Sir Nicholas Dakin
MP for Scunthorpe · Labour · United Kingdom
“My hon. Friend is right. A local library is a very special place. It is a place of potential in every sense of the word by introducing children to the world of reading, shaping young minds through Baby Rhyme Time and giving agency and choice to young readers—no book is the wrong book—but also by helping people of all ages to develop wider…”
“Friend also specifically asked about the Government’s superintendence responsibilities. It is for the local council to determine how it will meet its statutory duty to deliver a comprehensive, efficient library service.”
“Between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, DCMS directly engaged with 40 local authorities, which involved 62 conversations either in person or virtually. None of those conversations took place with Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.”
“This Government are committed to restoring the stability of council funding, but there cannot be cuts of that scale over that period without a significant impact on services, including public library provision.”
“Certainly. It is always a negative thing when libraries’ time is cut, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East demonstrated in his speech. It is important that we remember that the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 requires all local authorities in England to provide a “comprehensive and efficient” library service.”
“It is important to note that the majority of funding in the local government finance settlement is not ringfenced for a reason. Local leaders are best placed to identify local priorities. It is for them to determine how funds are used to finance their activities to best meet local needs.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Sir Nicholas Dakin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 13.
“The order will also amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024, which established the SDS40 early release measure by modifying the automatic release point for those serving standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40%. This statutory instrument seeks to exclude six further offences from the early release measure that were not identified at the time. SDS40 was delivered extremely effectively but there was a problem with 37 prisoners, who were released in error. The issue involved the use of an offence that had been repealed in 2020, thereby creating an anomaly. That ultimately meant that those prisoners were not identified as being ineligible for early release under SDS40. All those offenders released in error were returned to custody.”
“That review did not take place, and the growing crisis in our prisons has meant that we need to take further action. HDC is closely monitored by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and by the Ministry of Justice. Data on releases and recalls is regularly published, and that will continue. I must be clear that this measure is urgently needed to reduce the pressure on the prison system. The challenges facing us across the prison estate are such that we must take urgent action to allow the sentencing review to take place. By extending HDC, we are using a long-standing mechanism that has robust safeguards built into it.”
“Any offenders who meet that test will still be subject to a rigorous risk assessment process before release on HDC is approved. We are proposing to extend the maximum period that an eligible prisoner may spend on HDC to 12 months from the current maximum of six months. Those offenders eligible for HDC will continue to be risk-assessed, and will still be subject to strict licence conditions and an electronically monitored curfew. As the previous Prisons Minister said, the re-offending rate for prisoners released directly from custody was close to 50%, but for the types of offenders released on HDC it was 23%. The previous Administration committed to doing a review when HDC was extended from four and a half months to six months.”
“The rules on eligibility will not change as a result of the draft order. Offenders must complete half the custodial part of their sentence before they can be considered eligible for HDC. Release on HDC is also entirely discretionary. A number of offences are excluded from scope by statute—for example serious violent and all sexual offences. Other types of offending are presumed unsuitable as a matter of policy, including those often associated with domestic abuse, such as stalking, harassment and coercive control. Offenders serving sentences for any of the presumed unsuitable offences will not be considered for release unless the prison governor is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying this.”
“The scheme enables certain prisoners to be released from prison early, while remaining subject to significant restrictions on their liberty. Offenders who are released from custody on that basis are tagged and placed on a curfew. Curfews must be for at least nine hours per day by law, but are generally around 12 hours per day as a matter of policy. The curfew requirement must remain in force until the offender reaches what would have been the conditional or automatic release date. Those released on HDC are subject to probation supervision and other restrictions as necessary, which may include GPS location and alcohol monitoring, exclusion zones, non-contact conditions and travel restrictions. If offenders breach the terms of their conditions, they can be recalled to custody to serve the remainder of their custodial sentence.”
“When we introduced emergency measures in July, we believed that they had bought us about a year, but after the summer of disorder the next crisis could be just nine months away, and for that reason we must implement further measures urgently to ensure that we do not face running out of places again. The change to HDC will help to ensure that the criminal justice system is able to function as it should, helping to prevent further acute capacity pressures and avoid us running out of prison places, which would cause criminal justice gridlock. The draft order relates to release measures in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The first part of the draft order deals with the HDC, which has been in operation since 1999.”
