Nicholas Dakin MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 8 Jul 2025 · Probation Officers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his question. As he knows, we have regular discussions in the five nations group to ensure that good practice is shared, issues are addressed together and we learn from each other.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Private Contractors: Justice Services · Hansard source

  More

  We inherited a set of contracts from the previous Government, some of which are not performing as we would like, particularly in the areas of maintenance and electronic tagging. The Prisons Minister in the other place is gripping this situation and driving progress, with regular meetings to review performance.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Private Contractors: Justice Services · Hansard source

  More

  All options are always under review, but as I have said, performance under that contract is improving. The Prisons Minister in the other place is gripping this issue, and we will get to where we need to get to.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Private Contractors: Justice Services · Hansard source

  More

  While the performance of Serco has been unacceptable, as the hon. Gentleman says, we have made progress, and performance is improving. We have imposed fines for poor performance, and will not hesitate to employ further contractual remedies or other measures should they be required, but this is a contract that we inherited from the Conservative party, and we are doing our best to make it work.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Officer Morale: Pension Age · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the fact that this is yet another Tory mess that we have inherited. As I have said, we value the work of the POA, and we recognise the significant work of prison officers and the strength of feeling on this issue. We will continue to engage with the POA and others to try to find the best way forward.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Officer Morale: Pension Age · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We need to make progress on this issue, and we are determined to do so.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Officer Morale: Pension Age · Hansard source

  More

  Prison officers benefit from the civil service pension scheme, which offers excellent public sector terms, low employee contributions and a 28.97% employer contribution, but we recognise that pension age is an important issue for prison officers. That is why we are fully engaged with the unions on this issue.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Officers: Terms and Conditions of Service · Hansard source

  More

  We are working hard to enhance security and ease crowding in order to curb violence, including through a new £40 million investment to stop contraband, which puts our hard-working staff at risk. Assaults on staff and the other issues that the right hon. Gentleman mentions are unacceptable. That is why we are firmly and securely taking action. We are mandating the use of protective body armour in the highest-risk units and on the long-term high-security estate, which hold some of the most dangerous prisoners. We are taking action, while the previous Government failed.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Officers: Terms and Conditions of Service · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member and I had a useful meeting a short time ago to explore all these issues, and I can reaffirm that the Lord Chancellor and the Department are fully engaged with the Prison Officers Association on this and other issues.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Officers: Terms and Conditions of Service · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the essential work that our prison officers do, day in, day out. This year’s pay award delivered another real-terms pay rise for our frontline prison staff. We are committed to effective training and development of existing staff, as delivered through the Enable programme, alongside the provision of extensive wellbeing services.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Members who have contributed so far. On the issues just raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, they are for the Bill as it makes progress. Assuming that it does progress, however, I am happy to write to him with an answer to those points, as they are pertinent. I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I add my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for promoting the Bill. I thank the Opposition and Liberal Democrats spokesmen for the pertinent remarks that they have made, which are helpful. A sad reality is that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty to protect the public. In line with our safer streets mission, the Government’s responsibility is to ensure that children who find themselves in the youth justice system receive the support that they need to turn their lives around. Secure 16-to-19 academies, otherwise known as secure schools, offer an opportunity to transform the experience of children who are detained after having been sentenced or remanded to custody by the courts. Secure schools allow children to gain skills and qualifications that will help them to turn their backs on crime for good and, crucially, to protect the public from their reoffending in the future.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased that he chairs the APPG for sixth-form colleges, a group I previously chaired, relating back to my time leading a sixth-form college before I came to this place. I had a roundtable with external providers on how to challenge our system in youth-offending institutions. The Oasis Restore school was represented, as was the Oakhill secure training centre. It is important that we ensure that the best practice available outside our youth custody estate is levered into what we do, so that we can get the very best for the young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is right to press me and the Government on that point. The Bill is necessary to ensure that specific provisions in the Academies Act 2010 are tailored to reflect the unique nature and needs of secure schools. The Government support the Bill on the basis that those amendments will provide for better and more integrated services. The Bill will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and to have more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. We also have the opportunity to remove any unnecessary administrative burden and to help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. Engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection process for new custodial sites. The Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage their local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process on how the secure school should work with local partners. In closing, I reiterate my thanks to all those Members who have contributed to the debate, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for her promotion of this important Bill. I confirm the Government’s continued support.

