Nicholas Dakin MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 21 Jul 2025 · Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal Of Prisoners For Deportation Order 2025) (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Opposition spokesman for those closing comments. I wish him and his colleagues, you, Ms McVey, and, indeed, all members of the Committee well for the forthcoming recess. I am sure that he was referring to potential reshuffles among the Opposition rather than anywhere else. I am grateful to him for recognising that this Government are going much further than the Government whom he supported did over their 14 years in office. Much as I like him, I do feel that often his contributions to debates such as this are rather like the arsonist turning up at the fire, blaming the fire brigade for the fire and adding more things to the fire while he is there. The proposed changes in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025 will enable the Government to remove foreign national offenders for the purpose of immediate deportation earlier in their sentence. We are agreed across this House that that is the right thing to do, and I am grateful for the support of all members of the Committee on that. It will help to ease the prison capacity crisis inherited from the last Government, keep the British public safer and ensure that less of their tax money is spent on those who come to this country and abuse our hospitality by committing crime. I commend the draft order to the Committee. Question put and agreed to .

• 21 Jul 2025 · Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal Of Prisoners For Deportation Order 2025) (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms McVey. As the Committee knows, when this Government came to power we inherited a prison system in crisis. From January 2023 to September 2024, the adult male prison estate routinely operated at over 99% capacity. Had we exceeded maximum capacity, the consequences would have been unthinkable: with nowhere to put new prisoners, the police would have stopped making arrests and courts would have suspended trials. It could have led to the total breakdown of law and order, with criminals running amok in our streets. The Government carried out a series of emergency prisoner releases to prevent that disaster. At the same time, we launched the independent sentencing review with one clear goal: to make sure we never again run out of prison places. David Gauke and his expert panel published their recommendations on 22 May and the Government responded the very same day, accepting the majority of them in principle. One specific area we asked the review to look at was how we tackle the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons. They currently account for about 12% of our prison population and cost British taxpayers millions of pounds every year. The Government have made it very clear that foreign nationals should be in no doubt whatever that the law will be enforced, and where appropriate, we will work with the Home Office to pursue their deportation. I am pleased to say that in our first year, we have removed more foreign national offenders than in the previous 12 months or in any other July to July period, but we must go further. The draft order implements the sentencing review’s recommendations to reduce the minimum period that foreign national offenders have to spend in prison to 30% of the custodial term, and to increase the window in which they can be removed from prison for the purpose of immediate deportation. As the Committee will be aware, the Secretary of State has the power to remove eligible foreign national offenders—those serving a determinate sentence who are liable to be removed from the UK—from prison for the sole purpose of immediate deportation. That is referred to as the early removal scheme. Foreign national offenders serving indeterminate sentences—life sentences and sentences of imprisonment for public protection—are outside the scope of the scheme, and rightly so. Prisoners serving any type of sentence for a terrorism-related offence are also excluded. The power to remove a foreign national offender under the scheme is discretionary, and prison governors can refuse to remove individuals in certain circumstances, for example where there is clear evidence that the prisoner is planning further crime or dealing class A drugs in custody, or there are serious public safety concerns regarding early removal. Under the current rules, eligible offenders can be removed up to 18 months before the earliest release point of the sentence, provided they have served one half of the requisite custodial period. This statutory instrument amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow foreign national offenders to be removed up to four years before the earliest release point of their sentence, subject to having served one third of the requisite custodial period. That means that eligible offenders can be removed from prison earlier. At current removal rates, we expect that the change will free up approximately 500 prison spaces a year. Not only will that help to safeguard prisons from collapse, with all the risks that poses to the public; it will also prevent taxpayers’ money from being spent to keep foreign nationals in this country any longer than absolutely necessary.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Draft Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. As the Committee will be aware, in December last year my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made a written statement to the House concerning the independent domestic homicide sentencing review, which announced the Government’s plans to implement two of the review’s outstanding recommendations. In opposition, we welcomed Clare Wade KC’s approach of updating the sentencing framework for murder to reflect the seriousness of domestic homicides, while balancing the need to ensure that any changes do not unduly punish abused women who kill their abuser. We did, however, call for more of the review’s recommendations to be implemented, which is precisely what today’s draft instrument is intended to achieve. Its measures are central to the Government’s mission to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls. In case it is helpful to the Committee, I will set out some of the background to this issue. Our current sentencing framework for murder, as specified in schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, was first introduced more than 20 years ago. Since then, multiple piecemeal amendments have been made to it by Governments of all colours. In recent years, particular concerns have been raised regarding gendered disparities for murders committed in a domestic context. Clare Wade KC, an experienced barrister specialising in murder, manslaughter and serious sexual offences, was commissioned by the previous Government to review sentencing in domestic homicide cases. She was tasked with establishing whether the law in this area and related sentencing guidelines were fit for purpose. I pay tribute to Clare Wade for her thorough and considered work on this review, and to those whose campaigning led to the commissioning of it. They include Carole Gould and Julie Devey, founders of the Killed Women network and mothers of two young women, Ellie Gould and Poppy Devey Waterhouse, both of whom were tragically murdered by their former partners. Having met members of the Killed Women campaign to hear their harrowing experiences at first hand, I recognise just how important this legislation is. I know that colleagues will join me in commending their courage and commitment to campaigning for change. Clare Wade KC’s review was published in March 2023, and the previous Government responded in July of the same year. Some of the recommendations were accepted and implemented by Ministers in that Administration, but a number remain outstanding. Today’s instrument implements two of them. First, it introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders connected with the end of a relationship. In over a third of the cases analysed by the review, the murder occurred at the end, or perceived end, of the relationship, and in the majority of cases, this appeared to be the