“HDC enables eligible risk-assessed offenders to be released from prison six months early and to spend more time in the community. They are subject to an electronically monitored curfew. We propose to extend the maximum time that an offender can spend on HDC from six months to 12. To be clear, we seek to extend the maximum curfew period only. Eligibility and suitability criteria remain exactly the same; all the exclusions remain—for example, sex offenders are still excluded in statute, and those serving sentences linked to domestic abuse remain presumed unsuitable under the policy. It is right that the sentencing review is given time to do its work, but the capacity crisis in our prisons has not gone away.”
“We inherited from the previous Government a prison system on the verge of collapse, and on 12 July the Lord Chancellor was forced to announce a measure to address the immediate risk of running out of prison places: a change to modify the automatic release point for those serving standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40%. Specified offences were excluded from the modification. The draft order makes further important changes to the original measure by excluding a number of further offences from the modification. Also, as part of our continuing efforts to avoid running out of prison spaces, the order amends the provisions relating to home detention curfew, or HDC, by extending the maximum time that an offender can spend on HDC in the community.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Home Detention Curfew and Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods (Amendment) Order 2024. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The Government laid this draft order on 13 November. I hope that that has given hon. Members an opportunity to scrutinise the order and its accompanying explanatory documents. However, I welcome this further opportunity to be clear about what the order will do and the Government’s reasons for taking these measures. The draft order is a key part of our continuing efforts to resolve the capacity crisis in our prisons.”
“It is improving, but it is still not where we want it to be. It is at a point at which we are confident that it can handle the coming additional workload, but we need to continue to work hard to make sure that the contractors deliver, as they should always have been delivering; we should not have inherited a situation where they were not performing to the level that they should have been. The shadow Minister asked when SDS40 will be reviewed. When he raised that in the Chamber, the Lord Chancellor assured him that it would be reviewed after 18 months and that it would come back to Parliament at that point. I do hope, having had this discussion, that the Committee will support—”
“Our exclusions send a clear message about how seriously the Government take domestic abuse and, unlike the end of custody supervised licence scheme, we have taken specific action, and we will continue to do everything we can to ensure that victims’ voices are well represented on these issues. Victims eligible for the victim notification scheme or victim contact scheme are properly informed during the process; that is taking place. The sentencing review will look at other things, and we have made sure that there is a victims’ voice on its panel. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, rightly asked whether the electronic monitoring system is doing its job effectively. Again, we inherited a contract from the previous Government that was not performing to the level we would have wished.”
“If the previous Government had done their job properly, we would have inherited a situation on which we could build positively into the future, but that has sadly not been the case. I will deal with the issues raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesman first. We take victims and victims’ voices very seriously, and we will continue to do so. Anyone convicted of offences linked to domestic abuse, such as stalking and harassment, are presumed unsuitable for HDC. Exclusions under SDS40 have to be based on specific offences, and domestic abusers are prosecuted under many powers.”
“I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, for recognising at the start of his speech that the Government are taking this matter very seriously. I also say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, that the official Opposition are absolutely right not to give the Government a free pass. “The public expect better”, he said, but he should bear in mind that our scheme excludes people convicted of sexual offences, while his Conservative Government did not put any exclusions in place at all. Their scheme was done hurriedly just before the election, while this is being done to take control of the prison population in response to a crisis, so that we can run the criminal justice system appropriately.”
“As he probably realises, all impact assessments have a 10-year focus. The impact assessment is nothing to do with intention; it is about the impact if things went on for that period of time. It is the normal process. The hon. Gentleman is confusing the impact assessment with the Government’s intention. The Government’s intention is not for this provision to continue for that period of time. Question put .”
“By immediately reducing prison overcrowding, we have made prisons safer to work in. We have also accepted the 5% pay award recommended for prison officers in full.”