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

  More

  The proof of the pudding is always in the eating, and we are at the start of a new venture. The former chief inspector of prisons, Charlie Taylor, was enthusiastic about this line of development. The previous Government, to their credit, over a period of time developed the first 16-to-19 academy, which is now established in legislation. The first ever secure school, Oasis Restore, opened in Kent last autumn. I was pleased to visit the secure school in September last year to see it for myself. The school is not yet where we or Oasis aspire for it to be, but I am encouraged by the commitment and passion of those involved. We need to ensure that it works as described in the appropriate challenge of hon. Members.

• 1 Jul 2025 · ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  It is a complete joy to serve when you chair, Mr Dowd, and a pleasure to respond to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) to set out this very important matter. I will do my best to answer her eight questions. I thank all Members, on both sides of the Chamber, for their considered contributions to today’s debate. This has been a measured and helpful discussion underscoring the importance of recognising and responding to the needs of neurodivergent offenders, including those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. There is a huge prevalence of neurodiversity in our prisons: studies have estimated that at least half of the offenders in our jails have some kind of neurodivergent need, though the figure is likely to be even higher, with about a quarter of prisoners thought to meet the ADHD diagnostic criteria. As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, NICE calculates that figure as up to 25%, including 41% of women. As the inspectorates have highlighted, for these offenders prison can be particularly difficult and distressing, leading to challenging behaviour that could result in their being unnecessarily sanctioned or disciplined. Prison is rightly first and foremost a punishment, but it must also reduce reoffending. Offenders deserve the opportunity to turn their lives around so that they can play their full part in society on release. We need to make better citizens, not better criminals. Above all, we want to ensure that every offender gets the rehabilitation they need to protect the public. That relies on ADHD and other neurodivergent needs being picked up quickly, and on offenders getting the support that they need so that they can engage with support, treatment and education. There is a great deal of good work already under way. I will answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. On what measures are currently in place and what we plan to offer in way of support and continuity of care to neurodiverse prisoners on their release, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) rightly identified the key role of probation. There is guidance and training for probation staff to help them to understand ADHD, how needs can look different for different individuals, and that some needs are not visible. Probation staff are skilled at taking a strength-based approach in assessments for pre-sentence reports and sentence plans. Together, that can help our practitioners to adapt the work they do with offenders, whether that is in a one-to-one context, such as supervision appointments, in group settings in a behaviour programme, or in unpaid work placements. In addition, the Probation Service has commissioned neurodiversity specialists in five probation regions: Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west, the west midlands, the south-west, and Wales. Those services offer direct support to people who are diagnosed with or suspected to have a neurodivergent condition; supporting engagement with their orders or licences, they provide briefings to probation staff designed to help them to identify factors that may be related to neurodivergent conditions, and give guidance on how best to support the rehabilitation of these individuals. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills asked about neurodiversity support managers. We have neurodiversity support managers in all our public prisons, and they have a whole-prison approach to neurodiversity. That includes: improving processes to identify and support prisoners with neurodivergent needs; providing training and guidance for prison staff; and ensuring that neurodivergent prisoners can access education, skills and work opportunities within the prison. Neurodiversity support managers also ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to prison environments to make them more supportive of neurodivergent needs. They are frequently recognised in His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons reports for their positive impact in prisons, with recent reports from HMP Kirklevington Grange and HMP Warren Hill highlighting their support for prisoners as an example of good practice. The 2021 joint inspectorate neurodiversity review of evidence, which the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills cited in detail, suggested that at least 50% of prisoners have a neurodivergent need, although many will not be diagnosed. In response to the review, the previous Government published a cross-Government neurodiversity action plan in July 2022, with updates in the January and September of 2023. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that we will publish a final update to the action plan later this year, which will respond directly to the joint inspectorate’s report and set out a cross-system strategy to further improve outcomes for neurodivergent people, building on the vital work of the ADHD taskforce. I welcome the publication of the ADHD taskforce’s interim report. It is a timely and important piece of work that outlines the systemic challenges in ADHD services across the country and sets out both short and long-term recommendations to improve support for people with ADHD. Many contributions made by Members highlighted the issues in other services, which is why the report is important. I am grateful to colleagues across Departments who have worked collaboratively to shape the recommendations. The report rightly makes clear that no single Department can resolve the challenges alone. ADHD, when left unsupported, can lead to a cascade of negative outcomes: school exclusion, unemployment, substance misuse, involvement in crime, and, tragically, sometimes suicide. We will continue to work with the taskforce and together across Government to achieve the report’s aims. In youth justice, youth offending teams are increasingly tailoring interventions to children’s specific needs, including those with neurodiverse conditions, with 95% of practitioners reporting that assessments and planning now take into account individual vulnerabilities. Where children are detained in youth custody, all children receive a comprehensive health assessment that screens for a range of needs, including mental health and neurodiversity when they first arrive. All education providers across the three public young offender institutions also have a special educational needs co-ordinator who, in collaboration with NHS England, conducts assessments for children who may have undiagnosed needs, including ADHD. We are having a roundtable later today with education providers to look at alternative education providers outside of the youth justice estate to look at ways of bringing their expertise into the youth custody system so that we can learn from others and improve the way we do business in the youth custody service. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) drew attention to focusing on and analysing needs. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service takes a needs-led approach to supporting people in prison, including those with ADHD. This ensures that needs are identified as early as possible so that appropriate reasonable adjustments and support are provided throughout custody. To improve current screening processes, HMPPS is procuring a new needs assessment tool. I am pleased to confirm that Do-IT Solutions has been awarded the contract for this tool, which will be introduced as part of the new prisoner education service. The tool will identify individual strengths and additional learning needs, including those associated with autism spectrum conditions and ADHD.

