Jake Richards MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Domestic Violence: Support for Victims’ Families · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Reconsideration Mechanism and the Parole Board Rules 2019 · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point. Technology and social media have become more complex and difficult, but that does not mean we should shy away from attempting to ensure the principles that we hold so dear, including democracy. I will deal with that important point later in my speech. This Government are committed to ensuring that penalties for these types of offences are proportionate and uphold freedom of expression. Sentencing is and must remain a matter for the independent judiciary. We all—particularly Government Ministers—have a responsibility to take extreme care when discussing individual cases. I will not be commenting on any, although we all take our own personal views on cases that capture the public imagination. But a sentence in the court of public opinion is not as rigorous as those imposed by courts of law. Each case is different, and the full circumstances are often not reported widely. Media stories of cases rarely convey all the information that the court had before it when deciding on its sentence. Where an individual is convicted for an offence related to online speech, the independent judiciary is responsible for determining appropriate sentences, based on the facts of each cases and the relevant sentencing guidelines. An independent judiciary is vital to the rule of law and the functioning of a democratic society. It ensures that justice is administered fairly, impartially and critically, without political interference. The independence of our judiciary from political influence is a vital part of our constitution, and I for one am determined to protect that in my role. The proposals by the Opposition to simply scrap the Sentencing Council amount to constitutional vandalism and have been described by previous Conservative Attorneys General as completely absurd.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is completely incorrect. The Conservative party’s current proposals are not what was in place before the Sentencing Council was established. They propose to bring the sentencing of every type of criminal case into the Executive. That is a completely new, innovative and wholly dangerous proposal that has been criticised by Conservatives themselves. I remember when Conservatives used to stand up for our constitution and the separation of powers, rather than simply following the populist flame. The sentencing framework is important, because it provides courts with a range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders in addition to imprisonment, including through discharges, fines, community sentences and suspended sentences. The law also makes it clear that imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort and where no other sentence would be appropriate. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. They have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless they are satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so. Therefore, differences in sentencing outcomes will be the result of a number of factors, including whether the offender has previous convictions or whether an early guilty plea was entered, as well as any particular aggravating and mitigating factors. They may also include circumstances surrounding the offence, as well as circumstances personal to the offender. It is right that courts have the discretion to consider these factors and to tailor sentences accordingly, but that does not mean—and none of my argument should give the impression—that sentencing is not subject to democratic accountability. Parliament is sovereign. The Sentencing Bill, which we are taking through the House, makes changes to ensure that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice agree to new guidelines before they come into effect, which is a new mechanism for bolstering accountability. We do not want politicians handing down sentences on each given case, leading to wild inconsistencies and unfairness. But of course, sentencing has a democratic function, and in my submission this change strikes the right balance. The Government commissioned a comprehensive review of sentencing powers through the independent sentencing review, chaired by David Gauke, the previous Conservative Lord Chancellor. This was wide-ranging and evidence-led, examining the full spectrum of sentencing options. The aim of the independent sentencing review was to ensure that the framework is robust, proportionate and fit for purpose. The review was guided by three core principles: sentences must punish offenders and protect the public; sentences should encourage prisoners to turn their backs on a life of crime; and we must make greater use of punishment outside of prison. The Government accepted the majority of the review’s recommendations in principle, many of which are now being delivered through the Sentencing Bill, which is currently progressing through the House of Lords. Our focus remains on ensuring that the justice system protects the public, upholds fundamental rights and uses custodial sentences only where they are necessary and proportionate. The Government have made it clear that we need to focus our law enforcement efforts on preventing crime in our communities—more police on our streets, rather than more policing of our tweets. But the Government do not feel that there is any case for a change in legislation at this stage, as proposed by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. Freedom of expression is a right that must be protected, but it is not an absolute right; it carries a responsibility to use that freedom honestly and decently. Freedom used irresponsibly corrodes democracy; responsibility without freedom weakens it. The Government’s job is to protect both, and the Online Safety Act and our wider sentencing framework reflect that balance. They are designed to protect individuals, uphold justice and preserve the freedoms that define our society. The Online Safety Act has been designed to safeguard legal free speech, uphold privacy and support innovation. It does not prevent adults from accessing legal content, nor does it restrict people from posting content that others may find offensive. It involves the regulation of systems and processes that platforms have in place for tackling illegal content and, critically, protecting children. There are also protections against the over-removal of content, where platforms take down content that they should leave on their sites. As use of the internet has expanded, there has been an increasing awareness that online content and activity can cause serious harm to users. From disinformation to targeted harassment, what happens online now shapes lives offline. The public are right to expect protection online from abuse that would never be tolerated on our streets. There are some circumstances where the criminal threshold is met for genuinely harmful and dangerous material, whether that be online or through other forms of communication. That is why the Online Safety Act introduced three modern communication offences—harmful communications, false communications and threatening communications—ensuring that our legal framework is fit for the digital age. We have now seen that the new offences introduced by the Act are being applied proportionately and effectively. Earlier this year, an individual was convicted under section 184 of the Act for encouraging a child to undertake serious self-harm through online grooming—the first case of its kind. We have heard about the real dangers that exist online for children, and we must clamp down on them. The case demonstrates the importance of having modern, digital-age offences that are capable of protecting the most vulnerable from genuine life-threatening harm. The Act also delivered Zach’s law, named after a young epilepsy campaigner, which rightly makes it a criminal offence to send malicious flashing images intended to trigger seizures. It is a clear, common-sense and compassionate example of how the law can evolve to protect people with disabilities from cruelty and real, demonstrable harm online. We should remember that the Online Safety Act is not the only legislation that can lead to custodial sentences for online speech: recent convictions, including that of the individual jailed for issuing death threats against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), show that existing laws on threats and harassment are being applied robustly where speech crosses into criminal intimidation. Democracy cannot function when intimidation replaces debate. That is the balance we seek to strike in regulating an increasingly influential online world to protect the public—between freedom of expression and the safety of individuals and communities. I thank all Members for their contributions. This is an issue that is important not only to this House but clearly to many people across the country, and it is vital that we allow, and indeed encourage, rigorous debates about the relevant legal framework.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We are here to debate whether to review the penalties for social media posts, as put forward by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, but so too is the right of every citizen to live free from abuse, intimidation and harm. The role of Government and Parliament is to uphold both—to protect rights and responsibilities online and offline. It has long been a principle in this country that people are free to express their views even when those views are uncomfortable, unpopular, challenging or even offensive. However, we must also recognise that freedom of expression must be balanced against the need to uphold public safety and ensure that our laws are equipped to deal with the realities of modern communication. That balancing act is not set in stone or fixed; it is a constant challenge for our society, as it should be. Any tension or conflict between these principles must be carefully considered and monitored. This debate plays an important and symbolic role in doing that, and I welcome contributions from all different perspectives.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Welsh Language in Prisons · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for her vital question. She is absolutely right. I will follow up on the correspondence that she sent to the Ministry of Justice—I have not seen that myself. As I set out before, the policy implemented by the MOJ is one that values the Welsh language and will continue to do so.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Welsh Language in Prisons · Hansard source

