(Birmingham, Ladywood)
(Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if
he will make a statement on the expansion of the end of custody
supervised licence scheme.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice ()
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question.
Protecting the public is our No. 1 priority, so it is right that
we take tough and decisive action to keep putting the most
serious offenders behind bars, and for longer, as the public
rightly expect. We are carrying out the biggest prison expansion
programme since the Victorian era, and we are ramping up removals
of foreign national offenders.
We have a duty to ensure that the prison system continues to
operate safely and effectively, with offenders held in safe and
decent conditions. This means ensuring that no prison exceeds a
safe maximum operating limit. ECSL allows lower-level offenders
to be released before their automatic release date. In March, the
Lord Chancellor stated that we will
“work with the police, prisons and probation leaders to make
further adjustments as required.”[—[Official Report, 12 March
2024; Vol. 747, c. 157.]]
This extension is in line with what he said.
ECSL operates only when absolutely necessary and is kept under
constant review. I know that many Members of this House will be
concerned about the early release of offenders into the
community, but I make it clear that only offenders who would soon
be released anyway will be considered for ECSL.
We have put in place safeguards, including that the Prison
Service retains the discretion to prevent the ECSL release of any
offender where early release presents a higher risk than if they
were released at their automatic release date. There are strict
eligibility criteria, and anyone convicted of a sexual offence, a
terrorist offence or a serious violence offence is ruled out.
Public safety will always be our No. 1 priority, and all those
released will still be subject to probation supervision and
stringent licence conditions.
Here we go again. Never in this country have a Government been
forced to release prisoners more than two months early. This is
the price that the public are paying for a justice system in
crisis and a Government in freefall.
The early release scheme has now undergone three major extensions
in just six months: it was quietly started in October, when the
Government began releasing prisoners up to 18 days early; in
March it was slipped out that it had been expanded from 18 to 60
days; and now it has emerged through a media leak that it has
been extended once again, this time to 70 days. Worst of all, the
Government are doing all of this in secret. They have not
responded to any freedom of information requests, parliamentary
questions or even the Justice Committee with any useful details
about this scheme. The Government are releasing prisoners but not
the facts. The strategy is clear for all to see: say nothing, try
to get away with it and get to the other side of the general
election. It is shameless and, frankly, a disgrace.
The public and this House rightly expect the Minister to be
transparent and honest, so let us see whether he will answer
these basic and simple questions. Why the increase of early
release to 70 days? How many offenders have been released in the
six months since the scheme became operational? How will they
ensure that the probation service has the time and resources to
adequately assess risk and protect the public? And will he give a
guarantee to the House today that this secretive scheme will not
be extended again?
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for her question
and would gently say a number of things to her. First, she
suggests we were sneaking this out in October and March; that
included statements to this House and was entirely transparent.
On the hon. Lady's party's record, it operated an early release
scheme for three years between 2007 and 2010, which leaves her on
rather shaky ground. She talked about a media leak. This was an
operational decision with operational guidance sent out to His
Majesty's Prison and Probation Service and prison governors as
well as other stakeholders, including, if I recall correctly, the
probation union, for a minor change that was already reflected in
the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary
of State for Justice in March to this House.
The hon. Lady talked about data. The Secretary of State has been
consistently clear that we will publish the data on an annualised
basis, in exactly the same way as we do, for example, for deaths
in custody and supplementary breakdowns of the prison population.
We have been clear that we will always ensure that the prisons
system has the spaces for the courts to be able to send people to
prison. We are making an appropriate operational decision to
ensure that continues to be the case.
The hon. Lady also rightly asked about probation, and I suspect
that in our exchanges the one thing on which we might find
ourselves in agreement is paying tribute to those who work in our
probation service. As she will know, since 2021 we have increased
the budget for the service by £155 million, with 4,000 additional
probation officers in training. We have worked with the
leadership of our probation service on this scheme and the
probation union was one of the bodies we notified on the changes
to the operational guidance.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Sir (Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
This is a perfectly rational, sensible and pragmatic response to
the pressures in our prisons, and the Minister should take credit
for it. However, I do ask him to reconsider the point about the
transparency of data—precisely because it is a sensible thing to
do, there is no reason why we should not release the figures in
better time. But the underlying problem, which all parties in
this House must face up to, is that the pressures in our prisons,
to which the Justice Committee has repeatedly referred, stem from
decades of underfunding by Governments of all parties? Prison
costs £46,000-plus per year for each place, so it is a very
expensive way of dealing with people, and not always the best
means for handling lower-level offenders. May we have a more
intelligent debate on sentencing and the purpose of prison, and
perhaps we could start with the Minister committing to bringing
back the sentencing Bill, which would enable us to have a more
nuanced approach?
