Sentencing Bill
Tuesday 16th September 2025
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberSentencing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 340 / Noes: 77 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Robert Jenrick has been selected.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is my pleasure to open this debate—my first since being appointed Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. It is an honour to be back on this beat and to take up this brief. Justice has always been at the heart of my politics over the past 25 years. Far from being abstract, it runs through every aspect of our lives: our education, our health and the opportunities that people have to succeed. It has shaped my life, from studying and practising law to serving as a Minister in the old Department for Constitutional Affairs, and of course as shadow Justice Secretary.
During David Cameron’s period as Prime Minister, I was asked to conduct an independent review on racial disparity in the justice system. I grew up as a working-class kid in Tottenham and saw too many young black men end up on the wrong side of the law. I represented Tottenham during the 2011 London riots, addressing at first hand the destruction caused when peaceful protests were hijacked by violent criminals. During the Lammy review I also saw the state of our prisons, which are operating at close to maximum capacity, putting the public at risk of harm.
Public protection is exactly why we have introduced the Bill before us today. At the heart of it is the threat that the previous Conservative Government left us with: that our prisons could run of out places entirely, leaving us with nowhere to put dangerous offenders, police without the capacity to make arrests, courts unable to hold trials and a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times. As Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, I will never allow that to happen, because the first duty of Government is to keep the public safe.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I broadly welcome the Bill’s provisions, which will take on the mess that the Conservatives left behind. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is important to get the right balance between the purpose of prison, particularly for violent crime, which is to rehabilitate criminals, but also to provide a deterrent and punishment, and maintaining public safety and delivering restorative justice?
Mr Lammy
That is a very good summary. We must have punishment that works, and I will talk about that later in my speech.
When we look at the record of the previous Government, and I have looked at the figures very closely, we see that the recidivism rates were running at 60%, 65%, 68%. Something is not working when people go back to prison over and over again. I got the Department to give me the figures: over 5 million offences. All those offences have victims. We have to do something about it, and the Bill will begin to get us into the right place, because the first duty of government is to keep the public safe.
But the Bill is not only about preventing an emergency; it also takes us back to the purpose of sentencing, which must be, as has been said, punishment that works—punishment that works for victims, who deserve to see perpetrators face retribution; punishment that works for society, which wants criminals to return to society less dangerous, not more; and punishment that works to prevent crime.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
There is much to welcome in the Sentencing Bill, including the inclusion of restriction zone measures, which are testament to the tireless work of my constituent Rhianon Bragg and her fellow campaigners. Details need to be clarified, however. Which offenders will be automatically included? Will the measures be applied retrospectively and, if so, to which offenders? Where will the zones be in relation to victims, and how will they be used and monitored in ways that are different from the current exclusion zone arrangements?
Mr Lammy
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member’s constituents for fighting to ensure that we got the balance right. At the heart of this—again, I will come on to this, and I know it will be explored in depth in Committee—the system of exclusion zones we have effectively excludes people from areas, and a lot of women who face domestic violence, who have had stalkers or who have faced violent men have had the situation where someone has been excluded. What we are doing is turning that on its head and restricting the individual to a particular place, house or street, which will give those women much more safety than they have had previously. I hope that her constituents will welcome that, because I know it is something that domestic violence campaigners in particular were calling for.
I want to thank David Gauke and his panel of criminal justice experts for carrying out the independent sentencing review, which laid the groundwork for the Bill. It was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work. I went through it in detail, obviously, when I got into the job. I also thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), for her work in bringing the Bill to this point.
When it comes to prison places running out, the constituents of Members right across the House ask, “Why don’t we just build more prisons?” That is what they ask on the street. In their 14 years in office, how many prison cells did the Conservatives find? I have shadowed the Foreign Affairs brief or been in the Foreign Affairs job for about three and a half or four years, so I could not quite believe the figure when I arrived in the Department. I thought it was wrong. In 14 years in office, 500 cells were all they found—500!
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Earlier at Justice questions, the right hon. Gentleman’s Department attempted to take credit for HMP Millsike—and for its 1,468 places, which were confirmed to me in a written parliamentary answer—even though it was approved under the Conservative Government. Does he acknowledge that that prison was in fact started under the Conservative Government in 2021?