catalyst for the killing. The perpetrator was male in all these cases. As the Committee will be aware, a murder involving resentment or jealousy by the perpetrator at the end of a relationship is a significant feature of cases involving controlling or coercive behaviour, and is often the final controlling act of an abusive partner. Secondly, the instrument introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders involving strangulation. In recent years, strangulation has been recognised as a method of exerting power and control, particularly in the context of domestic abuse where female victims are assaulted by physically stronger males. Nearly a third of the murder cases analysed by Clare Wade KC involved strangulation, all carried out by a male perpetrator with a female victim. The intention of the instrument is to recognise those factors expressly in statute, to ensure that domestic murders and the particular harms that arise in these cases are given specialist consideration in the framework. Alongside this important legislation, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has also invited the Law Commission to conduct a review of homicide law and sentencing. The sentencing framework for murder was first introduced over 20 years ago and has never been subject to wholesale review. This contrasts with the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines, which are regularly reviewed and updated, with any changes subject to thorough consultation. While Clare Wade KC’s review and today’s legislation go some way towards ensuring that the sentencing framework for murder reflects a modern understanding of domestic abuse, more fundamental reform is also required. The intention of the Law Commission review is a complete reconsideration of the sentencing framework for murder, with a view to making recommendations for a new schedule 21. The review will also consider the law relating to homicide offences, including full and partial defences to them. We anticipate that the Law Commission review will take some time to complete. We will then need to consider the recommendations and bring forward any necessary legislation. This is the right course of action for such a complex area of law, but it is not a swift one, which is why we are taking more immediate action in the short term by introducing the measures in the instrument. This is part of our crucial work to deliver on our missions to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Draft Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful that the spokesman for His Majesty’s Opposition recognises that the draft regulations build on the work of the previous Government in a right and proper way, taking those decisions forward. It is disappointing that he does not recognise some responsibility for the situation that we inherited in the prison estate with overcrowding, and in the courts with people having to wait so long to have their trial. That is why we are having to address these issues in the round. But that is not pertinent to this statutory instrument, which speaks for itself, and I am grateful for his and his party’s support on this issue. Question put and agreed to.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for the excellent work she has done in bringing forward this important Bill and navigating us to this point. I am also grateful to the shadow Minister for his support and for his comments. I assure him that we will take forward the issues he rightly raises in due course. In answer to the welcome scepticism from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), I can confirm that I wrote to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and indeed copied in the rest of the Committee, pointing out that Oasis Restore had agreed to the rationale for reducing the notice period from seven years to two and for this change to be applied to their funding agreement. As a result, there will be no financial impact on the taxpayer. I picked up exactly the point that the hon. Member for Christchurch rightly raised; it has been dealt with. Academies were first introduced by the Government of Sir Tony Blair, but the issues raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch about academies generally are matters for the Department for Education rather than me. I commend the Bill to the House and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for bringing it forward.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) focuses on the specific question of why this change should be made. It is very much a technical change. We have one secure school, the Oasis Academy in Kent, which I have visited. These secure schools are for young people who are sentenced to custody; they join the rest of the youth custodial estate, which includes three young offenders institutions and a secure training centre, as well as a YOI in Wales and some secure children’s homes. It is a very discrete landscape. There is no competition with alternative provision or any other provision locally, because it would be inappropriate for a young person who was sentenced to custody to go into alternative provision, as they have to go to secure provision—that is, a young offenders institution or one of the other secure provisions, one of which is the secure school. It was a bit of an oversight in the original legislation to use the term “consultation” about whether it should go ahead, because there is no competition in the locality. A more useful consultation would be about how, because there are issues about working with other partners, including partners that might provide alternative provision, and that is the most appropriate way of doing that. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) has brought this Bill before us today. It seeks to make more sense of the legislation, so that it will be more effective for these particular young people and these particular places.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) raises important concerns, but this Bill is not about reducing the pressure on miscreants—it is about dealing with them as effectively and efficiently as possible. The Bill does not mandate the use of video; it allows the courts flexibility. Instead of the police being used as taxi drivers, moving people around when they should be dealing with other miscreants, cases will be able to be dealt with in a much more effective way when a magistrate or a judge needs to be found at short notice. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this measure will benefit justice, and will assist in dealing with the miscreants that he and I are both concerned about. The current situation makes it more difficult to do that.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Greene King does outstanding work, as do other organisations in our prison service. They are important partners in delivering better justice.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to hear of the case that the hon. Member outlines, and I would be very happy to meet her to explore the issue further.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of rehabilitation in the panoply of things that we do in the criminal justice system. She is also right to highlight the number of prisoners and people in the criminal justice system who have dyslexia, which is one of the many neurodiverse conditions in the prison service. Every prison has a neurodiversity officer who co-ordinates activity to address that in each prison, but if she wants to write to me about the issue, I would be happy to respond in more detail.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend asks a good question. In England, prison education contracts are awarded following a rigorous commercial process that awards providers on merit. I understand that PeoplePlus has been awarded education contracts for Scottish prisons, but that would be a matter for the Scottish Government.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right: it is important that parent carers get the information they need that helps with rehabilitation and getting things to the right place. If she wants to write to me about that particular case, I will look into it and write back to her.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Education · Hansard source