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his questions. He
rightly highlights the ongoing capacity challenges and a number
of the drivers of those, one being that the average custodial
sentence in this country has gone up from 14 months to about 21.
In addition, the remand population has gone up from about 9,000
to some 16,500, partly as a result of the covid backlogs in the
courts system and partly as a result of the Bar strike. On the
publication of data, I gently and respectfully refer him to the
answer I gave to his Committee and at the Dispatch Box just now.
It is important that alongside recognising the pressures the
system is under, we are taking steps to increase capacity, both
by increasing the removals of foreign national offenders and
doing it at a faster rate, and through having built almost 6,000
new prison places. That is in stark contrast to the record of the
Labour party, which built not one of the 7,500 Titan prison
places.
(Twickenham) (LD)
Court backlogs are sky high; prisons are dangerously close to
capacity, which is why this policy had to be implemented; and the
Government are claiming, as the Minister has just done, to be
carrying out a big prison expansion programme, yet their record
is appalling. In 2016, in response to the Taylor review, the
Government committed to building two secure schools for young
offenders. Since then, the budget has spiralled out of control
and not one of those schools has opened. Does this not all just
prove that the Conservatives cannot be trusted with our justice
system?
The hon. Lady knows that I have a huge amount of respect for her,
but even by Lib Dem standards that was stretching the bounds of
credibility a little, not least because, as she will be aware, we
have built two new prisons. We also have one in construction and
two that have completed planning, and one that is subject to a
planning appeal. As for the secure school, she should look
forward to its opening in a matter of days.
(Aylesbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend expand a little on the great
improvements being made to increase capacity? Will he tell us a
little more about the progress on ensuring that more foreign
national offenders are removed to their own countries? Will he
expand a little, as this seems to be badly understood by
Opposition Members from all parties, on quite how much of a
prison building programme the Government have? Will he say
something on the number of prisons and the number of spaces that
that will create, and on the consequent prospects for the
rehabilitation of offenders and, in time, having fewer victims of
crime?
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that and I pay tribute to
his work in the justice system not only in this House, but prior
to his being a Member of it. I believe—I will, of course, correct
this if I am slightly out—that about 16,000 FNOs have now been
removed. It is timely that as I say that, my right hon. Friend
the Home Secretary appears in the Chamber, so that I can pay
tribute to him and his Department for their work on delivering
that. On prison places, I set out to the hon. Member for
Twickenham () the progress on the six new
prisons. Alongside that, we have built a vast number of rapid
deployment cells and new house blocks, so we are expanding our
prison capacity rapidly. As I say, that stands in stark contrast
to the failure to deliver on the Titan prison places by the
Labour party.
(Salford and Eccles)
(Lab)
Napo has said that
“the ECSL scheme is an unmitigated failure and has not only been
extended without parliamentary scrutiny but represents an
increasing risk to public safety”.
The Secretary of State knows that our probation service is in
crisis and cannot cope without a significant increase in support
and resources. Will the Government be providing that?
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. As I said to the shadow
Secretary of State, I have great respect for the work done by
those in our probation service. Indeed, I have met the probation
unions in the past. Although we do not always agree, I have huge
respect for the work those unions do in representing their
members.
I would make two points. First, to say that it was done without
scrutiny in this House stretches the bounds of credibility. There
have been two statements by the Secretary of State and multiple
oral parliamentary question sessions, and I have undergone a
polite but thorough grilling at the Justice Committee by its
Chair. I do not think it stacks up to say that this has not been
subject to scrutiny.
On the hon. Lady's underlying point, I set out earlier that we
are investing in probation. There is £155 million of additional
investment a year since 2021 and there are 4,000 more probation
officers and staff in training.
(Warrington South) (Con)
A moment ago, the Minister set out the significant increase in
the number of people being held on remand—I think he said it had
increased from 9,000 to 16,000. What work are the Government
doing to address court backlogs? What steps are being taken to
look at other routes for monitoring people who are on remand, who
could perhaps serve their remand period in the community under a
tagging system?
