question.

• 19 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Some of the matters that the hon. Member has raised are perhaps matters for the Foreign Secretary, rather than the Justice Secretary. As he said, we clearly always respect international law and the principle of the rule of law more generally.

• 19 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As I said earlier, all prisoners, including those convicted of domestic violence and stalking offences, will be allowed to move to an open prison only when they have been assessed and risk assessed. I am very happy to organise a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and the relevant Minister to discuss this case.

• 19 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right to raise this and has done so consistently. I meet justice counterparts from the devolved Governments regularly, and I will ensure that this issue is high on the agenda for our next meeting, because it is very important. There is a lot of good work happening in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. We need to ensure that it is joined up, to address that particular mischief, which is incredibly serious.

• 19 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has been consistent in raising that important issue, and we are committed to ensuring sufficient education provision for prisoners. I would gently stress, however, that we can only provide that education if we are able to get prisoners into the classroom. We need to stabilise and get order back into the prison system after the chaos that we inherited, but this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that prisoners have education and work opportunities on leaving prison.

• 19 May 2026 · Criminalisation of Children in Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that important question; he is right to raise the matter. Indeed, he raised a similar theme in the Commons just yesterday. Lord Timpson has a particular focus on female offenders and women inmates in prison, and he will make an announcement in due course.

• 19 May 2026 · Criminalisation of Children in Care · Hansard source

  More

  Far too many care-experienced people end up in the criminal justice system. Last November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a review of the national protocol for reducing the criminalisation of that cohort. Officials are actively working on that, and we will publish a strengthened protocol later this year.

• 19 May 2026 · Criminalisation of Children in Care · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue. The disproportionate number of care leavers and children who have been in our criminal justice system is a national disgrace. Just yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister met the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister)—the Minister responsible for children’s social care—to look at the issues in the round. As I said, we are looking at strengthening the protocol, and we will publish that in due course.

• 19 May 2026 · Prisoner Releases in Error · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are committed to transparency on this issue. We publish data on releases in error each July in the HM Prison and Probation Service annual digest. On 15 April we also published ad hoc data for April 2025 to March 2026, alongside Dame Lynne Owens’ independent review and the Government’s response, accepting, in principle, all the recommendations.

• 19 May 2026 · Prisoner Releases in Error · Hansard source

  More

  The truth is that this is a long-standing issue in our criminal justice system, and it is a disgrace—any release in error is a disgrace. How do we solve the issue? We solve it by investing in our prison system. That is why we are building more prisons than we have done since the Victorian era. We are investing in stabilising the prison population. That is why we introduced the Sentencing Act 2026, so finally we have some sustainability in our prison system, after the Conservatives did absolutely nothing. We are taking action, as recommended by Dame Lynne Owens, and that action will be undertaken rapidly.

