Mr David Lammy
MP for Tottenham · Labour · United Kingdom
“I am delighted to welcome the shadow Housing Secretary to the Dispatch Box. He, of course, could have been doing that job every week if he were better with numbers.”
“The right hon. Gentleman has not proposed what the Conservatives would do if they were in office. They released 10,000 under four different schemes, with no impact assessment when they released them, no victim contact when they released them, and no warning. They did it on the sly.”
“This is a very serious issue and the right hon. Gentleman is experienced in this House. He knows that while he was Home Secretary, the Conservative Government had an early release scheme that let out 10,000 offenders—10,000. They had six schemes within a year.”
“I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is attending the NATO summit. Working with our allies, we are strengthening Europe’s role in the alliance, which remains the cornerstone of our national security.”
“The right hon. Gentleman insists on proving that he cannot count. We lost 16,000 police officers when the Conservatives were in power. The British people have not forgotten what they did to our country. After two years of this Labour Government, I will compare our record with theirs every day of the week.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have the honour to say that His Majesty the King has accepted our advice to grant Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in the United Kingdom, a conditional pardon. [Hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,387 lines we hold for Mr David Lammy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 53 of 68.
“When legal aid was first introduced by Clement Attlee’s Government after the second world war, around 80% of people were eligible for it. By the 1990s, that figure had dropped to 45%. Today it is a miserly 20%. In 2020, most housing, employment and family disputes do not get legal aid. This causes real injustice. In 92% of domestic violence cases in the family courts in 2019, one or more parties was left without legal representation. But it is not just for adversarial cases that we need legal aid. It is a crying scandal that those who were deported and detained as a result of the Windrush scandal could not access legal aid. At a time when the court backlog is approaching 50,000, we cannot expect legal aid practitioners to weather the coronavirus storm with warm words alone.”
“It has since increased slightly, to £1.7 billion, out of the Ministry of Justice total budget of just more than £10 billion. As the Chair of the Select Committee put it, it is just a fraction of a fraction. To put that £1.7 billion into perspective, last night Serco CEO Rupert Soames revealed to UK taxpayers that his outsourcing company had £1.2 billion per year of Government funding. That is even before its failed £12 billion experiment with track and trace. Labour has repeatedly called for access to legal aid to be a priority for this Government, especially during a time when people are so vulnerable. As a result of LASPO, large areas of civil legal aid are deemed out of scope. This leaves thousands of people each year without the representation they need.”
“The criminal legal aid review is designed to look at the sustainability of the profession, but we do not have time to wait for action. The report is not likely to be published until 2022. By then it will be too late to save money, or to save many firms that are going out of business. Already in June 2020 there were 124 fewer criminal legal aid firms than the 1,271 there were in 2019, a drop of almost 10% in the past year and far fewer than the 1,861 firms that existed in 2010. How many more firms are the Government prepared to lose? Without urgent steps there is a genuine risk of the system collapsing on itself. Between 2010 and 2016, net spending on legal aid fell by an eye-watering 38% in real terms, from £2.6 billion to £1.6 billion.”
“Legal aid has long provided this for many of us, and for many of the most vulnerable people in society at their most vulnerable moments, but legal aid spending and access to justice has reduced significantly since the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. A review of the Act published in February 2019 moved in the right direction, but there is still so much more to do. Two years since the post-implementation review, recommendations on early advice, legal aid, means tests and support for litigants have not been implemented in full. The impact of LASPO, combined with the 8.7% cut to criminal legal aid providers in 2014, as well as inflation and small profit margins, have resulted in the contraction of the market for both criminal and civil legal aid.”
“One of the reasons justice does not appear to have been reached in this case is that Zane’s family were denied legal aid after the case was deemed not to be in the public interest. It is completely unjust that the family, at the time of their greatest need, were left to present their case with just one crowdfunded lawyer against a team of six QCs. Extraordinarily, the coroner was also given his own legal team. Of all those present at the inquest, Zane’s parents were the only ones not to have a barrister in some way funded by the public purse. Access to the justice system and the ability to enforce our rights should be open to every person, regardless of their wealth, social class or background.”