  More

  All options are on the table. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service introduced a head of education, skills and work into every prison to ensure that, across the estate, a senior member of prison staff is responsible for improving the quality of education provision. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to Ofsted reports, but there has been an increase in the overall number of “good” ratings achieved through the inspections. This is work in progress. We need to do better, as she says, and that is what we are determined to do.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Education · Hansard source

  More

  Ensuring that prisoners have access to education is essential for rehabilitation in order to ensure that prison produces better citizens, not better criminals. New prison education service contracts will be launched later this year, which aim to strengthen the quality of delivery and provide consistent assessment of prisoners. Last week, I held a roundtable bringing together experts to drive improvement and strengthen current education provision in young offenders institutions.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  Due to the circumstances that this Government found when we came into office, we had no option but to introduce a temporary change to the law to allow prisoners serving an eligible standard determinate sentence to be released on licence. This had many more constraints to it than the early release scheme operated by the previous Government, which was rushed out just before the election. Actually, the data has not yet been published, so the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. Public protection is our No. 1 priority, but we are also tackling reoffending, with proper programmes in place in prison. We also need to support people when they come out of prison, and probation is part of that solution.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  We took immediate action to prevent the collapse of our prison system. The last Government added just 500 places to our prison estate over 14 years, whereas the previous Labour Government added around 28,000 places over 13 years. We intend to match the ambition of the last Labour Government, not the last Conservative Government, which is why we are committed to building 14,000 new prison places. By the end of this Parliament, we will have more people in prison than at any time in our history.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Knife Crime Offenders: Rehabilitation · Hansard source

  More

  Halving knife crime is a moral mission for the Government. Every young person caught with a knife is referred to a youth offending team, and Turnaround is very successful in diverting youngsters on the cusp of crime away from offending. Alongside that, the Government will roll out prevention partnerships and Young Futures hubs.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Knife Crime Offenders: Rehabilitation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to point to the range of diversions that can help the rehabilitation of young offenders, including boxing clubs. I am happy to meet him.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Parole Board Decisions: Serious Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  That was a horrific case. My thoughts remain with Joanna’s family and friends, specifically Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, who I met last year, and who the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), met this week. The previous Parliament carefully scrutinised the referral power and the offences that should be in scope. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Parole Board Decisions: Serious Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend draws attention to another horrific case. I think the best way of proceeding is to take up his offer of a meeting.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Parole Board Decisions: Serious Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  Work to implement the power to refer cases to the High Court is well advanced, and we expect to be able to fully update the House later this year.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Probation Officers · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that prison officers have the time to do the job they came in to do, which is to spend time with offenders and turn their lives around. In addition, we have invested an initial £8 million in technology and launched a new programme to develop a sustainable work process that will allow probation staff to focus on the work they joined the service to deliver.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Probation Officers · Hansard source

  More

  Me again, Mr Speaker. We are determined to back our hard-working probation staff by investing up to £700 million, which is a 45% increase in funding. We have already exceeded this year’s target by recruiting over 1,000 trainees. We will recruit another 1,300 more probation officers in 2025-26.