“My hon. Friend tells it how it is. The Conservative party left our Prison and Probation Service in a mess. Our job, on behalf of the British people, is to clean up that mess. That is what we are doing.”
“The young futures programme will be a prevention-first approach to crime reduction, building on the Department’s successful turnaround programme. I was very pleased to visit the first secure school which will put education at its heart, ensuring children in custody turn their lives around.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. We know there is more to be done, as my hon. Friend outlines. Keep-apart lists make it difficult for children to access education in young offenders institutions, so we need to find different and better ways of reducing violence and delivering education in these settings.”
“I commend the hon. Member for his actions. He is right that visits to local prisons, or prisons elsewhere, are a good thing to do. I have recently visited Humber, Wakefield, and New Hall prisons, and will be visiting Wetherby young offenders institution tomorrow.”
“Good reducing reoffending activity cannot happen in overcrowded prisons, which is why we took immediate action to relieve the pressure. This will allow for better access to purposeful activity, which we all know reduces reoffending.”
“Yes. Electronic monitoring is already an important part of safely managing offenders in the community, and one of the principles of the sentencing review is to look at the punishment that offenders receive outside prison, considering how we can best use electronic monitoring and other technologies to safely manage offenders outside the prison walls.”
“We value youth services, such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, that enable young people to develop new skills to turn their lives around. In fact, the D of E scheme is available in all five of our young offender institutions, and 36 people in YOIs were enrolled in the scheme in August.”
“Such schemes and initiatives are exactly the sort of thing that this Government want to celebrate as best practice and replicate in other settings.”
“Identifying children with a parent in prison is important for ensuring that they receive the support they need. Strengthening family ties remains an integral aspect of our work, which is why our family support workers help to re-establish appropriate family ties and facilitate visits from prisoners’ children. My officials are working closely with the Department for Education to determine how much more we can do in this space.”
“With this Government’s scheme, unlike the previous Government’s rushed scheme, we are giving our excellent staff time to work with national and local housing partners to minimise any impact on local authorities.”
“We have reduced overcrowding to ensure that prisons have the capacity to focus on education and training. For example, HMP Highpoint’s state-of-the-art rail centre of excellence gives prisoners industry-standard training and guaranteed employment on release.”
“It sounds like an interesting approach. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me so that I can look into it and write back to him. It is certainly the sort of thing we need to be looking at.”
“The right to protest is an important part of our democracy, but it has to be exercised within the law. Sentencing in individual cases is, of course, a matter for independent courts.”
“My hon. Friend is right: the quality of prison education must continually improve if we are to achieve the best possible rehabilitation outcomes.”
“We are clear that that must be addressed as a matter of urgency, notwithstanding the challenges brought about by the current population pressures, which the Government are taking decisive action to tackle.”
“Lord Timpson, the Minister for prisons, probation and reducing reoffending, is determined to use his role to achieve that, including by ensuring that HMPPS delivers effective sentence planning and timely prison transfers. Lord Timpson would also remind us that in the Timpson business he had 30 IPP prisoners as good, effective colleagues, so he has lived experience of working hard to deliver for people in this area. Those efforts will ensure that IPP prisoners can get to the right place to pursue the programme of intervention that they need to reduce their risk and make further progress towards a future release by way of the direction from the Parole Board. Around 30% of IPP prisoners are not currently in the correct prison to start the next formal intervention specified in their sentence plan.”
“For that reason, the Government are determined to give those people every chance to make further progress in reducing their risk and eventually obtaining a release direction from the Parole Board in a way that prioritises public protection. As hon. Members have said, there is a responsibility on us to provide hope, but also to ensure that hope is realistic and proper. The IPP action plan is one of the first steps in delivering that. The refreshed plan, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked for, places greater emphasis on effective frontline delivery in our prisons to ensure that prisoners serving IPP sentences have robust and effective sentence plans that they are actively engaging with, and that they are in the correct prison to access the right interventions and rehabilitative services.”