“On the evening of 7 February 2014, seven-year-old Zane and his mother and father went to bed in their Surrey home. Due to circumstances that remain unexplained, Zane tragically died in his sleep and his father was left paralysed for life. The 2016 inquest into Zane’s death found that he died as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning caused by the use of the petrol pump used to remove water from their flooded home. However, numerous doubts have been expressed regarding the verdict reached by the coroner from both sides of the political spectrum, including the local Conservative council. Over the course of the past seven years, Zane’s mother and father, Kye and Nicole Lawler, have fought tirelessly for answers to what caused his death.”
“Just like the right to no punishment without law, the right to freedom of expression and the right to participate in free elections, it is a fundamental part of our democracy. A legal verdict is not fair if one side is able to pay a team of expensive lawyers to fight on their behalf while the other is left to make their case on their own. That is why paragraph 3(c) of article 6 states that if a party “has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance”, they should get “it free when the interests of justice” require it, and they do require it. In this country we have legal aid, which gives assistance to people who are unable to afford representation. Too often, legal aid is not given to those who deserve it. Consider the case of Zane Gbangbola.”
“It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), on securing the debate, and I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), and those of the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), in particular, to whom I am very grateful. I declare an interest as an associate tenant at Doughty Street Chambers, which uses legal aid. The right to a fair hearing is a human right guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998 under article 6.”
“In order to be considered truly free, countries must also have a deep love of liberty and an abiding respect for the rule of law”.”
“At the Conservative party conference, he launched his own attack on “lefty lawyers”. This debate is not about partisan politics; it is about the future of our democracy. It is about the safety of our communities and the freedom that order can bring. Respect for the rule of law is for the benefit of every person in this country, whatever their political views. Without it, we descend into barbarism: the rule of the jungle, anarchy, lawlessness, disorder and mob rule. Attacks on the rule of law undermine the very basis of our civilisation. Enough is enough. This Conservative Government must remember their principles before they are lost for ever. As Margaret Thatcher once said: “Being democratic is not enough, a majority cannot turn what is wrong into right.”
“On 3 September, the Home Secretary said that deportations were being “frustrated by activist lawyers”. In saying this, she was not attacking activists, but inciting anger against immigration lawyers for representing some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Words have consequences. On 7 September, a man with a large knife entered a London law firm and threatened to kill an immigration solicitor—cause and effect. The Law Society was forced to write to the Government to say: “It must be ensured that no further lives are endangered as a result of her untruthful and deliberately inflammatory rhetoric. Put simply, this must stop now, before innocent lives are taken and other irreparable damage is done to those who work in this field.” Who will stand for the law? Not the Prime Minister.”
“It is a great shame that a principle this fundamental now has to be fought for once again. It is not only the law that is to be targeted by this Government, but the lawyers and judges who spend their time dedicated to upholding it. When Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán rammed a law through Parliament undermining the independence of the country’s judiciary, we all condemned the regime’s shift towards authoritarianism. When the Polish Government passed a law to make it possible for judges to face disciplinary measures when they make rulings that the Government do not like, Labour and Conservative supporters were equally appalled. Brits from all political traditions should be just as outraged by the UK Government’s attack on judicial review, because it is from the same authoritarian playbook.”
“The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s comments were not an aberration. They were a statement of intent from a Government who appear to believe in lawlessness and disorder. The country will not forget the Government closing down Parliament unlawfully. The public will always remember the arrogance with which Dominic Cummings broke the law after months of national sacrifice—we will not forget the shamelessness and mendacity with which he explained away the breaking of a law that he helped to create. Under this Government, the public are all thinking the same: one rule for us, another rule for them. One fool for us, and another for them. The law must be the same for everyone. If it is not, respect for the rule of law ends. That should be self-evident.”
“Whichever party was in government, the rule of law would be respected. That is no longer the case. There are previous political decisions that were made by Governments when the law was not entirely clear and when it was arguable either way whether an action was lawful. That is not what we are talking about today. Last month, a Cabinet Minister stood up in the House of Commons and stated openly that the Government will deliberately break the law. That did not force the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to resign. It was a decision plotted in No. 10 and supported by the whole Cabinet. Most shamefully, it was backed by the so-called Attorney General and the so-called Lord Chancellor. Both ignored the special obligations of their offices in order to keep the keys to them.”