Mr Lammy
If the hon. Gentleman stops baying like a child and lets me come to the point, he asks me about the Conservatives’ record and their record was this: violence up in prisons, self-harm up in prisons, suicide skyrocketing in prisons, assaults rising by 113% and assaults on staff rising by 217%. That was their record. The hon. Gentleman can look at it in detail in the Ministry of Justice figures.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The right hon. Gentleman will not remember but I used to live adjacent to his constituency, and I remember what he was like as a local MP. He did not answer my question about the 1,468 places at HMP Millsike. He accuses me of “baying like a child”, and I appreciate that when he is on the back foot, he likes to give a little nervous chuckle to avoid answering the question, but instead of deflecting, will he address the point about the prison places that his Minister claimed this morning were built by his Government when they were in fact started four years ago by the last Conservative Government?
Mr Lammy
I have had fun with the hon. Gentleman, but I must make some progress.
The Government are funding the largest expansion since the Victorians. In our first year, we opened nearly 2,500 new places, and, as I said to the hon. Gentleman, we are on track to add 14,000 by 2031. In the next four years alone, we will spend £4.7 billion on prison building, answering the question that our constituents ask: “Where are the prisons?” However, unless we act on sentencing as well, we could still run out of places by early next year. Demand is projected to outstrip supply by many thousands in spring 2028. We cannot simply build our way out. We must reform sentencing and deliver punishment that works.
The Government’s starting point is clear: the public must be protected. More than 16,000 prisoners convicted of the most serious and heinous crimes are serving extended determinate or life sentences. Those serving the former can be released early only by the independent Parole Board, and those serving the latter can only ever be released at its discretion. Nothing in the Bill will change that, because it is punishment that works. Those who commit the gravest crimes will continue to face the toughest sentences.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Road accidents caused by negligence and people on drugs and alcohol cause havoc for those who lose members of their family. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in thanking those families and activist groups, including RoadPeace, Mat MacDonald, our local media in Birmingham and the journalist Jane Haynes, for their campaign to bring about life sentences for the worst driving?
Mr Lammy
Dangerous and reckless driving that takes innocent lives is a serious and painful issue that causes lots of anguish across our country, so I applaud the work of the hon. Member’s constituents and thank him for raising that issue; no doubt it can be explored further in Committee.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the new Justice Secretary will not want to be accused of misleading the House on such important matters. A moment ago, he referred to the measures before the House not affecting the sentences for people accused of “the gravest crimes”. The measures before the House will reduce sentences for rapists and child abusers. He either thinks that those are grave crimes and wants to correct the record, or he does not—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That is quite simply not a point of order but a point of debate, which the shadow Secretary of State could well come to in due course.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On that point, will the Justice Secretary give way?
Mr Lammy
I am going to make some progress.
The Bill introduces a new progression model for standard determinate sentences, incentivising offenders to behave in prison. It draws heavily on reforms that were pioneered in Texas, which ended their capacity crisis. I was very pleased last week to meet Derek Cohen, a leading Republican thinker.
I refer the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) to clauses 20 and 21, which amend the release point. For regular standard determinate sentences, a minimum of one third will be served in prison. For more serious crimes on a standard determinate sentence, at least half must be served inside. Bad behaviour—violence, possession of a mobile phone and so on—could add more time in custody.
To ensure that the worst behaved offenders stay inside longer, we will double the maximum additional days for a single incident from 42 to 84. This has got to be punishment that works, with sentences that are tougher when offenders show contempt for the rules of prison. What we want, and what I think the public want, are people coming out of prison reformed. That is what we are attempting to do.
Sir Edward Leigh
I have a lot of sympathy with the Bill and with the argument that there is no point calling for longer and longer sentences unless we build prisons. I accept that, but I am worried about the presumption that if someone is sentenced to fewer than 12 months, they should not receive a custodial sentence. As a former practising barrister, I understand the arguments for why short sentences often do not work, but people committing offences such as shoplifting are complete pests, and they are causing enormous damage to the economy. It may sound hard, but sometimes we have to issue short sentences for that sort of offence. We should trust the courts and not try as parliamentarians to impose our judgment on them.
Mr Lammy
I understand the seriousness of the point the Father of the House makes. Let me say this. First, we are not abolishing short sentences. The presumption to suspend short sentences does apply, but not where there is significant risk of harm to an individual.