“The qualifying period for when the Secretary of State must refer an IPP licence to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination, which is currently 10 years, will be three years, or two for those convicted when under 18. Commencing the new measures means that the IPP licence will end automatically for around 1,800 people on 1 November. In addition, 600 people will be referred to the Parole Board to consider licence termination on 1 February 2025. We anticipate that the changes, once fully implemented, will reduce the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two thirds. I recognise that the changes will not automatically result in any change to the status of those serving IPP sentences in prison.”
“It remains the case, however, that supporting IPP offenders continues to present a number of challenges, particularly when it comes to those who have never been released. In addition, we must never lose sight of the paramount importance of protecting the public, which the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston spoke about so sensibly. The changes to the IPP licence in the Victim and Prisoners Act will mean that this Friday those who were first released at least five years ago—or four years ago for those convicted when they were under 18—and who have spent the last two on licence without recall to custody will have their licence automatically terminated on 1 February 2025.”
“The debate is timely, as I was pleased to meet the IPP Committee in Action with Lord Timpson today—I see members of the group in the Public Gallery—in what I felt was a positive meeting. That does not mean that everything was where we wanted it to be, but it was a constructive, positive meeting, as we tried to work with people with genuine concerns and experience to get better outcomes. This Friday, we will implement the first phase of changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which we supported in opposition, and we are determined to implement those vital provisions at the earliest opportunity. We will also publish an updated IPP action plan shortly, which will continue to focus on the rehabilitation of IPP offenders through frontline delivery in our prisons and in the probation service.”
“Sadly, there are many stories like that, and our job is to try to ensure that there are not more in the future. A lot of the history has already been dealt with, so I will not go back over what has been covered so well by others. The Government recognise the challenges faced by those serving IPP sentences, and it is absolutely right that the sentence was abolished. More than 5,000 people are still serving IPP sentences. For those serving the sentence in prison, the Government are determined to give them the support and opportunities they need to make further progress towards a safe, sustainable release. For those serving the sentence in the community, an end to the sentence is now within their grasp.”
“Lord Timpson met the special rapporteur yesterday, so we are taking those issues seriously as we try to move forward. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke with his usual warmth and passion. He drew attention to the important principles of justice, rehabilitation and the needs of the victims, and the need to balance them as we move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) focused on the words of Lord Blunkett, but also drew our attention to the way recall has been used in a way perhaps not anticipated at the outset. I hope that what happens later this week will help remedy some of that. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), gave us Tommy’s harrowing story.”
“I hope that is where we are going now with the action plan and the dashboard behind it, which follows each individual prisoner so that the right approach can be taken for them and so that they and the prison authorities know what they have to do to allow people to move to the next stage so that there is, we hope, a positive outcome for everybody. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about people languishing in their cells without hope. That is a depressing picture and we all have a big responsibility to turn back the clock so that it is no longer the case. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—I pronounced her constituency wrong but did my best, so I hope she will forgive me—drew attention to the comments of the special rapporteur.”
“Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green also drew our attention to the heart of all this: these prisoners often feel a loss of hope and that they are in a cycle of despair. It is our responsibility to do all we can to break that cycle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke with deep understanding and eloquence. He drew attention to the way in which prisoners often self-harm and the need for programmes to be focused precisely on the needs of individuals to bring about practical action.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Efford. We have had a full and informed debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing it and setting it off in such a positive way. He drew our attention to the issues and reminded us, as others did, of Lord Blunkett’s words about IPP sentences being the “biggest regret” of his political career. We all need to roll up our sleeves and work across the parties. I welcome the fact that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), recognised how we, in opposition, worked constructively with the Government. He is now doing the same. The problem belongs to all of us and we should put our shoulders to the wheel to resolve it in the best way possible. My hon.”
“Either approach, sadly, would pose an unacceptable level of risk to members of the public, and, in particular, to victims. I am especially concerned that resentencing could result in dangerous IPP prisoners being released, without a licence period, into the community.”