• 1 Jul 2025 · ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  My understanding is that it will be, but I will write to the hon. Lady to confirm the details. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), data on prisoners with ADHD may be held locally by prison healthcare providers, but is not held centrally by NHS England. Where it is known, 55% of prisoners who took an initial assessment via the prison education service and then enrolled on a course had a learning difficulty or disability. We continue to work to improve our data collection and information sharing. This includes plans to integrate screening results and any information relating to additional need into digital learning and work plans to support prisoners’ education, skills and work progress through custody. But this area needs more work. On the issue of women, the Prisons Minister in the other place, Lord Timpson, leads on the Women’s Justice Board—indeed, he chairs it. It is a passionate area of interest for him and the Lord Chancellor. I will write to Lord Timpson to flag the issue of ADHD, but I am sure it is already on his radar and in his work plan. If it is not, it will be soon. There is a neurodiversity support manager in every female prison and they have all had specific training on women with ADHD. Mr Speaker, I am grateful once again to the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, who led it. I am very happy to meet her at a later date to further explore the matter. As the ADHD taskforce has rightly pointed out in its interim report, “ADHD, when unsupported, is a potent route into educational failure, long-term unemployment, crime, substance misuse, suicide, mental and physical illness.” We have made significant progress to support neurodiverse people in the criminal justice system, including those with ADHD, but there is still much more to do, which is why this debate and the interest and commitment of the hon. Lady and other hon. Members is so valuable and helpful to all of us. I look forward to continuing to work with the taskforce and colleagues across Government to ensure that neurodiverse offenders are given the support they need to turn their backs on crime for good.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank both speakers for their contributions to the debate. First, let me pick up on the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who was right to say that the criminal justice system crashed under the previous Government’s watch. That was our inheritance. The hon. Member was also right to raise his concerns about the response being appropriate and safe. I can assure him that, given the alternatives we face, this will be a safe and appropriate way of proceeding. It is worth reminding ourselves that the recall population was 6,000 in 2018 and is now 13,600; it has grown exponentially. There is a need to create space in prisons in a safe and secure way so that we can lock up the dangerous people who need to be locked up. That is why we are taking this measure now, and it will be carefully and appropriately managed. Where there are any issues of risk from individuals, they can be recalled at that point, and it is for the Probation Service to identify that. There are proper and sound bases in place to tackle the issue, but I thank the hon. Member for his constructive approach to this issue and for recognising that it is a challenge. It is a challenge that this Government are determined to meet in a safe and proper way that ensures that we can continue to lock dangerous people up. That brings me to the speech made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. As always, it was interesting and challenging, but it suggests that there is no recognition of his party’s contribution to the difficulties we find ourselves in. In essence, we have to take the hard decisions that the previous Government failed to take. If we take prisons as an example, 500 prison places were added in 14 years, compared with the 24,000 places added in the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. Already, more than 2,000 have been added in the first year of this Government. We do not take lectures from the party opposite lightly; however, the hon. Member’s challenge is perfectly reasonable and proper. In the May of their last year in government, the previous Government brought in their parallel measure for the fixed-term recall for sentences of up to 12 months to create space in prisons. That is what we are being forced to do now, in a managed, proper and safe way.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think that information is— [ Interruption. ] The reality is that the Parole Board has so much to do that people have to wait a long time to get their parole hearing. That is one of the reasons why the prison system is essentially running out of spaces, and we inherited that from the hon. Member’s Government. We are having to roll up our sleeves and deal with the problem, whereas his Government just abrogated their responsibility. If they had taken the necessary actions, we would not be in the situation that we are now in. Frankly, it would be far better if we did not have to take these actions, but we do, in order to keep public protection in place, to keep people safe, and to be able to lock dangerous people up. Question put.