In 2019, the last Government commissioned work on this, which David Gauke relied on in his review, and it was deep research. The problem was that the recidivism rate for those who were committing short offences was desperate. They are prolific precisely because prison does not work for that particular cohort. What is also in the Bill—I think this is good, catholic stuff—is the intensive supervision court, where the judge gets to grips with what is happening with the defendant. Is it drugs? Is it alcohol? Is it addiction? What is going on? The judge really grips what is going on to get underneath the prolific offending. I emphasise that we are not abolishing short sentences entirely. I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
Under the measures, released offenders will still be deprived of their liberty. Immediately after prison, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision by the Probation Service. Clauses 24 and 25 introduce a strengthened licence period with strict conditions tailored to risk and offence, and it will be possible to apply new restrictive licence conditions to stop offenders from going to the pub, attending football matches or driving cars—restricting their liberties and their life in order to prevent them from being prolific.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor describes a system that will rest heavily on the Probation Service and the reliability of tagging systems. Unfortunately, in my constituency surgeries I have recently heard from constituents who are living in fear as the victims of violent crime, because the perpetrators have not been efficiently tagged in time on release. Will the Lord Chancellor assure us that there will be adequate resources for the Probation Service, and that contracts given to tagging firms such as Serco will be supervised to ensure that the services are of a reliable standard?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which was why I ensured that my first visit in post was to a probation setting. I pay tribute to our probation workers. They deserve full credit for all that they do. It has been important for us to find the extra resources to put into probation, to grow the numbers and the support, and to ensure appropriate supervision of tagging—to fine Serco where necessary but to ensure that the system is robust and works. That is of course a priority for this Government, as the hon. Gentleman might expect. I am grateful to him for raising the importance of probation.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I saw a worrying statistic that one in 20 people in the UK will be victims of domestic violence, which is truly shocking. I am sure that communities such as mine in Harlow will be particularly concerned about that. What will the Bill do to tackle that scourge?
Mr Lammy
Domestic violence is a serious issue. That is why having a flag in the system is important to ensure appropriate provision for that particular cohort of offenders who might leave prison and continue to offend, so that they can be recalled. Such provision is particularly important to domestic violence campaigners.
It will be possible to apply new restrictive licence conditions and, as mentioned, tagging will be central to depriving offenders of their freedom while they are outside prison. That is why I am introducing a new presumption in our system, that every offender is tagged on leaving prison. Reoffending rates, as I have said, are 20% lower when curfew tagging is used in community sentences. Today, about 20,000 people in the justice system are tagged. The proposed expansion will see up to 22,000 more tagged each year, and many under curfews and exclusion zones as well. This is punishment that works —not just a spell inside, but strict conditions outside, enforced by technology that we know cuts crime.
For the final phase of a sentence, the independent review recommended an “at risk” period without supervision. I think that that provision would cause concern across the House, so I rejected it. Under this legislation, all offenders released into the community will remain on licence. The highest risk will receive intensive supervision. Others will remain liable for recall to prison, with any further offence potentially leading to recall, even if it would not normally attract a custodial sentence. The prospect of prison must continue to hang over offenders, both as a means of ensuring that they mend their ways and as a punishment should they fail to do so.
In June 2018, there were 6,300 recalled offenders in prison. Today there are more than 13,500 prisoners in that category. Clauses 26 to 30 therefore introduce a standard 56-day recall, which gives prison staff time to manage risk and prepare for release. Some offenders will be excluded from this change and will continue to receive standard-term recalls, including those serving extended sentences and sentences for offenders of particular concern; those referred to the Parole Board under the power to detain; those convicted of terrorism, terrorism-connected offences and national security offences; and those who pose a terrorist or national security risk.
Those under higher levels of multi-agency public protection arrangements—levels 2 and 3—will also be excluded. That includes many of the most dangerous domestic abusers and sex offenders. Finally, those recalled on account of being charged with any further offence will be excluded too. They will only be released before the end of their sentence under a risk-assessed review or if the Parole Board says they are safe. This is punishment that works: breaches met with swift consequences, so offenders know that recall is a real threat hanging over their lives.
For some offenders, sadly prison is the only option. For others, we must ask whether custody is the most effective approach. The evidence is damning. In the most recent cohort, over a third of all adult offenders released from custody or who started a court order reoffended. More than 60% of those on short sentences of less than 12 months reoffend within a year. This is the legacy of the last Government: a system that fails to turn offenders away from crime and a revolving door of repeat offending.
The scale is shocking. Of the July to September 2023 cohort, 21,936 adults went on to reoffend within a year, and for the first time since 2018, over 100,000 reoffences were committed. That is what happens when there is a failure to take the tough choices needed to reform the system, a failure to invest in probation, as has been discussed, and a failure to act on the evidence.
Clause 1 introduces a presumption to suspend short prison sentences, and is expected to prevent over 10,000 reoffences each year. Let me be clear: this change will not abolish short sentences, as I said to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Judges will retain the power to impose them in certain instances, such as where there is significant risk of harm to an individual, including victims at risk in domestic abuse cases; where a court order has been breached—for example, if a prolific offender fails to comply with the requirements of a community order or suspended sentence; and in any other exceptional circumstances.