• 19 May 2026 · Prisoner Releases in Error · Hansard source

  More

  That question is a very good example of someone not listening to my answer but assuming that he had. We will release the data for this very serious and important issue, as we should, in due course. We released the data earlier this year on an ad hoc basis. By the way, in 14 years the Conservative Government never released data on prisoner releases in error, so we will take no lectures from the Opposition Benches on that issue. Fundamentally, Dame Lynne Owens has conducted a review of this important issue and set out a series of recommendations on how to solve it, which we have accepted and will begin to implement, so I will take no lessons from the Opposition Benches on this issue.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  Forgive me; I misunderstood the original question. I am very happy to look into what data is published and what is not, and to make sure that appropriate data—where it is safe, secure, quality assured and everything else that comes with that—is available to hon. Members. I will look into doing that in due course. As I said, we are going further. HMPPS is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term high security estate with tasers. Violence against any prison officers is totally unacceptable. Perpetrators will face the full consequences of their actions, and measures are being taken to extend the punishment for such offences. Prison officers do a valuable job in our prisons. They keep us safe, and we must do the same for them. Deploying protective body armour in high-risk areas and a wider roll-out is an important step. We will make sure that frontline officers have the tools to do their job safely. This is also part of our broader approach to reducing violence, strengthening control and, above all, upholding the safety and dignity of the staff who serve with dedication every day. Members have raised other issues about conditions for prison officers. As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I am very happy to meet Members and representatives of the Prison Officers Association, as I have done previously, to discuss these issues in some depth. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), so wisely touched upon, all these issues come back to the stability of our prison system. Fundamentally, that comes back to issues of capacity and staff retention, training and recruitment. This Department’s No. 1 aim is to deal with and stabilise the prison capacity crisis, invest in our prison and probation staff—these two issues are innately interlinked—and make sure that we have a sustainable prison system that can keep the public safe in the future.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely accept the principle that prison officers should be safe at work and be given the tools to be so. Every prison of each different category has a different context, culture and working environment, and each has to make an assessment of the risks therein.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  I reassure the right hon. Member that details on violence in both the adult and the youth estate are seen by Ministers, and the Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister, on a regular basis. This is a key concern for all Ministers and the whole Department, and we are doing everything we can to clamp down on it. The same is true for staff retention. I am happy to call it a KPI, but it is absolutely at the top of our concerns about our prisons in this country. There is a long list of reasons why there are issues.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  I accept the principle that too often there are attacks in all sorts of prisons, but of course there are more acute settings where that risk is greater. I accept that we have to take protective measures in all sorts of prisons. I do not think that I can go as far as the right hon. Gentleman may want me to in accepting the second part of his premise—I can see that he is trying very hard to get me to, but I think it is more complex than that, and I hope I can set out a bit why that is in the short time that we have. As I said, rolling out protective body armour—as we have committed to, and I am proud to be serving in a Government who are committed to doing what the last Government did not in the high-security estate—is not just about having equipment; it requires thoughtful planning. There needs to be secure and accessible storage so that officers can access their kit quickly while also preventing unauthorised use. There needs to be clear guidance on how to handle and check the armour, and regular inspections and proper replacement schedules so that equipment remains effective. Compatibility with other equipment is also vital. Protective body armour must work seamlessly with body-worn video cameras, radios, batons and PAVA—the synthetic pepper spray. It must fit within existing uniform requirements and the regulatory environment around that. We also need to consider the impact on other staff who are prisoner-facing, but who may not be equipped with protective body armour. Making sure that their safety is not compromised is also vital. While protective body armour is important, the Government do not feel that it is an instant silver bullet. It is one part of a broader package to improve staff safety. Officers in the adult male estate already have access to PAVA spray, which is used to prevent serious assaults. We also have over 13,000 new-generation body-worn video cameras. Work on that began under the last Government and has been continued under this Government, and it means that every officer in bands 3 to 5 can wear one during their shift. They provide high-quality evidence to support prosecutions and include a pre-record function to help capture the often crucial lead-up to incidents. We are also going further. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term and high-security estate with tasers. That will improve safety and enhance frontline capability in the most high-risk environments.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing today’s debate on this very important subject. I will attempt to directly answer the questions he posed. All our prison officers, to whom I pay tribute today on the record, deserve protection. Whether that means we should roll out mandatory body armour is a more complex question and requires a more complex answer. Some of the reasons why it is a complex task have been set out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) who quite rightly raises questions about the commitment that we have already made. He then also, quite rightly, asked about the training and the process by which the roll-out will take place, where items will be stored and ensuring that all staff agree with such a roll-out. I accept the premise of his question, but it is somewhat more complex than perhaps it may seem from the outset—and we are working on that. I also want to directly speak to Claire, if she is watching this debate. What she has suffered is horrific. Like the shadow Minister, I pay tribute to her for powerfully turning a horrific incident into a campaign on a number of issues, through her efforts and those of her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I am very happy to meet her. It may be that Lord Timpson, who is operationally responsible for many of these matters, will also meet her as well. I will look to organise that as soon as possible with her MP. I will try to deal with as many of the issues raised as possible, and otherwise, I am happy to follow up with hon. Members in writing.