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. The Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. The last Government added just 500 net places to our prison estate, while at the same time sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and outstripping supply. When we took office, we were left with no option but to introduce a temporary change to the law that allows prisoners serving an eligible standard determinate sentence to be released on licence after serving 40%, rather than 50%, of their sentence in custody. That enabled the end of the dysfunctional and unmanageable end-of-custody supervised licence scheme, but we knew that it was just a first step. Since taking office, this Government have delivered almost 2,500 prison places, and in the most recent spending review, we committed a further £4.7 billion to open 14,000 more by 2031. That will be the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era. That longer-term investment is necessary but not sufficient in itself to avoid the capacity issues that have faced the criminal justice system for so many years. In May, the Lord Chancellor announced that the adult male prison estate in England and Wales was projected to run out of places in November of this year, and that, alongside our long-term building strategy in sentencing reform, urgent measures to change the use of recall would be needed to ensure that we do not run out of cells, and so avoid a breakdown of law and order. Last October, we commissioned the independent sentencing review, led by the former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, to find sustainable policy solutions and ensure that no future Government are ever again in a position where there are more prisoners than prison places, and are forced to rely on emergency relief. That is not an acceptable position for any Government to find themselves in. The review suggests that recalls should be rare and that, as a last resort, we should replace standard and short-term recalls for those on standard determinate sentences with a 56-day fixed-term recall. The Government have in principle accepted that recommendation, which requires primary legislation to be implemented. A Bill will soon be introduced to implement many of the review’s recommendations. While the sentencing review offers us our path to ending the capacity crisis in our prisons for good, it will take time to take effect. The impact of the sentencing reforms will not be felt before next spring, so we remain in a critical position until then. This Government are not prepared to stand by while we run out prison places. That is what the Conservatives did, and we will not make the same mistake. That is why we are taking targeted action on recall, which remains a significant driver of prison demand. The recall population has more than doubled since 2018, from 6,000 to 13,000 prisoners in March of this year, without a corresponding growth in offender rates. With more people in prison and supervised in the community serving longer sentences, recall rates are naturally higher. When recalled, offenders serving standard determinate sentences can currently receive either a standard or a fixed-term recall. The length of fixed-term recall is set out in primary legislation, and it is set at 28 days if the sentence is 12 months or more, or 14 days if the sentence is under 12 months. It remains the case that the Probation Service will undertake an individualised risk assessment before any offender is released under this measure, regardless of the offence they commit, which includes the risk of physical, emotional, psychological or sexual harm, to inform their risk management plan and licence conditions. Offenders face recall to prison if they breach licence conditions, such as tagging, curfew, protective orders or exclusion zones or if their risk escalates. Those not suitable for a fixed-term recall may currently receive a standard recall, under which they remain in custody until the end of their sentence, unless re-released earlier by the Secretary of State or Parole Board. Our latest data shows at least 48% of all recalls are fixed-term rather than standard. The draft order will mandate the use of fixed-term recall in specified circumstances. It will apply to adult offenders serving standard determinate sentences of less than 48 months. I want to be clear: we are excluding from this policy offenders who pose a higher risk to others. That means the measure will not apply to offenders who are convicted of terrorist or national security offences, pose a terrorist risk, are managed under the multi-agency public protection arrangements levels 2 or 3—which includes certain violent and sexual offenders—are recalled in connection with being charged with an offence, or are under 18 at the point of recall. Those offenders can continue to receive a standard-term recall, with release subject to Parole Board or Secretary of State decision. In all other applicable cases, a fixed-term recall must now be imposed. That would mean the provision of around an additional 1,400 prison spaces, thereby allowing us to avoid a critical capacity crisis in November, and the serious risk to the public that that would bring, until the new measures from the independent sentencing review come into force. I know that concerns have been raised by Members of this House and important bodies such as the Victims’ and Domestic Abuse Commissioners about the potential impact of this measure on victims—particularly survivors of domestic abuse—and public safety. I assure the House that those serious concerns have been at the forefront of our considerations. The worst possible outcome for victims of crime is if we run out of prison spaces, as predicted for November. That would mean new dangerous offenders would not be able to be locked up, as the police would have to halt their arrest. This policy is designed to prevent that happening. The exclusions we have established are purposefully designed to capture those assessed as posing a higher risk, thereby ensuring that those individuals can remain subject to standard recall procedures. Let me be clear: victims are central to the Government’s work. We are determined to support victims now and reduce reoffending so there are fewer victims in future. Current or potential risk to victims is always considered as part of release planning. Probation will impose appropriate licence conditions, such as tagging, curfews and exclusion zones. Any offender who breaches those conditions, or whose risk is considered elevated, can once again be recalled to custody. Victims who have opted into the victim contact scheme will still be notified and retain their statutory right to make representations in relation to the licence conditions imposed. For those not eligible for that scheme, established public protection practices remain, and police may still issue disclosures where there is imminent risk. Measures in the Victims and