Arrests and Prison Capacity
12.39 pm
(Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement
on the impact on public safety of the request to chief constables
to reduce arrests in response to the prison capacity crisis.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire ()
I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about public
safety, about the record number of police officers in this
country—3,000 more than under the last Labour Government—and
about the fact that according to the crime survey there is less
than half the crime today than there was under the last Labour
Government. There were 620 homicides in the last year of the last
Labour Government, compared with 577 in the last year. I am
delighted to talk about all those excellent criminal justice
results.
I believe this urgent question was prompted by a letter
circulated about a week ago by Chief Constable Rob Nixon in his
capacity as criminal justice lead for the National Police Chiefs'
Council, in which he referred to short-term prison place
pressures over a period of eight days expiring tomorrow. I have
spoken to Chief Constable Rob Nixon in the last half an hour and
he has confirmed to me that the contingencies referred to in the
letter were not required. He said the contingencies were not
required because the prison place situation in practice did not
merit it; he said there have been no delays to arrests that he is
aware of; and he has said that while a small number of people
were conveyed to court in police cars and there was a small
number of delays to arrival at court, no one who should have got
to court did not do so. I am delighted to confirm to the House
that the contingencies referenced in the letter did not
materialise, and that the short-term fluctuation referenced in
the letter will be over tomorrow.
I have to say that the Minister's response is shocking: telling
people they have never had it so good when faced with this crisis
in the criminal justice system shows just how out of touch he is.
The state of crisis in the criminal justice system after 14 years
of Conservative Government is now so dire that police chiefs were
asked to arrest fewer people because the system could not cope.
At the Operation Safeguard silver update they were asked to
consider pausing any planned operations where large numbers of
arrests might take place to ease the pressure within the criminal
justice system—because this Tory Government, in power for 14
years, had so catastrophically failed to manage the criminal
justice system or build the basic prison places promised.
Last week alone there were 280 prisoners in police cells
overnight; we have got early release, massively expanded,
starting tomorrow, including for domestic abusers; and now this
serious impact on public safety of Operation Early Dawn telling
the prisoner escort service not to collect prisoners from police
stations to take them to court because there are not enough
places, with police forces having to pick up the pieces instead.
The NPCC said in its letter in the strongest terms that that is
unsustainable and that it risks public safety.
Will the Minister tell us what assessment he did when these
letters went out, and when the crisis reached this point, of the
scale of the challenge? Who, in these circumstances, does he
think it is acceptable not to send to court because of his
Government's abject failure on law and order? Violent criminals?
Domestic abusers? Repeat shoplifters? And which big operations
involving lots of arrests does he think should be paused in these
situations? Crackdowns on drugs rings or grooming gangs? Swoops
on people smugglers? And when should they be paused until?
Where is the Government plan? Arrests have already halved since
the Tories came to power, and charge rates have already dropped
through the floor. The legacy of 14 years of Tory government on
law and order is more criminals let off, more victims let down.
Britain deserves better.
The right hon. Lady likes to pontificate in an animated fashion,
but the fact is that, according to the crime survey, crime has
halved since the Government of which she was a part left office.
She feigns indignation about the early custody release scheme,
but she forgot to mention that, under the last Labour Government,
it ran for three years and saw 80,000 people released early.
The right hon. Lady referenced the letter from last week. I have
a message here from Chief Constable Rob Nixon, sent to me about
45 minutes ago, updating me on the actual situation, so let me
just read out to the House what it says. The National Police
Chiefs' Council criminal justice lead said: “There have been no
delays to arrests.” He said there have been some minor delays in
getting people to court, but everyone who needed to got there. A
small number were conveyed by police, but there was limited
operational impact. He says: “There has been no compromise to
public safety, and the contingency of delaying arrests was not
activated as it was not necessary.” That is from the National
Police Chiefs' Council, sent 45 minutes ago. Those are the facts,
and I suggest the right hon. Lady sticks to them.
