Government facing backlash over prison recall changes to free up jail space
Ministers are facing a backlash from victims and domestic abuse watchdogs over planned changes to prison recall which would see some offenders released within a month 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
Abortion is returning to British politics
Stella Creasy's amendment looks to decriminalise abortion and to make it a human right – but it would also ensure those who undergo a late-term abortion (up to birth) are not subject to prison sentences. Photo byThe decision to have an abortion is deeply private and extremely personal. One in three women in the UK have undergone or will undergo this procedure, and despite the views of some pro-life groups, it does not make them guilty of 'most significant violation of human rights to ever occur'. Since David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act, passed almost 60 years ago, women in the UK have been able to access abortion up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, safely and under the care of a medical professional. Because that is what abortion is: a medical procedure, one which it is essential that women in continue to be able to access safely, privately and without judgement. Countless women before Steel's reforms were not as fortunate; those who needed or wanted to end a pregnancy before 1967 were forced into desperate measures, making dangerous attempts at home or obtaining one via an illegal abortionist, some of whom were woefully qualified. The back-street abortionist, who looms in Annie Ernaux's memoir Happening, is hard to forget. After obtaining an illegal abortion in 1963, the 23-year-old Ernaux almost died but she could not seek medical assistance, or she could have been prosecuted. Though this is a French example, back-street abortionists and dangerous at-home methods were extremely prevalent in the UK before 1967; that women are now able to access these procedures safely shows how much progress we've made since the Abortion Act. But despite Steel's progressive reforms, accessing an abortion in England and Wales in 2025 is still technically illegal. The Abortion Act decriminalised abortion under certain circumstances, exempting women from prosecution, but the act is framed in a way which means that abortion is not a right. Though men enjoy complete autonomy over their reproductive health, women are still limited in theirs. Since 1967 they have continued to be prosecuted for accessing an abortion under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act; a recent example being Nicola Packer, who was arrested for taking abortion pills at 26 weeks. (Packer has since been acquitted, as she believed she was only six weeks along when she took the pills.) Two amendments to the government's Crime and Policing Bill, which enters its report stage in the House of Commons this week, aim to change this. One (known as NC1) has been brought by the Welsh Labour MP for Llanelli, Tonia Antoniazzi. It seeks to remove 'women from the criminal law related to abortion', meaning that 'no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy'. Under NC1, women would be completely removed from the criminal framework (they would no longer be able to be prosecuted under the 1861 Act) but medical professionals would not be exempt. The logic of this is to make the law unworkable in practice, as accessing abortion is unsafe without medical assistance, meaning it will eventually be changed to exempt medical professionals from criminal liability. Antoniazzi's amendment accounts for the sensitivity of this issue; instead of going full force on decriminalisation, and therefore risking a regression, it looks to change the law by stealth. NC1 has been backed by more than 50-cross party MPs, including Labour's Nadia Whittome and Antonia Bance and the Liberal Democrats' Daisy Cooper, as well as pro-choice organisations such as MSI Reproductive Choices and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. Another (known as NC20) has been brought by Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow. Creasy's amendment also looks to decriminalise abortion and to make it a human right. Unlike Antoniazzi's amendment, however, NC20 would remove criminal penalties for both women and medical professionals involved in abortions at the same time. It would ensure those who undergo a late-term abortion (up to birth) are not subject to prison sentences. Creasy's amendment does not provide for coercive abortion offences, nor does it allow for the potential amendment of abortion law in the Commons in the future. In other words, this amendment would immediately force a major departure from the UK's current abortion laws almost overnight, if it is passed. In contrast to NC1, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, MSI Choices and other pro-choice groups have not backed NC20. Rachel Clarke, head of advocacy at BPAS said: 'It is essential that any huge change to abortion law is properly considered.' There is a pervading sense of confusion among Labour MPs (many of whom are broadly supportive of liberalising abortion rights) over why two amendments are being brought which essentially aim to do the same thing. Others are worried that by bringing two amendments at the same time draws too much attention to this issue; abortion rights are both incredibly important and incredibly divisive. They worry that debating both at once undermines the ability to make positive change. Though the public remain widely supportive of abortion rights (87 per cent are in favour), this support dips as soon as the question turns to whether the 24-week limit. While just under half (49 per cent) of Britons support 24-weeks, a quarter of the public think it is too late. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Some in politics already believe the debate should be re-opened. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has already called for a debate the UK's abortion limit, with the aim of rolling-back the timeline. 'Is 24 weeks right for abortion given that we now save babies at 22?' he said. 'That to me would be worthy of a debate in parliament.' If the law moves too quickly to the extreme, this could be ripe ground for Farage and other pro-life MPs and campaigners to capitalise on. That a quarter of the public are against 24 weeks is already a substantial number and it could only grow if fuelled by the right campaign. The last thing women in the UK need is a regression in their ability to access a safe and supervised abortion. Creasy clearly believes her amendment is a noble one. Writing for Glamour magazine, she said: 'No one should have to explain why they choose to have an abortion, nor fear a knock on the door from the police if they do.' And she's right. An abortion is a private medical decision made by a woman with advice from her doctor. But Creasy forgets that the UK is a small-c conservative country. Radical changes do not happen overnight. Pushing back more than 150 years of legislation must be done sensitively, and by stealth. If Parliament moves too suddenly to change the UK's archaic abortion laws, it risks undoing decades of fundamental progress for a woman's right to control her own body; progress which we must not be forced to give up. [See also: The legacy of 'pro-life' abortion bans is death] Related
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Will the assisted dying vote be delayed?