Similarly, clause 2 widens the scope for suspended sentences, increasing the limit from two years to three, but custody will remain available wherever necessary to protect the public. Clause 41 also updates the “no real prospect” test in the Bail Act 1976, clarifying that bail should be granted if custody is unlikely. But, again, the courts will continue to be able to remand offenders where there is a need to do so. This is punishment that works: short sentences and custody reserved for those who pose a real risk, while others are punished more effectively in the community, unlike the previous approach, which left reoffending out of control.
Punishment must apply whether sentences are served inside or outside prison. Just as offenders released from prison will face restrictions to their liberty, similar curtailments will be available for those serving sentences in the community. As I have discussed, that includes tagging, where appropriate, and clauses 13 to 15 will mean that it could also include banning people from a pub, from attending a football match or from driving a car.
Clause 3 will also make it possible to introduce income reduction orders, requiring certain offenders with a higher income who avoid prison through suspended sentences to pay a percentage of their income for the good of the victims, ensuring that crime does not pay. There is community payback, which we will also expand. Working with local authorities, offenders will restore neighbourhoods, remove fly-tipping, clear rubbish and clean the streets. Again, this is punishment that works, with liberty restricted, income reduced and hard work demanded to repair the harm done.
Some 80% of offenders are now reoffenders. Alongside punishment, we must address the causes of crime. Four intensive supervision courts already operate, targeting offenders driven by addiction or poor mental health, and they impose tough requirements to tackle those causes. Evidence from Texas shows that these courts cut crime, with a 33% fall in arrests compared with prison sentences. More than three quarters of offenders here meet the conditions set, and we will expand that work, opening new courts across the country to target prolific offenders, with expressions of interest now launched to identify future sites. Again, we are following the evidence here. Pilots show that intensive courts cut crime, and we will scale them up.
Victims must be at the heart of our system. Too often they have been an afterthought in the justice system, and this Bill changes that. Clause 4 amends the statutory purposes of sentencing to reference protecting victims as part of public protection, requiring courts to consider victims—and we are going to go further. Clauses 16 and 24 strengthen the restriction on the movement of offenders. Current exclusion zones protect victims at home, but leave them fearful when they step outside. For that reason, the Bill establishes a new power that restricts the movement of offenders more comprehensively than ever before.
These new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that the victims can move freely everywhere else. That was campaigned for by the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation, Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, who I understand are in the Public Gallery today; I pay tribute to them and to all who have campaigned for this crucial change.
It is vital that we ensure our monitoring is equal to the risk that offenders pose and the protections that victims need. Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which enables probation to identify abusers early, to track patterns of behaviour and to put safeguards in place.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Does the Lord Chancellor agree with my concerns that neither the Bill nor the excellent report that preceded it make any mention of restorative justice—a process that truly puts the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process? Will he pledge in future legislation to address that omission?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before the Lord Chancellor responds, let me say that a huge number of his own Back Benchers would like to get in this afternoon. He might therefore like to think about getting to the end of his contribution.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the steer. You know how it is, Madam Deputy Speaker; this is my first outing, and I was getting a little carried away with how good this Bill is. The intensive supervision courts will be able to look closely at restorative justice, which, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) rightly says, is a fundamental part of our criminal justice system.
There is a growing area of crime in relation to sexual offences. It is important that I mention the trial that has been running for three years in the south-west, piloting medication to manage problematic sexual arousal. These drugs restrain sexual urges in offenders who could pose a risk to the public, and are delivered alongside psychological interventions that target other drivers of offending, including asserting power and control. Although the evidence base is limited, it is positive. For that reason, we will roll out the approach nationwide, starting with two new regions—the north-west and the north-east—covering up to 20 prisons.