“It was the basis for all that Tories once valued—the ownership of property, security, the right to personal liberty, the freedom to live in a society without anarchy, fairness in business, law and order. From Edmund Burke to Margaret Thatcher, and even up to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the rule of law has been just as valued on both sides of the House. So bipartisan was the British devotion to this idea that we became the global home of the law. The UK has the second largest legal sector in the world, second only to the United States of America. It contributes £60 billion to the UK economy and is one of our strongest global exports. Businesses and individuals from all parts of the globe flocked to this country to write contracts in English law and settle disputes in our courts. They did that because they trusted us.”
“Today, it is too easy to assume these principles always existed; they did not. For many parts of the world, they still do not. Ask the people of the Congo, China, Russia or Venezuela how life is without the rule of law. It was won in this country only as a result of human ingenuity, struggle and tremendous sacrifice. I am shocked to be standing here today debating the importance of the rule of law with a Conservative Government. I have never been shy about my disagreements with Tories, but this is an issue on which I have previously respected the party now in government. The rule of law used to be fundamental to capital “C” Conservative thinking.”
“I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on securing this important debate. I declare an interest as an associate tenant at Doughty Street chambers, a non-practising member of the Bar, and a visiting professor in practice in the department of law at the London School of Economics Magna Carta, the Charter of the Forest, habeas corpus, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, the system of common law—for centuries, the United Kingdom has led not only in the creation of the rule of law, but in spreading that around the world. That simple but revolutionary idea was born out of two others: first, that there should be no power beyond or above the law and, secondly, that the law applies equally to all people—women and men, rich and poor, black and white.”
“On Second Reading, the official Opposition made it clear that they would oppose any attempts by the Government to reintroduce clause 2, which was removed by a majority in the other place. On Second Reading, numerous Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches made very sensible suggestions on how the Government could modify clause 2 and harness cross-party support. Sunset clauses, placing Lugano on the face of the Bill, as has been suggested by Members across the House this afternoon, and limiting the power of clause 2 were all among the suggestions discussed. Very sadly, the Government did not listen. That is surprising, particularly for this Minister, who is known to be attentive and a very able lawyer indeed.”
“The very able Minister has put his argument, but I remind him that under the previous Labour Government, we were in the European Union. This debate is about being outside it, and the best architecture for scrutiny in this House in those circumstances.”
“Unfortunately, we have seen during the Bill’s passage the Government’s desire to prise parliamentary scrutiny away from this House and these Benches. That is something we regret and something to which the other place will no doubt return in the debate ahead. Once again, we see a Government keen to do all they can to avoid proper democratic scrutiny—a Government more at ease with ruling by decree than daring to test the will of this House.”
“As we leave the European Union, we must protect our country’s proud reputation as the international forum of choice for the resolution of commercial and legal disputes. We should also remember the human aspects of private international law. Helping parents separated by borders to come to custody agreements in the interests of their children is very important, as is allowing the safe return of a child who has been abducted. That is why the Opposition have always been fully supportive of the Government’s desire to implement the international treaties listed in clause 1, each of which has been fully scrutinised by this House and is being brought into domestic law by primary legislation. That is how the implementation of international agreements has always been done, and how we would like to see it done in future.”
“I join the Minister in thanking colleagues in all parties for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate. I especially thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), and the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for their eminently reasonable suggestions on how the Bill could secure cross-party support. On Second Reading, Labour made it clear that we supported the fundamental principle behind the Bill. The Opposition fully accept that as we leave the largest network of private international law agreements in the world, we must have a legislative framework in place to replace it.”
“May I, too, wish the Secretary of State a happy 52nd birthday? Sentencing reform is needed, but on its own it is not enough. The truth is that most criminals will be released from prison at some point, and if they are not rehabilitated when they are released, they will commit further crimes and create new victims. This Government’s prisons simply are not working. Six out of every 10 offenders who serve less than 12 months in prison reoffend. A recent Public Accounts Committee report accused the Government of a “staggering” failure on the prison estate. Does the Secretary of State plan to publish a cross-departmental plan to reduce reoffending within the next three months, as the PAC recommended last week?”