“Legislating to give every IPP prisoner a definite release date and post-release licence would result in most of them being released automatically—we are coming on to the issue of resentencing, which I know is an issue of huge contention and concern—but, in many cases, the Parole Board has repeatedly determined that those individuals are too dangerous to be released, not having met the statutory release test. In those circumstances, sadly, public protection has to take priority. The alternative would be resentencing via the court, which would likely result in most offenders still in custody being released without any licensed supervision, despite the Parole Board having assessed in the past two years that those individuals should remain in custody for the protection of the public, having not met the statutory release test.”
“It is vital for public confidence and protection that those serving the IPP sentence in prison are released only following a thorough risk assessment that finds that their risk has reduced to the point where they may be safely managed in the community. That is a judgment for the independent Parole Board, which has also recognised that a greater focus on the IPP cohort is necessary. The board has set up a dedicated IPP taskforce so that IPP cases are handled and reviewed by Parole Board members with the appropriate knowledge, experience and expertise of the IPP sentence.”
“We will robustly drive meaningful actions to deliver actual changes to how well IPP prisoners are protected and supported. That includes supporting those who have never been released, and those who have been recalled to custody. Recall remains a vital function in managing the risk of released IPP prisoners. The thematic review from His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation highlights the fact that decisions to recall IPP offenders have been proportionate and necessary, and that must continue to maintain public protection. The Government’s overriding priority remains the protection of the public—I was pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, reiterated that in his comments—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central pointed out, that needs to be robust and consistent.”
“To increase accountability, next summer the Lord Chancellor will be laying before Parliament the IPP annual report, which will detail the activity that has been undertaken to support those serving the IPP sentence, and hopefully address the points that have been made about where individuals lie in relation to confidence and assistance. If the anticipated progress is not being made, we will then consider what more we must do to drive the progress that we are determined to see. We will not accept no progress; we expect and demand progress, and that is what we will be looking for. I appreciate that those still serving the sentence in prison will consider that they have not really benefited from the previous IPP action plans—there is some scepticism. This Labour Government will not allow that to be the case in future.”
“Those managers are working with frontline staff to help them improve their support and communication with neurodiverse IPP prisoners, fostering good relationships and effective support for improved prospects of progression. We will continue to focus on delivering good education training and work opportunities in prison to build skills, alongside support for IPP prisoners to access employment and accommodation on release. The IPP action plan is reviewed annually, and the Government will continue to scrutinise thoroughly progress made.”
“Each case is different, so I come back to the importance of individual plans for individual prisoners, and the fact that they need to know, from conversations with the prison authorities, exactly where they are and what intervention is there, and they can see themselves progressing positively towards a positive outcome. It is impossible to give a timeframe on each individual case, but I would hope that each individual would have a feel of what the timeframe might look like for them. Every prison now has a dedicated full-time neurodiversity support manager, and each has attended a bespoke awareness session on the IPP sentence and its impact on those serving it.”
“On IPP offenders in the community, a resentencing exercise would also halt the risk management and support for these individuals, some of whom will be at the critical moment of having been recently released from custody. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 makes significant changes to the IPP licence period and allows for the termination of the IPP sentence in a safe, sustainable way, ensuring that the public and victims are best safeguarded. It is about balance, and I recognise that there are very strong arguments— and good arguments—for the balance to be elsewhere, but this is where the Government want to place the balance at the moment.”
“I will very happily revisit the report as my right hon. Friend advises, but the reality is that we need to crack on with this. We need to get things to a better place as quickly as possible, and that means having the right support available to support each individual, to move them on their way. There may be a way of resentencing happening, but it is complicated and it has significant risk, which is why we are not going there. People released in those circumstances would not be subject to any licence conditions, including those that protect victims, for example by prohibiting contact with victims and enforcing exclusion zones. I do not accept that that is an acceptable position for victims.”
“Member for Melton and Syston, about what progress is being made on the action plan. I hope I have managed to cover off in my response the fact that the action plan is central and progressing in the way that we would wish. I have just mentioned mental health support. In relation to the licence breach, where the licence is still in force and victims become aware that an offender has breached a licence condition—for example, if they have entered an exclusion zone—they may report it to the police or their victim liaison officer. Where the licence is terminated, all licence conditions end, including exclusion zones.”