[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
I call Sir , and I hope there will be more
calm.
Sir (Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this important debate, which
touches upon not only public safety but the whole way in which
our justice system operates, is best dealt with in a calm
fashion? It is perfectly reasonable to adopt contingency
measures, which we hope are often not needed, but the most
important thing is to ensure that all parties in this House
commit to a consistent and sustained investment in all aspects of
the criminal justice system, because we cannot decouple policing
from the courts, prisons and the whole of the process. That is
the sensible debate that the country needs to have.
My hon. and learned Friend, as always, puts it very well. He is
quite right that investment is important. That is why there are
record numbers of police officers. It is why 20,000 prison places
are in the course of being constructed, 5,900 of which are
currently operational and 10,000 of which will be operational by
the end of next year. It is why more money is being put into the
Crown Prosecution Service. It is why my right hon. and learned
Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is here on the Front Bench, is
ensuring that legal aid is properly resourced, as is the criminal
Bar. Those are all extremely important initiatives to ensure that
the public are protected. The ultimate measure of public
protection, of course, is the overall level of criminality,
which, as I have said once or twice before, has halved since the
Labour party left office.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame (Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
Obviously, public safety is paramount in all of this, and I do
want to say to the Minister that the fact that contingency plans
were being drawn up is itself worrying. I accept what the Chair
of the Justice Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley
and Chislehurst (Sir ), says about this being a
sensible step to take, but it is indeed very worrying that we
have to have contingencies in place. If in the future these
contingency plans are activated, what happens if the police
decide not to prioritise an arrest and in the meantime that
person goes on to harm someone? I am thinking of non-contact
sexual offences and, in particular, retail crime, which the Home
Affairs Committee has been looking at recently.
The right hon. Lady is right to say that arrests of offenders of
the kinds she describes are extremely important, and at no point
would I ever expect, even in the contingency outlined—in fact, it
never came to pass, as I have set out—that offenders of the kinds
she references would not continue to be arrested. That is
critically important. The ECSL 70 measure—end of custody
supervised licence for up to 70 days—which comes into effect
tomorrow, is designed to ensure that such scenarios never come
about, because as Policing Minister I want to make sure that we
never see the situation she describes.
Sir (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend accept that the action by the leader of
the National Police Chiefs' Council is against the separation of
powers principles? We make the law in this House, and we expect
it to be implemented and administered without fear or favour.
What seems to be happening is that unelected chiefs, such as the
NPCC leader, are interfering with the administration of justice.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that things would be a lot better
if the Criminal Justice Board had not failed to meet for two
years, which is apparently what has happened? Will he accept that
we need to start putting things right? The Times today describes
it as a failure of administration.
I am happy to confirm that the Criminal Justice Board, chaired by
my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, meets very
frequently. Indeed, I attended its most recent meeting just three
or four weeks ago—with the Lord Chancellor, other Ministers,
police leads, senior members of the judiciary and the Crown
Prosecution Service, and many others—so I can categorically
confirm that it does exist and it meets regularly.
On my hon. Friend's question about the police, the police are
rightly operationally independent. It is not for Ministers to
direct how they discharge their duties; they discharge their
duties appropriately with their professional standards and
professional judgment, and we support them in doing so.
Operational independence for the police is important, as I am
sure everyone on both sides of the House respects.
Mr (Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
It is obvious from the Minister's demeanour that he does not like
to be called to account, but he should reflect on the fact that
the mere fact such a letter was written, and in the circumstances
in which it was written, is a cause for concern, which he should
be taking seriously. It is symptomatic of a wider malaise in the
English and Welsh criminal justice system. Last year, 215,933
burglaries went unsolved across England and Wales—an average of
592 a day. Is that not something the Minister should be
addressing, rather than getting a little bit worked up with the
shadow Home Secretary?