Courts Bill will enhance victims’ access to information about an offender’s release, strengthening confidence in the system. If further information is received following a recall that the offender has been charged with an offence, or they are a terrorist, pose a terrorist risk or would be managed at MAPPA levels 2 or 3 on release, they may be detained for longer on a standard recall at the discretion of the public protection team at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Their re-release would then be determined by the Parole Board or the Secretary of State. I assure the House that we do not take this decision lightly and we have made every effort to ensure that it is appropriately targeted, proportionate and mitigated. The extent of the draft instrument and its territorial application is for England and Wales. An impact assessment has been prepared and published for the draft instrument. It concludes that there will be an increase in demand for various services, including probation, community accommodation and electronic monitoring services. We have been working closely with partners nationally and regionally to ensure the impacts of the measure on services are well understood and manageable, and to ensure that they are sufficiently resourced to respond to the immediate and longer term. However, it also concludes that by taking action we avoid the catastrophic consequences of doing nothing. We avoid a situation where trials would halt, arrests would be deferred and police forces strained. I recognise that there are concerns about how an increase in the number of offenders being managed in the community will impact probation services. The Government inherited a Probation Service on its knees, and from day one, we have been hard at work getting a grip on the crisis. It is vital that the Probation Service is properly equipped and resourced to deliver this change effectively. We are already making progress to rebuild the capacity of the Probation Service. We are committed to recruiting 1,300 trainee probation officers in 2025-26 to help meet additional demand, having exceeded our ambition to recruit 1,000 trainees in 2024-25. We are also reducing the administrative burden on probation officers by investing an initial £8 million in pilots of new technology. That will allow probation officers to focus more of their time on higher-risk offenders, for whom closer supervision is needed to reduce the risk they pose. The Government have committed up to £700 million of additional funding to probation services by the final year of the spending review period, which is a funding increase of around 45%. That will mean thousands more tags, more staff and more accommodation to ensure that offenders are supervised and supported more closely in the community. Probation capacity will continue to be closely monitored as the new measures are introduced across the service. The Ministry of Justice carefully considers any policy changes with operational colleagues and workforce modelling teams. A transformation programme is also under way that aims to ease workload demands and to streamline processes for probation staff. The draft order is necessary to avoid an imminent capacity crisis. It will free up enough prison places in as safe as possible a way to ensure the criminal justice system can continue to operate effectively until the implementation of longer-term reforms.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  We await the Leveson report, and when it arrives the Lord Chancellor will update the House. Matters such as that will be rightly dealt with then. On efficiencies, the spending review has given the Department a settlement, and the Department will ensure that it is good value for money by applying all the appropriate methods. This Government inherited a system that was creaking under pressure, having suffered chronic underfunding for 14 years. The Justice Committee rightly pointed out that by 2016-17 the day-to-day budget of the Department had fallen by a third in real terms from its peak in 2007-08. That is why we are delivering the ambitious, once-in-a-generation reform of the justice system that the country needs, with public safety at its core.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the budget is being applied and worked through in an appropriate way, but the figures I have just given are the figures on which we will deliver, so he can be confident about that. While this investment is necessary, it is not sufficient on its own, so to address these challenges and ensure that our prisons create better citizens, not better criminals, the Lord Chancellor commissioned the independent sentencing review, chaired by the right hon. David Gauke. As the Lord Chancellor announced in May following David Gauke’s findings, we will be introducing an earned progression model based on a three-part sentence. On this model, offenders’ release points will be determined by their behaviour. If they follow prison rules, they will earn earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. However, that will not be true for all offenders. For those currently serving extended determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%—it is different for people with earlier releases; we will leave that as it is. In the second part of the progression model, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision. That will see more offenders tagged and under close supervision by the Probation Service. The supervision will be tailored according to each offender’s risk and crime type, and bolstered beyond the current system with a set of new restrictive measures and a major ramp-up in tagging and probation investment. In the third part, offenders will be monitored in the community by the Probation Service, and can be returned to prison if they breach their conditions. Alongside the progression model, we are also taking forward the recommendations to introduce a presumption to suspend short sentences. We will be investing in this model and intensive supervision by significantly increasing our probation funding through the spending review settlement. I welcomed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), and also what was said about the contribution of third sector organisations by my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Rugby (John Slinger). Our additional investment will increase up to £700 million by 2028-29, allowing us to increase substantially the number of offenders on tags and to ensure investment in services that address the drivers of offending.