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome today’s debate. There is general cross-party consensus about the need to ensure more open justice and to do everything that we can to ensure that victims in criminal proceedings have access to the information that they need to recover from the crimes that they have suffered. The tone struck by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), was unfortunate. I genuinely was not going to mention the 14 years of underinvestment in our courts, the fact that rape convictions were at record lows under the last Conservative Government, or the fact that progress on victims’ rights, and indeed many of the issues we have discussed today, was moving at a snail’s pace, if at all, under the last Government. While I was not going to make any of those comments, I felt obliged to do so having been prompted by the hon. Member. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for raising this important issue, as he has done before in the House of Commons and elsewhere. I acknowledge his contribution and all who engaged with the petition. Although the Government knew about this before this petition, the representations underscore a real public interest in transparency across the justice system. That is particularly important to the rights of victims, who were specifically spoken about by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). As I have said on the Floor of the House, the hon. Lady’s work in this area has really led the way. Indeed, that is also true of many others as well, including the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, who raised really powerful cases. I have met victims—in my role, I have the privilege and humble duty to meet victims regularly—and there is no doubt that our criminal justice system still too often fails them. There is an issue of transparency regarding court transcripts and sentencing remarks, and I hope to deal with some of the specifics raised of why we cannot go as far as many would want us to at the moment. However, from this debate, and more generally, we can see that there are problems of how victims are dealt with within our criminal justice system. We have heard about information as to their trial and advice around their attendance. We are seized upon their advice regarding the unduly lenient sentences scheme in relation to a piece of legislation before Parliament. There are lots of ways, culturally and systemically, in which the criminal justice system fails victims, and there is an acceptance that there is more to do. I want to set out the Government’s approach, what we have done and what we want to do. In doing so, I hope to deal with some of the detailed questions and challenges that have been posed in this debate. I start by reaffirming that open justice is a foundational tenet of our system. Open justice is the long-established principle that justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that is fundamental to the rule of law. Transparency also helps to build confidence in the justice system, supporting scrutiny and enhancing public understanding of how the law is applied. The Government are committed to ensuring that the justice system is open and transparent, and we share that priority with the judiciary. Both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Lady Chief Justice have spoken at length about the importance of transparency. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said, new technologies no doubt offer opportunities to meet rising public expectations of access to information, but the principle of open justice is not unfettered; we have a duty to ensure that it is delivered responsibly and in a way that safeguards the administration of justice. It is vital that we protect the rights of victims, witnesses and parties, and that sensitive information is handled with care. We must ensure that any measures to increase transparency do not undermine the effective operation of the justice system. That is why achieving the right balance is central to our approach to transcript provision. The petition calls for all court and tribunal transcripts to be made available for free in order to increase transparency, enable appeals and support victims. Those are important aims, and ones that I hope every Member of the House would support. However, it is important to recognise some of the practical realities of producing transcripts, as well as the considerable progress already under way to improve access to such information across the justice system. I will expand on that, but practical realities are not just infrastructure within courts and the contractual systems that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley set out, but legal considerations and the context in which all court transcripts are dealt with. Producing a transcript of court proceedings can be resource-intensive. It is detailed, skilled work requiring rigorous quality assurance. Full hearing transcripts, especially those involving lengthy trials or hearings, multiple parties, interpreters—my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), who has just left the Chamber, touched on that—or sensitive evidence can run to hundreds or even, in my experience, thousands of pages. Ensuring accuracy is paramount because transcripts may be used in appeals or covered by the media. Errors can seriously undermine confidence in the justice system. Transcripts must also comply with relevant reporting restrictions and data protection requirements. In practice, that means that detailed, manual anonymisation is required to prevent both direct and indirect jigsaw identification of victims, witnesses or other court users, a process that current technology cannot safely automate and requires careful review to ensure that no combination of details could reveal the identity of individuals protected by reporting restrictions. That is a time-consuming, skilled task that requires precision, and often legal advice, to safeguard vulnerable people. However, the Government have made significant and meaningful progress on transcript provision and wider transparency in the justice system in recent years. In the Crown court, victims of rape and serious sexual offences, and bereaved families in homicide cases—that is, murder, manslaughter and offences of causing death on the road—can request a free transcript of relevant sentencing remarks. That ensures that victims can revisit the judge’s explanation in their own time and use it to inform any decisions they may need to make, including whether to submit representations under the ULS scheme.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member says that we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good, but he no doubt understands that it is paramount that court transcripts are perfect. I will come on to his other points, but I know he accepts that this not quite as straightforward as transcribing other public meetings with the technology we have today and turning them into written documents. Perhaps more can be done with regard to witness statements that appear in the trial as evidence in chief and are not challenged. I am happy to look into that and speak with the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, but it may be an issue for the judiciary, the Crown Prosecution Service or the victim care service. As I said at the outset, one of my concerns when I deal with the criminal justice system and victims from all those angles—from court transcripts, which have been raised, to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, through which I meet victims all the time—is that there is a problem, culturally and systemically, with how victims are not at the heart of the system and the process. I have fears when it comes to the issue of whether more can be