I have already discussed investing in probation, so mindful of your encouragement, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will end by saying that the Bill ensures that our prisons will never run out of space again. But it does more than that: it ensures that prison sentences rehabilitate, turning offenders away from crime; it ensures that victims are at the heart of justice, with safeguards in place; it expands effective sentencing outside of prison for those who can be managed in the community; it follows the evidence of what works; it is pragmatic and principled, protecting the public; and it draws a clear line under the Tory record of failure. After 14 years that left the average number of reoffences per offender at a record high, Labour is delivering punishment that works through a justice system that follows the evidence.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Before the Lord Chancellor finishes, I want to welcome and highlight the measures in the Bill that deal with offenders, particularly clauses 7 to 10, which respond directly to Russia’s increasing use of petty criminals instead of its own agents in its campaigns of sabotage. This is something that my constituents have already been directly affected by, after incidents of warehouse arson and Islamophobic vandalism earlier in the year. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that we need to clearly advertise that petty criminals who work with malign states will be investigated, tried and sentenced in line with the threat they pose?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend knows that in my previous role, I unfortunately saw the increased risk of state threats and the pedagogy through which states are committing those crimes. It is absolutely right that a cohort of young men—petty criminals—are being used, and not just by Russia; there are other states that we could mention as well. It is important that those crimes are dealt with.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Before the Lord Chancellor finishes his speech, can I direct him to part 4 of the Bill, which is one of the parts that applies to the whole United Kingdom? It provides for the deportation of criminal offenders. Has he considered the viability of that necessary clause, clause 42, in the light of the fact that in Northern Ireland—because of article 2 of the Windsor framework—those offenders sadly enjoy enhanced protections due to the importation of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights? Will the Lord Chancellor take steps to ensure that part 4 will apply to the whole United Kingdom by imposing a notwithstanding clause, stating that, notwithstanding article 2 of the Windsor framework, the same provisions will apply across the United Kingdom? It really would be preposterous if foreign criminals could be deported from one part of the United Kingdom but not from another.
Mr Lammy
Our intention is clear: foreign national offenders must be removed from our system. We will study this issue in detail in Committee. I am proud that on my watch as Foreign Secretary, we increased returns by 14%. It is hugely important that people do not feel able to come to our country and commit crime, unimpeded.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Sentencing Bill, despite supporting measures to better identify domestic abusers on sentencing, because the Bill will lead to an increase in the number of dangerous criminals on the streets, putting the public, particularly women and girls, at risk, and this is compounded by HM Inspectorate of Probation’s finding that HM Prison and Probation Service ‘requires improvement’ meaning it is not equipped to deal with the further pressures imposed by this Bill; because the Bill will undermine public confidence, particularly victims’ confidence, in the criminal justice system by enabling serious violent and sexual offenders to be released from prison early, and repealing measures to ensure law-enforcement and victims’ perspectives are secured in parole decisions; and will cause further loss of public trust in the criminal justice system because it will not end the scandal of identity-based sentencing.”
I welcome the Justice Secretary once again to his position, and congratulate him again on his demotion to Deputy Prime Minister. When he rose to introduce the Bill, I half-expected him to rise waving a flag instead of a Bill. It would not be a Union flag or a St George’s flag, of course, although if he were inclined, I would be happy to come to his constituency and help him put those up. It would be a white flag, because this Bill is nothing less than a complete and total surrender—a surrender of our streets and our safety to the criminals presently terrorising them. The Justice Secretary is already a man known for surrendering the Chagos islands, but if this Bill passes, he will be remembered as the man who surrendered our streets to criminals here at home, too. Make no mistake: this plan will unleash a crime wave across the country, paving the way for fresh injustices on our streets. The Secretary of State is fond of quoting figures and principles, so let me quote some back for context. Up to 43,000 criminals will avoid jail every year as a result of this plan. The numbers are eye-watering. That is more than half of all offenders who currently go to jail. It is the biggest reduction in sentences in British history.
The backbone of this Bill is a brand-new presumption against short sentences. In practice, it means that Labour is abolishing prison terms under 12 months. It is all but impossible for an individual to be sentenced for 12 months or less. Who are these individuals? Let us be honest with ourselves about who we are talking about here. Burglars, shoplifters, thieves and even thugs convicted of nasty assaults will henceforth be spared jail and handed a community order instead. If we apply this Bill to those imprisoned last year, it would mean: up to 3,000 thugs jailed for assaulting an emergency worker avoiding jail; 1,200 violent offenders convicted of grievous bodily harm avoiding jail; 11,000 shoplifters terrorising communities in each and every constituency avoiding jail; 2,700 burglars who rob families of their peace of mind avoiding jail; and 600 muggers who strike fear into people going about their daily business on the streets of this country avoiding jail. Those figures are eye-watering. This is a “get out of jail free” card on an unprecedented scale.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
In the spirit of honesty, does the shadow Minister recognise that it was the previous Government who left our prisons at 99% capacity for most of the recent years? They let out 10,000 prisoners, largely in secret, and brought our criminal justice system to the brink of collapse. Does he take responsibility for all of that?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady perhaps does not remember the last years of the last Labour Government. They let out 80,000 criminals on to our streets. That is how they emptied the prisons—not by building more, but by opening the doors. We did not do that.