  More

  In line with our Welsh language scheme, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service offers prisoners, people on probation and members of the public the right to choose whether to use English or Welsh in their dealings with us. We recognise that enabling prisoners to use their preferred language is a matter of good practice —not a concession—as prisoners can express their views and needs better in their preferred language.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As the Justice Secretary has already stated during oral questions, the Government are committed to the ECHR, and that includes for the whole of Great Britain. Clearly, there are issues in ensuring that that convention and our international obligations evolve with the challenges that we face as a country, which is why we are looking at how it is implemented and clarified in domestic law. We continue to work with European partners on European reform, and that includes Scotland too.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  That is a characteristically important question from my hon. Friend. Education has a vital role in our prisons, helping to clamp down on reoffending and with rehabilitation. We are working at pace to look at how we can improve education within the prison system, including through the third sector as well as through the formal contracts we already have. Indeed, I am going to a prison in just the next few weeks to look at literacy rates with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies). There is work to do on this—it is not good enough at the moment—and we will get on with that in the weeks ahead.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is right that the Probation Service takes those facilities and premises incredibly seriously. We are investing more in probation than ever before—£750 million, a 45% increase—to fix a service that was utterly dismantled by the last Conservative Government, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are reassured that this Government are getting on with job of ensuring that our Probation Service is fit for purpose.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I regularly visit prisons as part of my job, and I pay tribute to the incredible work that prison officers do, day in and day out, including prison officers who come from other countries to do sterling work in appalling circumstances to ensure that our prisons are safe. I thank them for their work, and I reject the premise of the question.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Rehabilitation: Unspent Convictions · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member’s remarks. Many Members across the House will have had constituents come to them in similar circumstances, and it is deeply worrying and troubling. This is complex, because it involves different systems and public safety is always paramount for this Government. We are absolutely looking at this issue and will report back to the House when we have made progress.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Rehabilitation: Unspent Convictions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are committed to helping people with convictions find employment and turn away from reoffending. We are continuing to consider the criminal records regime, including the recommendations made in part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, to ensure that it balances public safety with supporting rehabilitation.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Rehabilitation: Unspent Convictions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point. I met him with officials just last week to discuss his constituent’s case and the issue more broadly. As I have said, we will continue to look at Sir Brian’s recommendation in relation to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This is an issue that we want to look at and act on.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prison Officers: Pension Age · Hansard source

  More

  The Government recognise that pension age is an important issue for frontline staff and our recognised trade unions that represent the views of their members. Officials met POA representatives earlier in the autumn to discuss pension age and will continue to engage with them on this important issue.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prison Officers: Pension Age · Hansard source

  More

  As I have already said, it is absolutely right that we continue to have those discussions with the relevant trade unions. Let me be absolutely clear on behalf of the Government: we understand that the work and working conditions of prison officers are getting harder, and we are in the business of trying to help them.