Government facing backlash over prison recall changes to free up jail space
Under emergency measures announced by the Justice Secretary, some criminals serving sentences between one and four years will be returned to custody only for a fixed 28-day period.
Offenders are recalled to prison if they commit another offence or breach licence conditions, such as by missing probation appointments, when they are released early but remain on licence.
Shabana Mahmood said the changes were necessary to curb overcrowding as she warned jails are on track to be down to 'zero capacity' by November.
The plans were criticised by victims commissioner Baroness Newlove and domestic abuse commissioner Dame Nicole Jacobs, who said lives would be in danger as a result of the decision.
Baroness Newlove said: 'Victims will understandably feel unnerved and bewildered by today's announcement.
'If the Probation Service, the secretary of state and the Parole Board have all judged these individuals to pose a risk of harm to the public, then reducing time served on recall can only place victims and the wider public at an unnecessary risk of harm.'
Dame Nicole called for the proposal to be scrapped, saying: 'I cannot stress (enough) the lack of consideration for victims' safety and how many lives are being put in danger because of this proposed change.
'You are not sent to prison for four years if you do not pose significant risk to your victim or the wider public.
'Re-releasing them back into the community after 28 days is simply unacceptable.'
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said Labour was 'making the problem worse'.
He said: 'Under Labour's new rules, instead of being recalled to serve the rest of their sentence, they'll be given a fixed-term recall of a pitiful 28 days.
'They are then released, with no reassessment of risk or Parole Board oversight.
'That is not justice. It's a recipe for the breakdown of law and order.
'By telling prisoners that they will never serve their full sentence, even if they reoffend, the Justice Secretary has removed an important deterrent.'
Andrea Coomber KC, chief executive of charity the Howard League for Penal Reform, said the recall change is a 'logical step to take' when the recall population is rising so quickly, and said the upcoming sentencing review is a chance for 'a lasting solution to this mess'.
'There is no time to lose, and only bold reform will do,' she said.
Ministers say the scheme will exclude people convicted of serious violent or sexual offences, as well as terrorist and national security crimes.
The exclusions will focus on offenders managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (Mappa) at Level 2 or 3, the PA news agency understands.
Mappa is used to manage certain sexual and violent offenders in the community, with only the most complex or high-risk individuals put at Level 2 or 3.
It is hoped the emergency measures will free up 1,400 prison places and 'buy time' before sentencing reforms expected to come into force next spring.
Legislation to bring in the changes is expected to be introduced in the coming weeks.
Ms Mahmood also announced three new prisons will be built, starting this year, as part of a 'record prison expansion', but admitted 'we cannot build our way out of this crisis'.
'The consequences of failing to act are unthinkable, but they must be understood,' she said.
'If our prisons overflow, courts cancel trials, police halt their arrests, crime goes unpunished and we reach a total breakdown of law and order.'
The latest weekly prison population in England and Wales was 88,087, 434 below the last peak of 88,521 inmates on September 6, recorded just before the Government began freeing thousands of prisoners early as part of efforts to curb overcrowding.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Labour is heading for war over welfare cuts
Photo by Jordan Pettitt - WPA Pool / Getty Images After the celebration, the hangover. Rachel Reeves' £300bn Spending Review gave Labour MPs plenty to cheer but reality soon intruded. GDP was revealed to have shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April (as Donald Trump's tariffs and higher taxes depressed growth). Israel and Iran's escalating conflict has only further darkened the global outlook. How, in this climate, will Reeves' largesse be paid for? Higher taxes are one answer (the Treasury is already compiling potential revenue raisers ahead of this autumn's Budget); the other is more cuts. When Keir Starmer last month U-turned on winter fuel payments and indicated his intent to abolish the two-child benefit limit, some inside Labour questioned whether the government's welfare bill would ever emerge. But the answer will become clear this week with legislation due to be published on Wednesday ahead of a vote next month. No 10 maintains that there is not just a fiscal case but a moral case for the bill. 'Winter fuel was a policy that was forced on us in a difficult situation at the start,' an aide told me. 'Welfare reform is an argument that we want to make about how to protect the most vulnerable and how to help people into work.' Starmer himself is moved to passion on this question, telling the cabinet earlier this year that there is 'nothing progressive' about a system in which one in eight young people are not in employment, education or training, and one in ten working-age people are claiming at least one type of health or disability benefit (with spending projected to rise from £48.5bn in 2023-24 to £75.7bn in 2029-30). But he faces the biggest revolt of his premiership to date. Forty-two Labour MPs have signed a public letter describing the £5bn cuts – which would see 370,000 current Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants and 430,000 future ones lose an average of £4,500 – as 'impossible to support'. More than 100 have signed a private letter to the Chief Whip ('none of us are consistent rebels,' they emphasise), warning that they too are unable to endorse the proposals. Here is why a government with a Commons majority of 165 seats has been forced to contemplate the possibility of defeat (with Downing Street also primed for ministerial resignations). The Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall – who faces the defining test of her political career – has sought to contain the rebellion by offering an 'olive branch' to critics. Those who no longer qualify for PIP would continue to receive payments for 13 weeks (rather than the standard four) and those with lifelong conditions or fewer than 12 months to live would automatically receive a higher rate of Universal Credit and be exempt from reassessments. By the end of the parliament, No 10 points out, there will still be an extra 750,000 people receiving PIP. Yet most MPs remain unmoved. 'The hang-tough position dressed up as concessions won't wash,' one soft-left figure told me. 'MPs know how this stuff works and can't be fobbed off.' Many privately warn that only a change in the assessment criteria would persuade them to support the bill. At present individuals who need help dressing, washing and feeding themselves would no longer receive PIP. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe What lies ahead is nothing less than a battle over Labour's founding purpose. For some – as cabinet ministers often like to put it, 'the clue is in the name' – this is the party of work, not welfare. Others riposte that Labour's duty is precisely to support those unable to support themselves. Kendall's task is to convince rebels that her bill does. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Impunity is fuelling Israel's spiralling aggression] Related
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Spending Review: Are wealth taxes on the horizon?