There is a better way. Another way is possible. A third of all those in our prisons are either foreign national offenders or individuals on remand. The first answer to this challenge is to get the foreign national offenders out of our prisons and out of our country. The number of foreign prisoners in our prisons has gone up under Labour. The second answer is to fix the remand problem by getting the courts sitting around the clock to get the court backlog down. What has happened to the court backlog? It has gone up. If the hon. Lady is looking for someone to blame, she should look no further than those on her Front Bench.
Behind the many thousands of criminals who will walk free because of this Bill are thousands of victims, and each has a harrowing story. Daniel Tweed launched a vicious attack on his partner in their home in Northampton. He punched her multiple times. He dragged her by her hair. He kicked her and stamped on her. She was subsequently taken to hospital. He was sentenced to 12 months. [Interruption.] Someone said that is not enough, and I agree. Most people in this country would say that is not enough. That disgusting man should be in jail for far longer, but under the Bill, violent domestic abusers like Daniel will walk free. I say to Members, “Be under no illusions about what you are voting for this evening: Daniel Tweed and men like him will walk free.” There is no specific domestic abuse carve-out from the presumption against short sentences. That is what we are voting on tonight.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The truth that dare not speak its name, at least on the other side of the Chamber, is that the public know what many on this side know too: that many more people should be imprisoned for much, much longer. Successive Governments have failed to grasp that nettle, because they have given in to what the Justice Secretary, who, by the way, is a personal friend of mine—[Interruption.] He is desperate to avoid that description. They have given in to what the Justice Secretary amplified today, namely the foolish idea that crime is an illness to be treated rather than a malevolent choice to be punished. We need a retributive justice system that recognises what the public recognise: that people like the thug whom my right hon. Friend described need to be punished, and punished severely.
Robert Jenrick
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. The truth is this: most people in this country are already raging at the fact that prisoners get let out of prison early. They were sick of that happening under the last Government, and what are this Government doing in response? They are letting out more, and they are asking them to serve even shorter sentences. That is not justice. That is not what the people of this country want.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I was struck by the example that my right hon. Friend gave of someone who committed a vicious assault getting only 12 months, and now getting no months and no prison time at all. Of course, it could work the other way round: it could be that when a judge is forced to confront the fact that if he gives a sentence of only 12 months for a vicious attack the prisoner will walk free, he will feel that he must make the sentence somewhat longer—in which case the Government’s plan to free up a prison space will not even work, will it?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend may well be right. A number of the policies introduced by this Government have had the most extraordinary unintended consequences. The Secretary of State said earlier that a number of people have been recalled. That is because of the failure of the Government’s policy; it is because they let people out on early release when they should not have been let out. Who knows what the unintended consequences of these policies are? But let me ask one thing of every Member of this House: think what you would say to the victim of Daniel Tweed. Should that man be walking the streets of this country, or should he be in jail? I know what I would say. I know what we believe on this side of the House.
Ministers defend this policy by saying that short sentences are counterproductive, noting that 62% of offenders who served under 12 months reoffended within a year, but here’s a thing: 100% of criminals left on the streets have the opportunity to reoffend immediately. It is cold comfort to the victim of burglary that a man who ransacked her home gets a stern talking to, unpaid work or, worse, “prison outside prison”—that ludicrous and empty slogan put out by the Justice Secretary’s predecessor—rather than even a few months behind bars. Short sentences exist for a reason. Sometimes a short sharp shock is exactly what is needed to change behaviour, and sometimes a short sentence is the only thing standing between a dangerous individual and his or her next victim. The approach in this Bill is totally naive.
The Government celebrate their new earned-release progression model as the centrepiece of the Bill—a Texas-inspired scheme, we are told. Well, this could not be further from Texas if the Justice Secretary tried. Texas’s incarceration rate is triple that of England. Who exactly will benefit from the right hon. Gentleman’s new scheme? Burglars, rapists, paedophiles, and those convicted of domestic abuse-related offences such as battery, stalking, and coercive and controlling behaviour. Disgracefully, all such prisoners who supposedly behave themselves will be released after serving just a third of their sentence—yes, one third. They have to behave themselves, not be rehabilitated, as the Secretary of State suggested. They do not have to come out with some skill, course or restorative justice; they must just not be a thug while they are in jail. Is that all we are asking for now?