I may have got worked up, because the allegations being made
were, in my view, unfounded and unsupported by the facts. I was
simply trying to put across the facts—both the numbers and also
the quotes from the relevant policing lead—which flatly
contradicted the dystopian picture that the shadow Home
Secretary, characteristically, was seeking to paint. To answer
the right hon. Gentleman's question, we of course take such
matters seriously. The Lord Chancellor is working night and day
to increase prison capacity, both by building new prisons
expeditiously and by pulling every lever at his disposal to build
more capacity within the existing estate. The prisons are pretty
full because the police have done a good job at identifying,
catching and incarcerating dangerous criminals. A thoughtful
approach, of the kind called for by the Chair of the Justice
Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst (Sir ), has been taken. That is why,
with the implementation of the end of custody supervised licence
tomorrow, the issues and contingencies provided for in the letter
of last week will no longer be required. It was an eight-day
period and, thankfully, those contingencies were not in fact
required.
(Torbay) (Con)
It is reassuring to hear from the Minister that the contingencies
were not required, but also interesting to see that the letter
was actually issued. Given his reactions here today to that, what
process has he put in place to ensure that he is consulted before
any such instructions or suggestions are issued?
As a former Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend has a great deal
of experience in this area. The police are operationally
independent, but we liaise closely with them and the National
Police Chiefs' Council. I have regular discussions with Gavin
Stephens, who chairs the NPCC, and, in relation to this matter,
with Chief Constable Rob Nixon, who is the criminal justice lead,
and with Deputy Chief Constable Nev Kemp of Surrey, who is the
lead for custody. I will take this opportunity to place on the
record my thanks to police up and down the country for their
careful management over the past seven days, which has ensured
that our fellow citizens have been kept safe.
(Halifax) (Lab)
North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire police have just arrested 62
people in a county lines operation. They seized swords, a machete
and a crossbow, and took 3 kg of cannabis, crack cocaine and
heroin off the streets, alongside the misery and violence that
characterises county lines gangs. I am so grateful to them for
that work, but are the Government suggesting that they should
have allowed it to continue until further notice under these
contingency plans, all because the Government have so mismanaged
the criminal justice system and the collapse in prison
places?
First, prison places have not collapsed; I think there are more
prison places now than in the recent past. I congratulate North
Yorkshire and West Yorkshire police on that operation, which the
hon. Lady said led to 62 arrests of dangerous criminals. As I
have said, none of the contingencies referenced were activated,
and there was never any question of dangerous criminals of that
kind not being arrested. That is exactly the kind of operation we
like to see. I am speaking from memory, but I think we have
closed down something like 6,000 county lines in the past four
years. I am delighted to see such operations successfully putting
dangerous criminals where they belong: behind bars.
(Broadland) (Con)
I am glad to hear that the contingency contained in the letter
was not required. We can tell how tough this Government are being
on crime and criminals by the very heavy population in our prison
estate. The long-term solution is to build more prisons. Can the
Minister update us on when he estimates the prison building
programme will catch up with the prison population?
The Justice Secretary and the Prisons Minister, my right hon.
Friend the Member for Charnwood (), who is also here, are
building prison capacity rapidly. By the end of next year they
will have added 10,000 prison places, including at sites such as
HMP Millsike, which will be open shortly. We are embarking on a
huge prison construction programme, which is on top of the fact
that we already have record numbers of prison places. The fact
that we have filled those up with criminals, serving typically
longer sentences, is testament to the successful approach to law
and order that this Government have taken.
(Vauxhall)
(Lab/Co-op)
Last Friday I attended a community meeting in my constituency
with a group of residents, our local safer neighbourhood team and
some of our elected councillors. It was in response to a fatal
shooting of a young 26-year-old. The residents spoke about having
the reassurance of knowing that the suspect had already been
arrested, thanks to the work of the local police. What is the
Minister's message to my constituents, and many others across the
country, where suspects will now not be arrested as a result of
this guidance?
First, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's local police for the work
they have done. I gently refer her to my previous answers: there
have been no arrests that ought to have taken place but did not
as a result of this contingency. The way she framed her question
completely ignored the answers I have previously given. The
contingencies referred to in the letter were not in fact
required, so her constituents and everybody else's can be assured
that the police are continuing to do their job of arresting
dangerous criminals.
(Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the update to the House. In
London we have the challenge of the Metropolitan police failing
to meet their recruitment targets. The police are under
incredible pressure at weekends, policing hate marches and other
demonstrations in central London. Police are being drawn in from
outside London to carry that out. Now that the mayoral election
is over, what action is my right hon. Friend taking with the
Mayor of London to ensure that the Met police meet their
recruitment targets, and that the police are trained properly and
can get on with the job of catching criminals?
My hon. Friend is right to raise the question of police numbers
in London. Whereas across England and Wales as a whole we have
record police numbers and 42 of the 43 police forces met their
recruitment target, there was one that did not: the Metropolitan
police under . In fact, its numbers
unfortunately have shrunk in the past year, rather than grown. I
therefore attended the police performance oversight group, which
is the special measures group chaired by the chief inspector,
just a few days ago, attended by the commissioner and the deputy
Mayor, Sophie Linden. Unfortunately, did not see fit to show up to
that meeting. One of the points I made forcefully was the
importance of growing police numbers in London. It is the only
force in the country to miss its target, and that must be turned
around.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
Let me get this right: the Government are boasting that they
appointed 20,000 extra policemen and women to prevent crime and
protect the public; criminals create and undertake crime; and an
instruction is given to the police not to arrest them because the
prisons are full. The Government's defence is, “It's all right;
the instruction was never acted upon.” Can the public have any
confidence, if it is possible for the police to give instructions
today, and maybe again next week, not to arrest criminals? Can we
really believe that crime is being taken seriously in this
country?
Crime is taken very seriously, which why it has fallen by 6% in
the past year and 55% since 2010. The right hon. Gentleman
referred to a period of just eight days when a contingency was
considered but not used. The Lord Chancellor, rightly and in a
thoughtful and measured manner, has taken steps that will take
effect tomorrow to ensure that such a contingency is not required
in future. That is a responsible way of handling the
situation.
(Birmingham, Yardley)
(Lab)
The Minister has stood in front of us today and said, “It would
never be any of the kind of crimes you're talking about.” The
Prime Minister said last week at Prime Minister's questions:
“No one would be put on the scheme”—
the early release scheme—
“if they were deemed a threat to public safety.”[—[Official
Report, 15 May 2024; Vol. 750, c.
249.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=750&ColumnNumber=249&House=1&ExternalId=0C8500BE-5CC3-4570-BBCE-61247DEB088F)
The Minister is basically saying the same today, yet my inbox is
full of cases of where perpetrators of domestic violence, rape,
sexual violence and child abuse against multiple victims are
being released early from prison. Does he think that someone who
has raped someone, gone to prison, come out and done it again is
not deemed a threat to the public?
I can answer the hon. Lady's question specifically: the early
release scheme that the Lord Chancellor established expressly
excludes serious violence and sexual offenders, including
rapists. There is an additional safeguard, which did not exist in
the previous Labour Government's equivalent scheme: a governor's
veto of early release if they believe there is a threat to public
safety.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am glad that the Minister has brought the Lord Chancellor and
the Prisons Minister with him, as they can explain how 70-day
early release—Operation Early Dawn—means that criminals either
will not be locked up or are being let out early. Is the truth
not that he is presiding over operational failures in policing,
the courts and the prison system, and is responding to them with
ad hoc panic measures?
The police are successfully reducing crime, for which I thank
them. In the last calendar year—the most recent year for which
figures are available—there were 30,000 more successful outcomes,
which typically means a prosecution, than the previous year. The
courts and prisons systems in England and Wales—as in Scotland
and around the world—are under pressure, candidly speaking,
largely as a result of the post-covid environment and delays that
built up in the system during covid, which have not yet cleared.