All is not well with the Labour lot. It has emerged that more than 50 lefty MPs submitted a letter to the Leader of the Commons, Lucy Powell, at the weekend – demanding she intervene to delay this Friday's final third reading vote on Kim Leadbeater's controversial assisted dying bill. The letter blasts the limited opportunities afforded to parliamentarians to speak on the bill and fumes that 'several movers of amendments haven't been able to speak to the changes they have laid'. Oo er. The concerned crowd includes, as reported by the Independent, a group of 2024ers alongside some longer-serving MPs. Former journalists Paul Waugh and Torcuil Crichton have added their signatures to the letter, alongside politicians Florence Eshalomi and Dawn Butler. Their memo makes the case for why the private members bill process is simply not a sufficient way of dealing with such a significant issue. The MPs refer to the assisted dying bill as 'perhaps the most consequential pieces of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations', before going on: This is not a normal Bill. It alters the foundations of our NHS, the relationship between doctor and patient, and it strips power away from parliament, concentrating it in the hands of future health secretaries. The sponsor of the bill has proudly stated that it has received more time in parliament than some government bills have. And yet MPs have had the opportunity to vote on just 12 of 133 amendments tabled at report stage. Just 14 per cent of MPs have been afforded the opportunity to speak in the chamber on this bill. Several movers of amendments haven't been able to speak to the changes they have laid. The fact that such fundamental changes are being made to this Bill at the eleventh hour is not a badge of honour, it is a warning. The private member's bill process has shown itself to be a woefully inadequate vehicle for the introduction of such a foundational change to our NHS and the relationship between doctor and patient. This is no longer about debating the abstract principle of assisted dying. The bill before parliament has created real concern with medical experts and charities. MPs and the government should listen to their expertise. Strong stuff. As Mr S has long reported, the controversial bill has come under significant criticism this year. The replacement of the high court judge safeguard with Leadbeater's proposed 'expert panel' prompted angry outbursts from psychiatrists and their Royal College – one of the medical professions that was expected to make up this panel. The suggestion that the euthanasia process could see a 'voluntary assisted dying commissioner' – dubbed the 'death czar' by online critics – oversee cases provoked more fear. More concerningly, the bill committee struck down an amendment that called for support for those with Down's syndrome when initiating conversations on assisted suicide. And one of the many amendments not voted on was Labour MP Naz Shah's demand for protection for those with eating disorders like anorexia. So will Sir Keir's top team intervene at the final hour? Watch this space…
Daily Record
2 hours ago
- Daily Record
Truckloads of Scotland's rubbish to be exported to England after landfill ban
Labour MSP Sarah Boyack said the policy is "farcical". Truck loads of Scotland's waste will be exported to England at the end of the year after a landfill ban kicks in. SNP Ministers are banning 'black bag' waste from being buried in landfill from December 31st, but the BBC says they have admitted there are not enough incinerators to cope with extra demand. The Scottish Government has said the export of waste will only be a short term solution. Labour MSP Sarah Boyack said: 'This farcical policy speaks volumes about the SNP's sticking-plaster approach to government. 'Once again the SNP has set ambitious targets and completely messed up the delivery. "The climate emergency is a global one and the SNP is not doing the heavy lifting urgently required. 'The SNP needs a real plan to reduce waste and protect our natural environment.' The landfill ban relates to biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) and applies to domestic and commercial waste. It has been reported that up to 100 truckloads of Scotland's waste will be moved each day to England once the ban comes in. The Government wants to end black bag waste being buried in landfill sites by ramping up recycling rates and using incinerators. David Balmer, a waste expert from ERS Remediation, told the BBC Scotland Disclosure programme: "You're looking at the equivalent of between 80 and 100 trucks minimum running seven days a week to take this material to a facility in England or abroad." Gillian Martin, cabinet secretary for Climate Action and Energy, said: "The reason for the incineration gap is due to outside factors, particularly inflation and the cost of initially building them. "We've got plans for more incinerators, with energy from waste schemes, to come on in the next year, and over the next three years - so it is a temporary situation." Domestic recycling rates are not increasing as quickly as Ministers would like to see. Scottish homes recycled 41.6% of their waste in 2013 but ten years later the figure had increased by less than 2 percentage points to 43.5%. The Scottish Government said "Any export of waste should only ever be viewed as a short-term solution."