Only the so-called most dangerous offenders are excluded. Forgive me if I am not reassured. If a violent domestic abuser, who was given, say, nine years, can stroll out of prison in three years because he attended a few workshops and kept his nose clean on the inside, how exactly does that protect the public, how does that protect the victim and how is that justice? The Conservative Government had moved to toughen sentences for serious crimes, requiring many violent and sexual offenders to serve two thirds of their term before release precisely to stop such tragedies. Now the Justice Secretary seeks to reverse that vital progress and water it down again to half. Hard-working, law-abiding citizens are being told that their safety hinges on a criminal’s good behaviour after conviction, rather than the severity of the crime itself. Public safety should depend on what criminals did to their victims and whether they remain a threat to the public, not on whether they earn gold stars on a prison conduct chart.
To sugar-coat the largest reduction in sentences in the history of our country, the Government promise intensive supervision of offenders in the community. Even that assumes that our Probation Service, which the Secretary of State was right to say is stretched to breaking point, has the capacity to monitor the beeping lights on all these new tracking devices. At Justice questions, he himself said that the contract was not working, yet we are now going to place even more reliance on tags—tags for goodness’ sake—but is that justice? Who exactly will watch the offenders? We are told that probation officers are already swamped and that, struggling with huge caseloads and staff shortages, they are at 104% capacity. Now, every petty thief, burglar and drug dealer who would have spent a few months in prison will instead be out in the community with a mere tag between them and their potential victim. Is the Justice Secretary seriously suggesting that this will stop a violent offender abusing their partner? If he is, he should explain that to the House.
What of the expanded menu of community restrictions of which Ministers are so proud? The Bill gives courts the powers to ban offenders from certain activities and places—bars, pubs, sporting events—and the press release issued to the media gleefully talked about criminals being barred from football matches and pubs as a way to curtail their freedom. However, do any Labour MPs here truly believe that these bans will strike fear into the hearts of hardened offenders? Don’t be ridiculous! A career burglar or repeat shoplifter will not quiver at the thought of being forbidden from entering the Dog & Duck—ridiculous!
I turn to some of the less trumpeted parts of the Bill—the changes to parole and the oversight of the Sentencing Council. These are technical on the surface, but they reveal much about the Government’s priorities. First, on parole, in a little-noticed clause—clause 38—the Bill repeals the power that would have allowed the Secretary of State to require certain parole board cases to have particular members, such as ex-police officers, on the panel. That power was designed by the last Government to ensure that, for the most serious and high-stakes release decisions, there was a law enforcement perspective in the room, with someone who has seen the worst of what offenders can do. Now the Justice Secretary has just scrapped it entirely before it even came into force. So when a convicted murderer or rapist comes up for parole, they will no longer be guaranteed that there is a voice of law enforcement or a victims’ champion at the hearing. Removing that safeguard tilts the balance further in favour of the prisoner’s release.
Secondly, on the Sentencing Council, the Labour Government’s Sentencing Bill lifts its central idea from a Bill we previously put before the House, which they voted down but now support, having wasted Parliament’s time with an interim Act. Yet after all that, they water it down. They propose to force the Sentencing Council, which drafts judges’ guidelines, to get approval from the Lord Chancellor and the Lord or Lady Chief Justice for new guidelines and to submit an annual plan for ministerial sign-off. That is political oversight in principle—something Labour voted against when we proposed a stronger version—but in practice it is too little, too late. Only after I raised this issue on the Floor of the House did Ministers scramble to block those outrageous guidelines at the eleventh hour. Even the former Justice Secretary had to admit that such “differential treatment is unacceptable”. But remember, if Labour had listened to us sooner, this entire debacle would have been avoided.
The Sentencing Council is a creature of the last Labour Government—a quango deliberately insulated from democratic accountability. We warned that an unchecked council would go rogue and it did. Sure enough, it tried to rewrite sentencing by stealth and almost succeeded. Labour’s belated tweak, requiring ministerial sign-off on guidelines, adopts our position that the council needs democratic oversight, but it barely scratches the surface. The truth is that the council is a totally flawed structure. When Labour set it up in 2009, they made it answerable to nobody. As a result, an unelected body nearly smuggled in identity-based sentencing.
If the Justice Secretary really opposes identity-based sentencing, let us look at what is in the pipeline. Will he use this power on the forthcoming immigration guidelines, signed off by the previous Labour Lord Chancellor, which will deny Parliament’s clear will that immigration offenders should be locked up and subject to automatic deportation? Will he scrap those guidelines? They are in his in-tray. He is taking the power to do so. It is on him.