Summary: Major pledges included £113 billion in capital funding for infrastructure projects. Defence and health saw healthy boosts to their budgets. Overall, the government has committed to £300 billion in future spending. But could the cost of meeting those pledges have ongoing implications for wealth taxes? Spending reviews were introduced by Labour in 1998 and typically cover a three-year period. These set out the funding that different government departments will receive over that time. The big winners in the 2025 Spending Review included the Department of Health. It received a £29 billion boost. This will lay the groundwork for the NHS 10-year plan – details of which should be published shortly. Energy infrastructure will benefit from substantial capital investment, including in nuclear. Defence spending will increase by £11 billion. Meanwhile Chancellor Rachel Reeves' reinstatement of the Winter Fuel Allowance has unsurprisingly garnered headlines. Labour's first Spending Review in 18 years was long awaited but had few surprises. But more relevant for many is what this review is likely to mean for the Autumn Budget. The economic backdrop The UK economic outlook is far from bright. UK inflation remains sticky. In other words, it remains higher than expected. There are risks to growth, not least from the potential impact of US tariffs. Gilt yields have risen, pushing up the cost of government borrowing. Justin Onuekwusi, SJP's Chief Investment Officer, says: 'Despite a strong start to the year, we expect the UK economy will likely slow down through the rest of the year due to weakening business sentiment and the impact of tax increases in increased employer contribution implemented in April. Read more: 'We remain concerned about inflation and believe it is likely to remain inflated. Services inflation is still running at over 5% and despite some softening in the labour market, pay growth remains stubbornly high. 'Though the review mainly allocates existing funds, ongoing public spending pressures suggest future borrowing and possible tax rises.' Looking ahead to the Autumn Budget The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in the autumn will need to consider these issues. It will also have to factor in other governmental policy initiatives, such as changes to immigration. There is also little doubt the Chancellor will face pressure from her party to spend more in the Autumn Budget. In its election manifesto, Labour ruled out increases to income tax, employee national insurance contributions and VAT. But there are other levers it can pull. It is estimated the government could levy tax rises of around £15 billion without crossing these red lines. But this leaves little room for substantial spending commitments. This is fuelling expectations that tax rises could be on the horizon. The likely candidates There are a number of tax-rising measures that have been speculated on. These include extending the freeze in personal tax thresholds beyond April 2028, which could raise around £7 billion per annum. Further measures to limit tax avoidance could be introduced, while changes to property taxation are possible. This could take the form of scope for an additional band on council tax or an increase to existing higher bands to raise up to £2 billion. There has also been speculation about reintroducing the lifetime allowance on pensions and looking at salary sacrifice arrangements. However, both would be difficult to implement and cause sector-specific issues, especially for the NHS. Advice Divisional Director Claire Trott says: 'Salary sacrifice arrangements offer valuable National Insurance (NI) savings for both employers and employees, so any changes would be unwelcome, especially in light of the increase to employers' NI earlier this year. 'Introducing further changes to pension taxation also risks undermining pensions as a long-term savings vehicle. With other changes to the pension system on the horizon, there is a danger that these alterations could cause even more confusion and savers could become more disengaged with pensions – which is especially worrying as individuals have increasing responsibility to plan and save for their retirement.' An update on ISAs is likely to form part of the Autumn Budget too. The Treasury has been keen to encourage greater investment in UK markets. One suggestion which regularly crops up is of a cap on cash ISAs – the thinking being that people would instead invest more in equities in an ISA. James Heal, SJP's Director of Public Policy adds: 'We've been engaged in government and industry discussions around potential changes, including a cap on cash ISAs to encourage greater investment, but there are other measures such as simplifying ISAs (i.e. a single wrapper to make it easier to hold cash and or investments within that) which might be a more fruitful means to achieving this. 'We remain strong advocates for the value of investing, particularly once a sufficient emergency cash buffer has been established.' Ben Stark is a chartered financial planner with over a decade of experience advising businesses and families. He is partnered with St. James's Place Wealth Management.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Winter fuel payments Scotland: John Swinney gives major update on payments for pensioners
First Minister John Swinney has provided an update on winter fuel payments in Scotland. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... John Swinney has declared that pensioners in Scotland will not be short changed by the SNP's winter fuel payment system. Earlier this month the Labour UK government said it was reinstating a winter fuel payment of up to £300 for pensioners with an income of less than £35,000 in England and Wales. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad John Swinney has made a commitment around winter fuel payments in Scotland. There were fears this would leave pensioners in Scotland receiving less money, as the scheme introduced by the SNP would give them only £100 unless they were in receipt of pension credit or over the age of 80. However, the First Minister has now confirmed during a speech in Glasgow on Monday that no pensioner in Scotland will receive less money than those south of the Border. John Swinney speaks to journalists following First Minister's Questions at the Scottish Parliament. Picture: JeffDuring his speech, Mr Swinney said: "I can confirm today that no pensioner in Scotland will receive less under the new UK government scheme -- the details will be set out soon, but the Scottish Government will always seek to do what's best for Scotland's pensioners." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In his speech, Mr Swinney also said he was "appalled" when the Labour government in Westminster scrapped universal winter fuel payments last summer. He said: "To be blunt, I don't believe cutting winter fuel payments was ever going to save a penny because making millions of pensioners poorer makes them colder, which makes them sicker.