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for his opening remarks and for securing this important debate, and I thank everybody else who has contributed so thoughtfully. I echo his words in paying tribute to everybody who works in the criminal justice system. They do an amazing job to maintain public protection, which is so important. I support the words of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), in highlighting the role that people who have formerly been in the armed forces play in our criminal justice system. There is much for us to agree on. One of the things we know is that Labour has always been tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. I will give three facts to evidence that. In 13 years of Labour Government, we added 27,830 prison places. In 14 years of Conservative Government, they added 500 net prison places. So far under this Government, we have already added some 2,500 prison places. The figures speak for themselves. We want a criminal justice system that works for everyone. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) said, and I think everyone in the House would agree. Last summer, our prisons were operating at over 99% capacity. Just days after taking office, we had no choice but to take emergency measures to avoid running out of space altogether. Had we not acted, the result would have been catastrophic. Our courts would have ground to a halt and the police would have been forced to halt arrests. In short, we would have faced a total breakdown of law and order. We were left in that parlous position because the previous Government, despite all their promises and fine words, delivered only those 500 additional prison places in 14 years. At the same time, sentence lengths rose exponentially. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year. This Government take our duty to protect the public seriously, and that is why we are taking the robust, bold action needed to bring an end to this cycle of crisis, ensuing that the British public are never again put at risk by the failure to have enough prison places. We are committed to bearing down on the outstanding caseload in the courts, which a number of Members have alluded to, and delivering swifter justice for victims, but we acknowledge the significant challenge facing the Crown court. As part of the spending review settlement, we agreed with the Treasury that we will fund record investment for the courts system by 2028-29, keeping sitting days at record highs over that period. We have 110,000 sitting days in the Crown court just this year. We recognise, however, that that is not enough given the scale of the challenge we inherited. Even with record levels of Crown court funding and our plans for record numbers of sitting days, the backlog will continue to grow without substantial reform of our criminal courts. That is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to consider the options for longer-term reform, as well as reviewing the efficiency and timeliness of court processes through charge to case completion. I hope that that review will report shortly. We will also fund capacity to speed up the processing of asylum appeals, supporting the Government’s priority to reduce illegal and irregular migration. Legal aid is a vital part of the justice system, as we have heard from colleagues from across the House. It underpins our plans to build a justice system that works fairly for all parties. In December, we announced that criminal legal aid solicitors will receive up to £92 million more a year to help address the ongoing challenges in the criminal justice system and get justice for victims. Following that, in January we began consulting over a £20 million uplift to civil legal aid fees for lawyers working in the immigration and asylum and housing and debt sectors. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who spoke about the importance of forensic science in addressing miscarriages of justice, as well as prison maintenance issues. We are failing victims if courts cannot deliver swift justice. Prisons run out of places entirely, and crime goes without punishment. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) spoke about that in her contribution. It would have damaging consequences for the criminal justice system if that happened. That is why we are taking the steps to rebuild a justice system that works and that victims can have confidence in. We are looking at imposing tougher exclusion zones that limit the movement of offenders, instead of limiting the movement of victims, and we are continuing the provision of free sentencing remarks to victims of rape and serious sexual offences. Our reforms will include continuing to expand our application of electronic monitoring to perpetrators of violence against women and girls, and the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, with trained staff to support victims and more co-ordinated management of perpetrators. We will continue to fund services supporting victims and witnesses. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), made some eloquent contributions on that issue, which I heard clearly, and I thank him for that. We are creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing, so that domestic abusers are known to the Prison and Probation Service and their victims are better protected. Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 prison places. Between 2024-25 and 2029-30, the Government are providing £7 billion to deliver the commitment to build 14,000 new prison places by 2031. That is the largest expansion since the Victorian era.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Theft of Tools of Trade · Hansard source