That is not unique to this jurisdiction. Those people released
according to the criteria that I mentioned are closely supervised
under licence, and subject to recall should they breach that
licence.
(Barnsley East) (Lab)
My constituent Johnny Wood's sister Jackie was tragically killed
by four men driving a stolen lorry in 2018. They were convicted
of dangerous driving, but one of them has been released from
prison, having served only half his sentence—just five years. He
is reported to have broken his banning order from the local area
while under supervision from the Probation Service. Johnny and
his family have been let down by every part of the system over
the last six years. What is the Minister's message to Johnny, and
what specifically can he do to help in this case?
I have every sympathy for victims such as the hon. Lady's
constituent, and the truly tragic case that she outlines. If she
would like me to look into particular policing aspects of that
case, I would be happy to help. If it is a prisons, probation or
sentencing-related issue, my right hon. Friends from the Ministry
of Justice stand ready to help her and her constituent.
In relation to automatic release on to licence, under the last
Labour Government all offenders ended up getting automatically
released at the halfway point. This Government have substantially
reduced that, including for offences such as rape. I recall in a
Bill Committee a couple of years ago that Labour MPs voted
against a measure to keep rapists in prison for longer.
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Over the weekend I was almost in tears reading a letter from a
local primary school of an account of one of their young mums who
felt so intimidated by antisocial behaviour on her estate that
she was unable to walk her young son to school in the morning.
The school tried to provide a social worker to escort her, but
they also felt intimidated. What message does it send to the
school, the mum and her child about the safety of our streets
when chief constables feel it necessary to deprioritise arrests
on the Minister's watch?
Cases of the kind that the hon. Lady describes would not have
been in the scope of the contingency outlined in the letter of a
week ago. The antisocial behaviour that she described is
completely unacceptable. I am sure that many Members are parents
and would want their own children to go to and from school
safely. The Government have launched an antisocial action plan,
one of the elements of which is a funded scheme for antisocial
behaviour hotspot patrols. That started just a few weeks ago, so
I would urge the hon. Lady to speak to her local police and crime
commissioner—I think a newly elected one in Northumbria, if
memory serves me correctly—and to ask that one of the funded
hotspot patrols be set up in the vicinity of that school to try
to tackle the issue that she described, because no parent should
have to face that.
(Bedford) (Lab)
Figures published last month showed that Bedfordshire police has
the slowest response time to 999 calls, because of understaffing.
Does the Minister realise how ridiculous it sounds to ask the
police not to police and to arrest fewer people, because his
Government have broken the justice system and are allowing
criminals to get away scot-free?
That is a completely inaccurate characterisation of the
situation. The eight-day period provided for a contingency that
was not required. I have read to the House an assurance from the
relevant National Police Chiefs' Council lead that arrests were
not forgone or cancelled as a result of the contingency. More
widely, as I have said, we have record police numbers and lower
crime than 14 years ago, and I would have thought that we would
all welcome that.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
The issue with prison capacity is partly a crisis of reoffending.
Dartmoor prison was subject to an inspection last year, and was
awarded only one out of four because of inadequate education and
work opportunities. HMP Dartmoor holds a large number of people
convicted of sexual offences, but the report says that there were
no accredited programmes for rehabilitation. Sexual offences in
Devon and Cornwall rose by 19% in the year to 2023. Does the
Minister accept that the prison capacity crisis is partly about
reoffending, and what is he doing about it?
The Justice Secretary has assured me that Dartmoor is a well-run
and well-regarded prison. One of the reasons why my colleagues in
the Ministry of Justice, here on the Benches, are presiding over
such a large increase in prison capacity is to ensure that
prisoners are better rehabilitated in the prison estate. The hon.
