Police chiefs and MI5 warn Labour's plans to release prisoners early will 'risk public safety' - as they demand Rachel Reeves give them enough cash to maintain order on Britain's streets
Police chiefs and MI5 warn Labour's plans to release prisoners early will 'risk public safety' - as they demand Rachel Reeves give them enough cash to maintain order on Britain's streets
Senior police chiefs and MI5 have warned Labour's plans to release prisoners early could be of 'net detriment to public safety'.
The heads of the Metropolitan Police, MI5 and National Crime Agency were among those who used a letter to the Ministry of Justice to raise their 'collective concerns'.
According to The Times, the letter demanded the 'necessary resources' in Chancellor Rachel Reeves' upcoming spending review to deal with the impact of the plans.
'We have to ensure that out of court does not mean out of justice, and that out of prison does not mean out of control,' it stated.
The Government-commissioned sentencing review, published last week, recommended measures to tackle prison overcrowding.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has agreed to allow some criminals, including violent and sexual offenders, to be released early for good behaviour.
She also agreed to scrap short sentences of under 12 months and have more criminals serve sentences in the community instead.
The police chiefs' letter was sent before the formal announcement of the sentencing review, but police and security bodies had been briefed before it was made.
Senior police chiefs and MI5 have warned Labour's plans to release prisoners early could be of 'net detriment to public safety'
Met Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley was among those to sign a letter to the Ministry of Justice
The letter demanded the 'necessary resources' in Chancellor Rachel Reeves' upcoming spending review to deal with the impact of the plans.
The letter was also signed by the chair of the National Police Chiefs' Council and a top counter-terror officer.
It said: 'On the basis of what we understand at the moment, we are concerned that the proposals could be of net detriment to public safety and certainty to public confidence in policing and the criminal justice system.
'We are not arguing for the status quo. But we have to ensure that out of court does not mean out of justice, and out of prison does not mean out of control.'
Meanwhile, ahead of the spending review on 11 June, six of the UK's most senior police chiefs have separately said they need a larger workforce and called for 'serious investment'.
Met Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, NPCC chairman Gavin Stephens, and the chiefs of Merseyside, West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire police cited the 'increasing public demand, growing social volatility… and new serious and organised crime threats emboldened by the online world'.
In an article for the newspaper, they warned that Labour's pledges on crime and policing would be at risk without 'substantial investments'.
'To deliver this Government's policing ambitions and manage the increasing complexity and demand will require both substantial investments to bolster police officer numbers, grow specialist police staff nationally and enact major police reforms,' they said.
'Now is the most important moment in decades for government to choose to back policing.
'Serious investment will lead to more officers and staff, and the unlocking of reform and increased productivity.
'We are confident that with the right support our extraordinary officers and staff can meet these challenges.
'The alternative is the retrenchment we saw under austerity and, most of all, without investment there will be no restoration of the prevention-focused neighbourhood policing, no halving of knife crime and violence against women and girls and police forces left trying to build confidence with fewer officers focused on the issues that matter to the public.'
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has agreed to allow some criminals, including violent and sexual offenders, to be released early for good behaviour
Responding to the warning that sentencing reforms could put pressure on frontline services, housing minister Matthew Pennycook said 'we can't build our way out of' prison capacity pressures in the short term.
He told Times Radio this morning: 'The risk to public safety I'd highlight is the prospect of our prison system collapsing, which is what we face and why we've had to act.'
Mr Pennycook added: 'Sentencing reform is necessary, and we're taking steps to ensure the most dangerous offenders are kept off our streets and that offenders who are released early are tagged and are monitored closely in the community.
'There's an increase of £700 million in probation funding to achieve that.'
A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We are backing the police to protect our communities and keep our streets safe with up to £17.6billion this year, an increase of up to £1.2billion.
'This includes £200million to kickstart putting 13,000 additional neighbourhood police officers, PCSOs and special constables that the public will see back on their streets and patrolling communities, as part of our Plan for Change.'
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'This Government inherited prisons in crisis, close to collapse. We will never put the public at risk by running out of prison places again.
'We are building new prisons, on track for 14,000 places by 2031 – the largest expansion since the Victorians.
'Our sentencing reforms will force prisoners to earn their way to release or face longer in jail for bad behaviour, while ensuring the most dangerous offenders can be kept off our streets.