To correct myself, there are now 16,500 people on remand in the
prison population. On court backlogs, we have increased the
investment in our courts and the number of sitting days, and we
are seeing progress. Obviously, courts take the decision on
whether to remand or bail someone, and we can help that process
by giving the courts the information they need. We continue to
invest in the Bail Information Service, which gives sentencers
reassurance about the information they need to make a judgment
call about whether someone is safe to be bailed. We are
increasing our investment in the community accommodation service,
so that when someone is not bailed because they do not have a
stable address, there is an increased opportunity for them to
have an address, giving sentencers the opportunity to bail
them.
Mr (Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister and the Chair of the Justice Committee know, I
have been in the House long enough to know when something is a
sticking plaster. Perhaps the extension is necessary, but it is a
sticking plaster. How many Queen's Speeches since 2010 have
included a thorough look at the justice system with a royal
commission? That has never happened. We all know that building
prisons does not solve the crisis. We need radical reform of the
whole justice system, which will need extra resources and real
motivation from an incoming Labour Government. Does the Minister
agree with me?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have
occasionally tussled across the Chamber. I agree with some of
what he says. He will not be surprised that I do not agree with
his last statement because, judging by the track record up to
2010, I fear it would be another case of being let down by
Labour. I am grateful for his typically thoughtful comments and
his looking at the bigger picture behind the challenges we
face.
It is right that we are putting those who commit the most serious
crimes in prison for longer to protect society and ensure they
pay their debt to society, but it is also important that we look
at how we rehabilitate people when they are in prison. We all
want those who have served their time to come out and live their
lives, within bounds, in the community, and to be constructive
and positive contributors to society. That is why we are focusing
on providing education in prison and getting people into
employment. I am grateful to the Minister for Schools, my right
hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (), for his work and focus on
that area, both when he was Secretary of State for Education and
as my predecessor. There are currently measures before
Parliament, for example in the Sentencing Bill, that offer the
House an opportunity to think about other ways to do things.
(Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
(PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Llefarydd. This announcement comes after
nine prisoners have recently lost their lives in HMP Parc in
Bridgend. The Ministry of Justice says it will not step in. A
private prison in Wales is an unaccountable anomaly that fails
everyone—victims and prisoners alike. While we await the long
anticipated devolution of justice, will the Minister tell me why,
after 25 years, there is still no clarity over which ombudsman is
responsible for health in Parc?
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. We may disagree in our
views on the devolution of justice to Wales, but she raises an
important issue about the deaths in the past few months in HMP
and YOI Parc. I visited Parc recently and spoke to the governor
and director, those in custody and those working at Parc. I have
to be cautious about what I say, given that the matter will be
before the coroner and the ombudsman. I will be appearing before
the Welsh Affairs Committee next week, when I suspect some of the
issues will be debated. I am happy to have a discussion with the
right hon. Lady, but it is right that I do not stray at the
Dispatch Box when these matters are before the coroner and the
ombudsman.
Mr Speaker
I hope the Minister will be happy to have a discussion with the
MP whose constituency the prison is in, as well.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers to all the questions. The
scheme was initially designed to allow short-term early release
by a matter of days, yet some releases are now early by some 70
days. Does the Minister understand why victims of crime are
anxious that so-called “soft crime” criminals are getting an
easier time? Victims of crime are told that perpetrators have
been released early, so the victims can prepare themselves to see
those perpetrators down the town or at the local supermarket, for
example, which can be extremely disconcerting, even if it is not
unexpected.
Mr Speaker, I reassure you that I was due to be meeting the
Member whose constituency HMP Parc is in at this moment in time,
but I am here at the Dispatch Box. The meeting has been
rescheduled and there is a date in the diary. As I promised at
the last oral questions, that meeting has been arranged.
The hon. Member for Strangford () is right to highlight that point. Our ECSL
protections are significantly more stringent than those used by
the Labour party when it ran its scheme for three years. Unlike
its scheme, ours allows governors to veto the release of any
prisoner when they think early release will create a risk to
victims. There are a number of exemptions from the scheme and it
allows for rigorous conditions to be placed on the release
licence, be it tagging, exclusion zones or curfews. Prisoners
will be well aware that if they breach those conditions, which
are put in place to protect victims, they will hear the clang of
the prison gate and be recalled.