“On 30 July 2019, in the Royal Courts of Justice, the Lord Chancellor made an oath that no other member of the Cabinet is required to make. He said: “I do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law”. Lord Keen, the Advocate General for Scotland, and Jonathan Jones, head of the Government’s Legal Department, resigned because the Government’s internal market Bill does not respect the rule of law. May I ask the Lord Chancellor whether he thinks that Lord Keen and Jonathan Jones got it wrong and, if so, how? If not, may I ask him how he can turn up in this House with a straight face after voting to betray his oath and break the law?”
“Does he not now risk bringing the profession into disrepute by breaching that code of conduct, which states: “You must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession”?”
“It is not me who takes that view. Every living Prime Minister takes that view. The Bar Council and the Law Society take that view. The Lord Chancellor previously said that the Government can indeed break the law if it can be fudged, but there is no fudging this—not only does the Bill breach the international law; it is also a flagrant attack on the rule of law at domestic level, and he knows it. As the Bingham Centre states, clauses 42, 43 and 45 authorise a breach of any relevant international or domestic law, including any order, judgment or decision of any international or domestic court. I say to the Lord Chancellor that he is an esteemed barrister and he swears to a code of conduct.”
“Does he share the concerns of the Victims’ Commissioner that recent changes to the Crown Prosecution Service guidance could lead to the CPS having the freedom to drop difficult cases, leaving victims feeling cheated if the current system is overstretched? This statement has come in a week when a Secretary of State who took an oath to uphold the rule of law has let his office and the system down. The whole country has watched him squirm in his seat as he has stood with the Prime Minister. I hope he recognises the importance of the days ahead, as he brings this White Paper back to the Chamber.”
“Ministry of Justice data show that between 9 June and 31 July this year, nearly a third of prisoners—2,400 people—were released homeless or to an unknown circumstance. How will longer sentences protect the public, if people continue to be released homeless and without the chance to turn their lives around? The announcement abount GPS tagging in the community is welcome, but what steps are the Government taking to ensure that services exist to support former offenders into work? Why is there still no cross-departmental plan to reduce reoffending and enable the reintegration of prison leavers? Does the Secretary of State plan to publish one within the next three months, as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee last week?”
“We welcome the Government’s announcement that they will recruit more probation officers after their U-turn on the failed experiment with privatisation conducted by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). It missed targets and cost taxpayers an extra £460 million. We will continue to hold the Government to account as we get back to having a fully national probation service. Labour also welcomes the Government’s use of the White Paper as an opportunity to increase the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving, as well as the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink and drugs. Sentencing reform is needed, but on its own it is not enough.”
“He will recall that problem-solving courts were introduced by a Labour Government and cut back by a Conservative Government. I am glad to see them back, but why are they just pilots? Can we not go further? We know they work for people with serious addictions and problems who come back into the system again and again. It is also very good to see the Ministry of Justice hearing our calls—again, I raised this in the Lammy review—on behalf of offenders who need greater support because they have neurodivergent conditions such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia. I am sure the whole House welcomes the fact that we have finally arrived at that place.”
“I hope he will confirm that these changes, while appropriate for the most extreme cases, will not be applied gratuitously, and that it would be wrong to abandon the general presumption in criminal law that when people are younger there is more opportunity for redemption and for them to turn their lives around. There are other announcements today that we welcome. We welcome the reforming of criminal records disclosure to reduce the time in which offenders must declare offences to employers, and that is sorely needed. It is something that I called for in my review, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who is in his place and who has campaigned on these issues for many years. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s new pilots for problem-solving courts.”
“We will need to carefully scrutinise exactly how the Government’s proposed changes are written into law, of course, and it is important to remember that, even without the changes the Secretary of State is announcing today, no one imprisoned for crimes as serious as these leaves prison if the Parole Board is not satisfied that they are no longer a danger to society. It is also the case that the general presumption in criminal law is that when someone is younger there is more opportunity for them to reform, and removing the opportunity for parole can also remove incentives for offenders to rehabilitate and behave well in prison. We will come back to that, I am sure, when the Secretary of State comes forward with the legislation.”