Gentleman rightly mentioned reoffending: preventing reoffending
is critical. Much offending is connected with drug addiction—some
estimates suggest nearly half—so getting more people into
treatment is important, both in the courts system and in the
prison estate. It is critical that, as people leave prison and
re-enter the community, the drug treatment they received in
prison continues in the community. We call it continuity of care,
and it has increased quite dramatically recently—I would like it
increase even more. That is one of the ways that we will reduce
reoffending, which, as he said, is an important policy
objective.
(Birmingham, Yardley)
(Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if you could
help me to get some answers. The Minister said during the urgent
question that certain criminals who are a risk to the public
would not be released, unlike Charlie Taylor, the inspector of
prisons, who said that high-risk prisoners are being released
under the scheme.
I have heard of a case where it took the court 29 months to hold
a sentencing hearing on actual bodily harm against two different
people as part of a domestic abuse situation. The prisoner was
sentenced to four years, and was deemed to be such a risk because
of previous sexual violence convictions that he was put on
remand. On the day of the sentencing hearing, he was released
immediately because he had been identified as suitable for early
release. Yet the Minister told me today that no one with a
history of sexual offending, who was a risk to the public or who
had committed domestic abuse would be released. That is just one
of many cases. I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the
Minister has misled the House. Could you advise me how I could
take that up?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame )
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I am sure she meant
to say that she was indicating that any misleading of the House
would be inadvertent. I am not responsible, obviously, for
responses from Ministers, but the Minister, who is still here,
will have heard her comments, as will have those on the Treasury
Bench. Does the Minister wish to speak further to that point of
order?
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon.
Lady raises an individual case and I am sure the Lord Chancellor
would be happy to look at an individual case for her. She
mentioned someone released on sentencing. Of course, the court or
the probation service will look at time served on remand already,
so a prisoner may have been on remand for quite a long time at
the point that they come to a sentencing hearing.
To repeat the more general rules, which are Ministry of Justice
policy: the release under licence up to 70 days prior to the
ordinary release point does not apply to any prisoner serving a
sentence of more than four years; it does not apply to any
prisoner serving a sentence for serious sexual or violent
offences; and the prison governor can veto the release of a
prisoner considered to be a danger. Those are the safeguards, but
if the hon. Lady wants to debate the matter in more detail, I am
sure my colleague the Lord Chancellor would be very happy to do
that.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for stating his position. I suggest that
perhaps the offer of a further discussion with the Lord
Chancellor would be appropriate. I am sure the hon. Lady will
come back after that if she feels there are further points she
wishes to make. She is very experienced in knowing how to make
her views known in the House, so I am sure that that is probably
the best way forward for now.
The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given earlier in
the House of Commons.
“I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about public
safety, about the record number of police officers in this
country—3,000 more than under the last Labour Government—and
about the fact that, according to the crime survey, there is less
than half the crime today than there was under the last Labour
Government. There were 620 homicides in the last year of the last
Labour Government, compared with 577 in the last year. I am
delighted to talk about all those excellent criminal justice
results.
I believe this urgent question was prompted by a letter
circulated about a week ago by Chief Constable Rob Nixon in his
capacity as criminal justice lead for the National Police Chiefs'
Council, in which he referred to short-term prison place
pressures over a period of eight days, expiring tomorrow. I have
spoken to Chief Constable Rob Nixon in the last half an hour and
he has confirmed to me that the contingencies referred to in the
letter were not required. He said the contingencies were not
required because the prison place situation in practice did not
merit it; he said there have been no delays to arrests that he is
aware of; and he has said that, while a small number of people
were conveyed to court in police cars and there was a small
number of delays to arrival at court, no one who should have got
to court did not do so. I am delighted to confirm to the House
that the contingencies referenced in the letter did not
materialise, and that the short-term fluctuation referenced in
the letter will be over tomorrow”.
8.26pm
of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, public safety must at all times be our primary concern.