'We will also increase probation funding by up to £700million by 2028/29 to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders in the community.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Peers debate change to 105-year-old law so children can work on steam trains
Labour's Lord Faulkner of Worcester proposed an amendment to the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which barred children from work in any 'any industrial undertaking', including in mines, construction or transport. If agreed, his change would have exempted voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways from the ban. Government whip Lord Katz cautioned there 'may be unintended consequences' by amending the 'old legislation', but Lord Faulkner indicated he could push for a vote on his proposal before the Employment Rights Bill becomes law. Supporting the proposals, independent crossbench peer the Earl of Clancarty said: 'Steam railways are an important part of this country's heritage, and as every year passes that importance surely grows. 'We are getting closer to a time when there will be no-one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life, so as well as being an enjoyable activity for interested, enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation.' Lord Faulkner said the ban was from a 'very different era' and told the Lords it 'languished unknown on the statute book for many years'. He said: 'Heritage railways managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law, even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.' Training on heritage railways 'has led to many seeking careers on the national rail network and in some cases have provided training and apprenticeships appropriate to their future career choices', Lord Faulkner added. He warned that even where regulators have said they would not prosecute a child who volunteers on a heritage railway, a legal challenge 'could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young people, regardless of the assurances given'. Historic England chairman and Conservative peer Lord Mendoza said: 'One of the most difficult things in the heritage sector is to encourage young people to come into it, to learn the skills, to learn the trades that we need in order to keep our heritage environment going for as long as we can.' In his response, Lord Katz said 'regulators should and do take a proportionate approach to enforcement action'. He offered a meeting with peers who wanted to change the law, adding: 'The 1920 Act is old legislation and amendment of it should only be considered after a thorough review upon other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences.' Withdrawing his amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, Lord Faulkner said he would 'take up the minister's kind offer' but added that without solution, he believed 'the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on the report' as the draft new law progresses.
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
DWP Winter fuel payments to return for more pensioners 2025
Chancellor Rachel Reeves told reporters that 'more people will get winter fuel payment this winter', adding that further details will be announced 'as soon as we possibly can'. She said: 'People should be in no doubt that the means test will increase and more people will get winter fuel payment this winter.' The means-testing of pensioners' winter fuel payments is an issue which has been blamed for contributing to Labour's poor performance in last month's local elections and the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. Ms Reeves said that she would set out how to pay for any increase in the threshold for the winter fuel allowance at the next budget. Asked whether she would tell the public if she planned to fund her commitments by raising taxes or cutting spending on other departments, the Chancellor said: 'As we have been clear, on winter fuel we will set out how we will fund that at the next fiscal event. 'We will set out how everything will be paid for at the budget in the autumn but it's important that everything that we do is funded, because that's how people know that we can afford it.' (Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) In short, no. Pensions minister Torsten Bell told MPs that, while more pensioners will be eligible, there is no prospect of returning to universal winter fuel payments. Speaking to the Work and Pensions Committee, Mr Bell said: 'Directly on your question of is there any prospect of a universal winter fuel payment, the answer is no, the principle I think most people, 95% of people, agree, that it's not a good idea that we have a system paying a few hundreds of pounds to millionaires, and so we're not going to be continuing with that. 'But we will be looking at making more pensioners eligible.' Very pleased to just hear the Prime Minister has just said he wants more state pensioners to get Winter Fuel Payments (WFP) and they will work out what they're doing in time for the budget. As I've said since day one, there are two main problems with the way the means testing… Mr Bell said he did not have 'lots to add' to what Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had said recently about the allowance. He told the MPs: 'Of course the announcement, as and when it's made, will be made to the House.' Sir Keir recently signalled a partial U-turn over the Government's decision to strip winter fuel payments from millions of pensioners. The Prime Minister said 'as the economy improves', he wanted to look at widening eligibility for the payments, which are worth up to £300. The pensions minister has ruled out returning winter fuel allowance to all pensioners - our recent poll found 33% wanted to do so, but more (44%) thought they should continue to be means tested, but given to more pensioners than under current rules Results link in following… Officials have been unable to say how many more pensioners would be eligible. The decision to means-test the previously universal payment was one of the first announcements by Chancellor Rachel Reeves after Labour's landslide election victory last year, and it has been widely blamed for the party's collapse in support. The Government has insisted the