“I praise Carole Gould’s fortitude and dignity amid such a horrendous loss. Her campaigners commanded cross-party support and the Labour party stands with her today. We are a party that welcomes strengthening sentencing when it is necessary to protect the British public. It is in that spirit that Labour accepts that there are some exceptional cases in which a whole-life sentence might be deemed appropriate for a young person over the age of 18. The murderer who helped to plan the senseless terrorist attack on Manchester Arena is one such case.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We need to scrutinise the changes the Secretary of State has announced today in detail, but I will start by saying that Labour’s priority is always to keep the British public safe. The Secretary of State will remember that it was a Labour Government in 2003 who introduced compulsory life sentences and minimum sentences for over 150 offences. It was a Labour Government in 2010 who raised the minimum prison sentence for knife killers from 15 to 25 years in the wake of the death of Ben Kinsella, and it was a Labour Government who obliged judges to hand down 30-year minimum sentences for murders involving firearms and explosives. There is no doubt that Ellie Gould’s killer got too short a sentence for the horrific crime that he committed.”
“In that regard, I look to the sentencing reforms that the Lord Chancellor indicated at the weekend and hope that we might see further progress there.”
“At the end of the hearing, the court is able to weigh up different factors, including the problems for the applicant arising from their criminal record, evidence of rehabilitation years later indicating that the applicant would take proper advantage of their record being sealed, relevant circumstances at the time of the offence that suggest that the applicant will not reoffend and the passage of time since the offence. All these issues are relevant, and we ought to come up with an administrative process—it may well be that applicants have to pay for the process—whereby we are able to seal criminal records and ensure much higher employment rates for former offenders. The Opposition believe in second chances. I should hope that Conservatives believe in second chances, so I hope that the Government will come forward with wider plans.”
“It is a great shame that, in 2020, I have to point out the elephant in the room: whether someone receives a community order, which is eligible for filtering, or a custodial sentence, which is not, can often depend, sadly, on their having a minority background. That is precisely why the then Prime Minister and current Minister for the Cabinet Office asked me to lead a review into this area and why, in looking at these issues, I recommended the sealing of criminal records. I emphasise that that is not sealing from the criminal justice system—it would always be the case that the courts, prosecutors, police, the probation service and others have access to criminal records—but, where appropriate, from employers, aside from particular cases where it is necessary for the employer to have access to that record.”
“Maturity comes at different ages for young people, but on average an individual is significantly less likely to reoffend in their mid-20s than they were just a few years earlier. The present filtering regime suggests a clear and morally relevant dividing line between those who receive a custodial sentence and those who receive a community order. A custodial sentence is never eligible for filtering, but a community order always is. However, the sentence that each offender receives is often driven more by demographic, geography and other arbitrary factors, not the seriousness of the crime itself.”
“These changes will have a real and positive impact on thousands of young lives, which in turn will reap huge benefits for society as a whole. However, these changes should make us pause and consider the case for broader and deeper reform of the criminal records regime. The changes do not make a judgment on the filtering system as a whole or assess whether it is providing the right balance between harm and protection. It is still the case that very minor criminal records acquired in teenage years can continue to haunt someone’s career prospects well into their 30s and 40s. As the Taylor review of youth justice acknowledged, the evidence is that most young people grow out of crime.”
“The new regime will allow each offence to be treated separately and filtered out as appropriate for the individual offence. Right now, reprimands, warnings and youth cautions are filtered only after two years, causing huge damage to young people’s ability to enter education and training, with some barred from training in certain professions entirely until their record is filtered. The whole purpose of warnings and reprimands is to avoid prosecution, and in doing so to improve a young offender’s future prospects. However, the Court found that disclosing warnings and reprimands to potential employers had the opposite effect. The Opposition are pleased that the new filtering rules mean that all three things will be immediately filtered.”
“The changes proposed are to the filtering rules applied by the DBS to determine which convictions and cautions should no longer be disclosed on standard and enhanced criminal record checks in England and Wales. The Supreme Court judgment that forced the Government to act required two specific changes—that multiple offences become eligible for filtering, so long as they are not disclosable under other rules, and that youth cautions, reprimands and final warnings be immediately filtered. Currently, if a person has multiple convictions, these cannot be filtered out, even if the individual offences would be. The Supreme Court judgment was right to condemn this approach as “capricious”, “disproportionate” and counterproductive.”