The fact that we now have a shortage of prison spaces and that
these contingency measures were even considered is worrying. The
Government have said they have not put the measures in place this
time, but of course this shortage of prison spaces has been
building for a long time and is having a knock-on effect
throughout the criminal justice system. I agree with the need for
contingency planning, even when the outcome is worrying. Can the
Minister tell me, within contingency planning, what would be the
priorities for the arrest or non-arrest of suspects?
In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for the
assiduous and courteous way in which he has dealt with many
questions, debates and lots of legislation. He must be one of the
most hard-working Members of this House, and we appreciate
it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for those remarks. They
are very kind, and I am very grateful for them.
Obviously, public safety is the Government's priority. We fully
expect the police to arrest anyone who has committed a serious
crime and poses a risk to the public. Police chiefs have been
very clear today that officers will arrest anyone they need to in
order to keep the public safe. The NPCC has suggested that, to
its knowledge from daily engagement with forces, no arrests have
been delayed because of the impact of Operation Early Dawn.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his acknowledgement that
contingency planning is obviously a necessity. Frankly, any
serious organisation should prepare for contingencies all the
time. There were some strange remarks relating to that in the
House of Commons. I think it is odd that was perhaps highlighted
as a thing.
I acknowledge the comments about prison capacity, but we have
made significant progress with regards to building capacity,
which I am happy to talk about.
(LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I echo the sentiments
expressed by the noble Lord, . Although I do not normally
shadow this portfolio, I recognise the Minister's hard work.
Groups such as the Howard League have repeatedly said that
sentences of 12 months or less are associated with higher
reoffending rates. Given that our prisons are dangerously close
to capacity, despite what the Minister has said, what steps are
the Government are taking to reduce short-term sentences, which
would have the dual benefit of decreasing prison populations and
lowering recidivism rates?
(Con)
I thank the noble Baroness very much for her remarks, which I
very much appreciate. Obviously, much of the debate around
sentencing involved a Bill that we may or may not see—we probably
will not—so I will talk a bit about what we have done on prison
building. We have delivered the largest prison-building programme
since the Victorian era, with 10,000 of the 20,000 additional
places to be delivered by the end of 2025. We have already
delivered about 5,900 of the 20,000 places. Last October, a
series of measures was announced that will help to ease the
pressure further. I mentioned the Sentencing Bill and we will
also further the 20,000 portfolio. In October last year, we
announced an investment of £30 million to acquire the land we
need to build more prison places, and we are intent on delivering
an additional 460 RDCs across the estate. There is a considerable
amount of work going on. I accept of course that there are
short-term capacity problems, but that is the point of having
contingency planning.
of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to short-term capacity problems,
but we have a long-term situation, extending over decades across
many different Governments, of very high numbers of people in
prison in the UK. The current rate of imprisonment in England and
Wales is 146 people per 100,000 of population. By comparison, the
Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and the Nordic
states all have a rate of imprisonment of less than 90 prisoners
per 100,000 of population. Surely, the Government being forced to
request chief constables to pause non-priority arrests and
operations is a reflection of the fact that we have just kept
shoving people into jail, without giving the jails the capacity
to rehabilitate. That is causing damaging impacts on communities,
prisoners' families and prison workers, as well as on the
prisoners, who will nearly all be released back into the
community eventually. Is it not time to look again at the
continual push to lock up more people, when, as the noble
Baroness on the Lib Dem Benches said, there is so much evidence
that that is not working?
(Con)
The noble Baroness raised some very interesting points, which I
will address in a second. To be clear, we have not asked police
chiefs to stop arresting people, as I have already said. On the
impact on communities, I suspect that criminals roaming free
probably has a lot more impact on local communities than having
them inside. On the international comparisons, I am not sure how
we achieve them or draw any meaningful conclusions from them. The
fact is that we make our own laws, which is what we are elected
to do. Perhaps it will be a Green Party policy that we should let
criminals out—good luck.