  More

  Let me start by paying tribute to the chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice William Davis, after the sad news that he passed away at the weekend. I met Bill on a number of occasions and was always impressed by his courtesy, kindness and sharpness of mind. He made a significant contribution to criminal justice. I would particularly like to recognise his work serving on the Sentencing Council, first as a judicial member between 2012 and 2015 and then as its chairman from 2022. On behalf of the House, I extend our deep condolences to Lady Davis, his children and all those who knew him. I thank my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate. She is a doughty campaigner on the subject, as we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and has championed it inside and outside Parliament. As she said, such crime has a real impact on people’s lives and businesses. I thank her for continuing to bring it to the Government’s attention. The small businesses affected and damaged by tool theft are anchored in their local communities, give life to their local economies and make a positive difference to people’s lives. They are truly the lifeblood of our country. I acknowledge the very real and often devastating impact that the theft of tools has on individuals, families and businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) illustrated very effectively the devastation and personal impact in the tragic case of his constituent. For many tradespeople—plumbers, electricians, carpenters, builders and countless others, including the tradesperson that he referred to—their tools are essential for their livelihoods. When those tools are stolen, the consequences are not just financial loss; as hon. Members have said, it disrupts work, delays income and impacts professional reputation and confidence. For those reasons, the Government take the theft of tools of trade extremely seriously. We understand the frustration and anger felt by victims and the calls for tougher action. That is why we are addressing the issue with a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach that focuses on prevention and enforcement.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Theft of Tools of Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that, sadly, this problem is not restricted to only some parts of the United Kingdom, and all parts of the UK need to learn from each other. I will certainly reach out to the Northern Ireland Executive on this matter. Let me talk about prevention. We know that many tool thefts occur from vehicles, particularly vans used by tradespeople. That is why we have strengthened our response to vehicle-related crime through the national vehicle crime working group, which involves an established network of vehicle crime specialists across every police force in England and Wales. Those specialists are working together to share intelligence, identify emerging trends and co-ordinate regional responses to tackle this issue more effectively. This is not just about reactive policing. It is about proactive and intelligence-led operations that disrupt criminal activity before it escalates, and about ensuring that police forces are equipped with the resources and information they need to respond swiftly and effectively to reports of tool theft. We are working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for vehicle crime to take forward a programme of work to drive down these crimes. That includes training police officers on the methods used to steal vehicles and working with industry to address vulnerabilities in vehicle design and security. We are supporting law enforcement in disrupting organised criminal networks that profit from tool theft. That includes targeted operations, collaboration with regional organised crime units, and investment in training and resources for police officers to improve their ability to investigate and prosecute tool theft cases effectively. Enforcement is the other critical pillar of our approach. The maximum penalty for theft is seven years, which is substantial, and that is available to the courts for the most serious and persistent offenders. We must ensure that our judicial system continues to respond appropriately to offences involving the theft of tools and recognises the serious impact of those crimes. It is absolutely right that sentencing decisions remain the responsibility of our independent judiciary. Our courts are best placed to assess the full circumstances of each individual case, drawing on the evidence presented. That includes careful consideration of the harm caused to victims—so ably highlighted by hon. Members in this debate—the culpability of the offender and any aggravating or mitigating factors that may influence the seriousness of the offence. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our justice system and ensures that decisions are made impartially, free from political influence. Courts are required by law to follow sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council. Those guidelines are designed to promote consistency, transparency and fairness in sentencing across England and Wales. The current sentencing guidelines for theft already provide a robust framework that enables courts to take full account of the seriousness of offences involving the theft of tools of trade. Specifically, the guidelines identify a range of aggravating factors that may warrant a more severe sentence. Those include offences that are of a sophisticated nature, that involve significant planning or that are committed over a sustained period. Where such factors are present, the court is expected to treat them as indicators of higher culpability or greater harm, which can lead to an uplift in the sentence. That should ensure that the most serious and disruptive forms of theft—such as those targeting tradespeople’s essential tools—are dealt with appropriately within the existing framework. The sentencing guidelines for theft explicitly require courts to consider the broader consequences of the offence when determining the appropriate sentence. That includes the consequential financial harms suffered by victims, which, as has been highlighted, may involve not only the cost of replacing stolen goods, but, sadly, lost income and significant business disruption. Hon. Members have also drawn attention to the wider impacts on mental health and general wellbeing. I hope the courts bear those in mind and hear that clear message. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North highlighted those issues very well in her speech, but other hon. Members also amplified them in their comments. The guidelines also direct courts to take into account the wider impact on businesses, particularly where the offence affects the ability of a tradesperson or small enterprise to operate effectively. In addition, emotional distress caused by the offence, such as anxiety, stress or a loss of confidence in personal safety, is recognised as a significant factor in assessing harm. That should ensure that the impact of this type of crime is properly reflected in the court’s decision. With regard to compensation, it is important to note that courts are required by law to consider making compensation orders in all cases involving injury, loss or damage. Compensation orders require offenders to make financial reparation to their victims, ensuring that offenders are held accountable through not just punishment, but restitution. As an independent body, the Sentencing Council decides its own priorities and work plan for producing or editing its guidelines. It is of course open to individuals to approach the council to ask that it does so, and I encourage my hon. Friend—as well as hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and others who are concerned about the issue—to share their concerns with the council. I encourage it to look at the matter closely. Knowing my hon. Friend, I am sure that she is ahead of me on this journey and that that is already in hand. On improving the sentencing framework, the Government launched an independent sentencing review in October to comprehensively examine the sentencing framework in its entirety. The sentencing review published its recommendations in May, most of which the Government have accepted. We will bring forward legislation in due course to give effect to these important reforms. As my hon. Friend indicated in her remarks, there is a need for tough, visible and effective punishments, which is what the Government are committed to delivering. We recognise the growing public and parliamentary concern about tool theft. My hon. Friend has carried out a real public service by shining a light on the issue, which resonates with people across the country, and she has rightly built cross-party support, as we have seen. As she said, she has been energised by the campaign, but the campaign has also energised others, including the Government, so I thank her for that. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken to support her, and campaign groups have been raising awareness and calling for action. I reaffirm the Government’s unwavering commitment to tackling this type of crime. We fully recognise the vital role that tradespeople and small business owners play in our economy and communities, of which they are the lifeblood. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) said, they are the “grafters of this country”. We are determined to ensure that they are protected from the disruptive and damaging effects of tool theft. Tool theft is not a minor inconvenience; it is a serious crime that undermines livelihoods, causes financial hardship and erodes public confidence. That is why we are taking robust action to prevent these offences and ensure that those who steal the tools of someone’s trade are held accountable and brought to justice through the full force of the law. Tool theft will not be tolerated. I look forward to discussing this important matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North as she continues her campaign, part of which will be meeting with me next week. Question put and agreed to .

• 3 Jun 2025 · Protesters: Sentencing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to peacefully protest and demonstrate their views provided they do so within the law. When people break the law, sentencing is a matter for the courts, which have a range of powers to deal with offenders effectively and appropriately.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Protesters: Sentencing · Hansard source

  More

  The right to peacefully protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, as my hon. Friend rightly says, and this Government will protect and preserve that right. The post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023 began this month, and we will carefully consider the results of that review, along with the recommendations of the independent sentencing review.