“Prisoners who find work on release are less likely to reoffend than those who do not. That is shown in the disparities between different ethnic groups. Ethnic groups with higher unemployment rates also have higher reoffending rates. In my review, I found that, two years after a caution, conviction or release from custody, 28% of those with an Asian background were unemployed, compared with 40% unemployment among black ex-offenders. That is why I took the issue so seriously. I am happy that we are today discussing modest but progressive reform of the criminal records regime, which will have a positive effect on people’s lives and wider society.”
“At its worst, the criminal records regime is a second sentence for those who have already served their time, trapping offenders in a cycle of reoffending. In my review into the criminal justice system, which I was asked to do by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, I singled out the criminal records regime as an area that most desperately needed reform. If we are to break the endless loop of reoffending, ex- offenders must have an opportunity to move on with their lives. That means, in effect, having support and services, but there is also the need to get a job. A job removes dependence on criminality for income; a job gives an opportunity for education and training; a job gives ex-offenders a belief in their own future; and a job gives them a stake in society.”
“It is great to see you in the Chair for the first time, Ms Ghani. I thank the Minister for a call last week about these provisions, for which I was very grateful. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley for his persistent pursuit of this subject over many years in Parliament and for being distinguished in pressing the Prime Minister on this at three consecutive Prime Minister’s questions. The result of the Supreme Court decision is why we are here this afternoon. There are currently more than 11 million people in the UK with a criminal record. Nearly three quarters of ex-offenders are unemployed on release from prison, and 50% of employers say they would not consider hiring an ex-offender.”
“Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Opposition have sought to work constructively with the Government to ensure that the courts have the powers they need to meet the continual threat of terrorism and keep terrorists off the streets, and I assure the Secretary of State that I will continue to work constructively with him over the months and years ahead. This Bill goes some way to doing that, and therefore we will support it on Third Reading.”
“Let me finish where I started on Second Reading, first in paying tribute to a dear friend, James Adams, who was killed in the 7/7 bombings, but also in paying tribute to Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, who lost their lives in the attack on Fishmongers’ Hall. Both Jack and Saskia believed passionately that there can be a glimmer of light in even the darkest and most hardened of hearts. We on the Labour Benches share that optimism. Although it is only right that those who have committed the most heinous of crimes are subjected to extended sentences, we cannot give up hope of rehabilitation. If even the smallest chance of redemption exists, we owe it to the victims of Fishmongers’ Hall to try.”
“Members of each of those groups are at very different stages of their lives, and reviews, including my own, have recognised the need for different criminal justice approaches to different age groups. In order properly to reflect the difference between young offenders and adult offenders, the Opposition tabled an amendment that would require a pre-sentence report to be carried out that would take into consideration the age of the offender and whether options other than a serious terrorist offence might be more effective. It is a shame that the Government did not accept that amendment, but I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the Opposition’s concerns in the months and years ahead.”
“Young offenders and adult offenders are inherently different: they think differently and make decisions in different ways but, most importantly, young offenders are much more capable of reform than older adults. As Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, rightly pointed out during his analysis of the Bill: “The requirement of a minimum mandatory sentence for all adult offenders, however young,” raises the question of “an adult of 18 years and one month” being “any more mature than a child of 17 years and 11 months”. The Opposition recognise that there are significant differences between adults over 21, those who are between 19 and 21, and those who are under 18.”
“Research shows us that more time spent with offenders is essential to the carrying out of proper risk assessments, but that simply will not be possible with vastly increased workloads. The Government cannot simply increase the responsibilities placed on probation officers, increase their workload and consider the matter closed. It is vital that probation officers are given the resources that they need to do their job; the safety of the public depends on it. The Opposition will hold the Government to account if they fail to meet their obligations to the probation services. Another concern that was stressed throughout Committee and on Report is the importance of recognising the difference between young offenders and adult offenders.”
“It is worth remembering that the role of probation is not just to monitor risk but to provide support to those who have been released from prison so that they are less likely to reoffend and can play an active role in society. The provisions of this important Bill will mean that more people will serve longer behind bars, followed by hugely increased licence periods in the community. With that in mind, it is more important than ever for our probation services to be fully functioning and effective, yet we know that our probation services are already hopelessly overstretched and overworked. In particular, Labour is concerned that the provisions of the Bill will place a huge burden on specialised probation officers, who are already very thin on the ground and hold very high terror-related case loads.”