policy was necessary to help stabilise the public finances, allowing the improvements in the economic picture which Sir Keir said could result in the partial reversal of the measure. On July 29 2024, the Government announced that from winter 2024, winter fuel payments would be dependent on receiving another means-tested benefit, as part of measures to fill a 'black hole' in the public finances. This meant the number of pensioners receiving the payment was reduced by around 10 million, from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. Pension credit is the primary benefit by which pensioners can receive the winter fuel payment. The credit tops up incomes for poorer pensioners and acts as a gateway to additional support, including the winter fuel payment. Asked what groups who are currently missing out on winter fuel payments he would like to include again, if possible, Mr Bell told the committee: 'We are committed to the principle that there should be some means-testing and that those on the highest incomes shouldn't be receiving winter fuel payments in the context of wider decisions we have to make – and fairness is an important part of that. 'You can then take from that that my priority is those who are on lower incomes but have missed out.' He told the MPs: 'I'm not getting into anything about the operation of that but just, you know, I think all of us will have heard from people on lower incomes who didn't receive winter fuel payment this year and I understand the points they've raised. And so we'd like to see wider eligibility.' Put to him that a universal winter fuel payment would be '100% guaranteed' to reach those who needed it, Mr Bell told the committee: 'You have to wait for us to set out the policy and we will engage directly with the point you are raising.' Asked what work had been done with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to assess the practicality of recouping payments from higher rate taxpayers, Mr Bell said: 'We're looking at all of the policy options for how this eligibility can be extended, and when I've got more to tell you about that, I absolutely will.' Recommended reading: Commenting on the hearing, Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, said the Government 'now faces a dilemma in determining exactly who should be eligible'. He suggested that one option could be to award the payment to everyone receiving a state pension, clawing the money back from higher income households, potentially through their tax returns. Mr Selby said: 'This might look something like the process for clawing back child benefit for working households, although that has caused mass confusion among taxpayers bamboozled by the complexity of the rules.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's Chagos deal reported to UN human rights chiefs
Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos deal has been reported to UN human rights chiefs over claims it ignores native islanders' desire to return to their homeland. Campaigners have asked the UN's human rights committee in Geneva to examine the deal, under which the UK will give up the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and rent back a military base there. If successful, the request could result in a UN ruling in direct contradiction to the body's International Court of Justice, which said in 2019 that the UK should hand over the islands to Mauritius. Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, who are British citizens but native to the islands, launched an eleventh-hour bid to stop the deal last month, resulting in a dramatic injunction from the High Court in the middle of the night. But their legal challenge was rejected the next day, and the deal went ahead, including a commitment for the UK to pay Mauritius up to £30 billion over the next 99 years. Ms Dugasse and Ms Pompe are now taking their fight to the UN by writing to the committee asking for an advisory opinion that the UK should not sign the deal over human rights concerns. They allege the deal breaches five articles of the UN's international covenant on civil and political rights, including the right to self-determination, freedom of movement and right to return, and minority rights. The deal agreed by Sir Keir has been opposed by MPs from the Conservative and Reform parties, and Tory peers have since launched a campaign to block the deal from the House of Lords. But the Government insists that the deal is vital for national security and will allow the military base on the archipelago's biggest island, Diego Garcia, to continue to operate legally. It follows years of negotiations between Britain and Mauritius, which claims it should have been given sovereignty over the islands when it was given independence from the UK in 1968. The population of the islands, between 1,400 and 1,700 people, was removed in the late 60s and early 70s to make way for the military base. The displaced Chagossians claim that they were not consulted before the Starmer deal was signed, and complain that under the terms agreed between the UK and Mauritius, they will not be allowed to return to Diego Garcia. Ms Pompe said: 'The fight is not over. There is nothing in that treaty for Chagossians and we will fight.' The UN does not have the power to block the deal, but the committee could issue an advisory opinion that would inform Downing Street it could be in breach of international human rights obligations if it proceeds. The campaigners told the committee in a letter, seen by The Telegraph, that the deal 'would amount to a definitive and irreversible endorsement of a continuing violation originally initiated by the colonial power'. It goes on: 'By excluding the Chagossian people from the process and de facto accepting their permanent displacement, the agreement entrenches the denial of their right to return and the effective exercise of their cultural, spiritual rights.' Toby Noskwith, who coordinated last month's legal action, said: 'I pity the poor souls in the No10 press office who are being ordered to justify Keir Starmer's betrayal of the Chagossian people. 'We're looking forward to the explanation of why the UN human rights committee doesn't matter. Not pausing the Chagos deal until the Committee rules is indefensible.'