done as a trial is developing, or after it, to ensure that the victim understands what is happening and gets the information that they need. Where it is possible, safe and legal, I have no doubt that more can be done; it may not be as easy as flicking a switch at 102 Petty France, but I am sure that more can be done. I am somewhat wary of the suggestion from the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) about recordings. We need to be very careful about how we use recordings of criminal proceedings, whether audio or visual. He will no doubt be aware of the sensitivity, but perhaps more can be done. I can take away his suggestion, which is a more manual mechanism for ensuring that victims know and understand what has happened at the criminal trial. From spring next year, the Government will go further: as has been said, victims will be entitled to be provided with free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case. That is an important extension that will make a meaningful difference to victims’ understanding of the outcomes of their case. As was raised by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and by almost every contributor to the debate, the interplay with the ULS scheme is clear. That scheme is being considered as part of legislation going through Parliament at the moment. The interplay between the provision of the transcript and ensuring that the ULS scheme works for victims is at the forefront of my mind and that of the Minister for Victims.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  As I say, and as the hon. Member will appreciate, the interplay between the ULS scheme and the provision of transcripts of sentencing remarks is at the heart of our consideration during the passage through Parliament of the Victim and Courts Bill. Parliament is seized of the issue of the ULS scheme. I completely understand the desire to expand the time limit. We have spoken to victims’ groups and victims who have suggested alternatives, or who are potentially not even in favour. We have to get it right. Watch this space, if I can say that at this stage. In the magistrates courts, we are making meaningful progress on the recording of hearings. As part of wider reform of the criminal courts’ trial and sentencing proceedings, magistrates courts will now be recorded. That will strengthen transparency and support the accurate production of transcripts when required. In civil proceedings, parties often do not need to pay for written judgments or orders in their own cases. Those are provided as a matter of course so that litigants can understand the basis of the court’s decision and can consider any next steps, including appeal. While a fee is generally payable for the full transcript of the case, a party can apply to the court to obtain it at public expense. The court can order this when satisfied that it is justified by the financial circumstances of the party and is in the interests of justice. In the family courts, most proceedings are heard in private. This is to protect the children’s welfare and families’ privacy. Even so, progress is being made to increase transparency, while remaining committed to keeping children and vulnerable individuals safe. Family courts are not usually at the forefront of our mind when we talk about the issue, because they often sit in private, but for many families, particularly in public family law proceedings, the transcript of any fact finding or any final hearing regarding the future of a child can be pivotal to the future care of that child, and indeed to the parents in any appeals or routes to having children returned to their care. The Government have worked closely with the judiciary to support an increase in the publication of anonymised judgments for family proceedings, which enable the public better to understand the decision making, while ensuring that privacy is protected. Even where family proceedings are heard in private, journalists and legal bloggers can attend most types of hearing. Now, following procedural changes, family courts are encouraged to make orders setting out what information from the hearings can be disclosed publicly. That marks a substantial development in transparency in family proceedings, balancing clarity about what can be reported with the need to protect those involved. We are working with Baroness Levitt and the Family Procedure Rule Committee to review the current rules of court relating to the sharing of information from family cases, to ensure that the rules are justified and proportionate. Tribunals, which are also covered in the petition, play a vital role in resolving disputes across many areas of daily life. Across many chambers of the first tier and upper tribunals, parties can request fuller written reasons at no additional cost. Tribunals therefore already provide substantial written explanation without a fee. In the immigration and asylum chamber, the upper tribunal already publishes its decisions, and the Government are working with the judiciary and HMCTS to understand the arrangements required to deliver this in the first-tier tribunal. That involves careful consideration of operational capacity, safeguarding and the significant volume of personal data involved. This work is ongoing and reflects our commitment to increasing transparency and delivering open justice. To go significantly further at this stage, by extending free provision to every transcript across every jurisdiction, would place substantial operational and financial pressures on the Department at a time when we are rightly focused on implementing the extension of free sentencing remarks and a once-in-a-generation reform in our criminal courts. Looking to the future, however, the Government are embracing the possibilities that new technology brings. Advances in AI transcription could allow for faster and more cost-effective production of court and tribunal transcripts, while maintaining accuracy and safeguarding. Working with the judiciary, the Government will continue to look at how we can go further and faster in this area. It is essential, however, that any such system meet stringent standards and ensure that reporting restrictions are adhered to and personal data is protected. In conclusion, I reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to open justice. We have already taken significant steps to strengthen transparency across the system, and we will continue to build on that progress, but in doing so it is imperative that we protect individuals, recognise practical and financial constraints and ensure that the justice system can run smoothly and effectively. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley again for opening this debate and all hon. Members who have contributed. I look forward to continuing to work together to ensure that our justice system remains open, fair and trusted by all who rely on it.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Right to Protest · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises an important point, as I know he has repeatedly in the past, and I will raise the issue with the Home Office. I put on record that the incidents of antisemitism we saw over the weekend were wholly disgraceful, and this Government will do everything we can to stamp them out.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Right to Protest · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said, this is a matter for the Home Secretary. She has made it abundantly clear that, although there is a right to protest in this country—an important right that should be protected—where incidents such as those the hon. Gentleman has identified occur, those individuals should face the full force of the law.