Despite this being a new role for the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say that the Justice Secretary cannot feign ignorance on this approach. It was his 2017 review that fixated on statistical disparities in the justice system. His answer was not to enforce the law impartially; it was to impose outcomes by quota. His review’s guiding principle was “explain or reform”, effectively demanding that if an institution cannot explain a disparity in minority outcomes, it must change its practices until the numbers look equal. In theory, that sounds like holding the system to account. In reality, it invites social engineering and double standards.
The right hon. Gentleman openly champions equity over equality. In plainer terms, that means believing in bias by design—a justice system that explicitly favours some groups in order to tweak the statistics. We just saw the consequences of that thinking. The Sentencing Council’s two-tier guidelines were a textbook application of the Justice Secretary’s long-held belief: a two-tier system where justice is not blind, as it must be, but rather squints at your skin colour, your gender, your faith or your age before deciding how to punish you. On the Conservative Benches, we will always believe in the universal principle of equality before the law, not equity. That is the difference.
Turning to the matter of foreign criminals, for all the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, as of 30 June this year there were 10,772 foreign nationals in our prisons—12% of the total. That is up on last year.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s one-man show on why he should be leader of the Conservative party. He will get no argument from me on the fact that we need to reduce the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons—I agree that that is what we do need to do, as does my party. However, between 2019 and 2024 under his Government, the numbers increased by 12%. He knows that it is a difficult thing to achieve; he knows there is no simple answer, because if there was, his party would have done it when it was in government. Rather than offering simple magic-wand solutions, what is he actually suggesting that we do to deliver a reduction? If he knows the answer, why did he not do it when he was in government?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman is on rocky ground, because the Justice Secretary literally put his name to a letter stopping the then Government deporting foreign criminals from our country back to their own countries. [Interruption.] He did, I am afraid, as I think did the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. You literally could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What is the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)? It is simple: change our human rights laws and address the European convention on human rights so that it is possible to remove each and every foreign national offender in a timely fashion, and then use every lever of the British state—whether it is revoking visas or suspending foreign aid—to achieve that.
Let me give the House an example of just how ludicrous the present situation is. When the Justice Secretary was Foreign Secretary, it was reported that he got into a debate with Pakistan over whether it would take back three grooming gang perpetrators—rapists—to their home country. Pakistan held out, saying that in return for taking back its own citizens—despicable rape gang perpetrators—we needed to agree to resume flights from a disreputable airline that has had safety challenges in the past. How weak is this country? How weak is this country that we will not stand up to that? We are giving more than £100 million a year in foreign aid to Pakistan. We should be using every lever of the British state to get these people out of our country and our prisons so that we do not have to carry out the early release of dangerous people, which is what this Bill will do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Jenrick
I must make progress—I need to bring my remarks to a close.
In plain English, there are more FNOs overall, and more FNO sex offenders in particular, while those on Labour’s Front Bench have spent years campaigning against their removal. That will change only if the Justice Secretary confronts the broken ECHR, which is the biggest legal obstacle to their removal—everything else is tinkering. For the good of the country, I urge the Justice Secretary to support anyone within the Government who seeks change to the ECHR, because he will never resolve this challenge without that change.
The Sentencing Bill is soft on crime, soft on criminals and brutal on the hard-working, law-abiding people of this country. It offers oven-ready excuses to offenders to get out of jail early and cold comfort to victims. The Justice Secretary has a choice: he can plough ahead with this farce and watch as our streets are swept by the coming crime wave, or he can heed our warning—shared by victims groups and rooted in common sense—and think again. The British people deserve safer streets. Instead, under this Bill, they are going to get a jailbreak. A crime wave is coming.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Prisons in England and Wales are almost at capacity. The prison population currently stands at 87,578, with a current operational capacity of 89,664. The latest prison population projections estimate that the population will rise to between 95,700 and 105,200 by March 2029. This troubling picture means that reform is essential if we are to reduce the prison population and return to a functional criminal justice system. I welcome the reforms suggested in the Bill; they are both a necessity and the right direction of travel for an effective prison system. The Government have taken up most of the recommendations made in David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, which if taken together will reduce the numbers in custody by almost 10,000.
The prison system is in a unique place. It will be accommodating the highest number of inmates in history while working hard to find non-custodial punishments for a growing number of offenders. This is necessary following the irresponsible neglect of the criminal justice system under successive Tory Governments. It is also the first step to a prison and probation system that puts rehabilitation alongside punishment as an objective—that objective being a reduction in reoffending, with beneficial outcomes for offenders, victims and the taxpayer alike. I have no issue with the strategy, but I have serious concerns about the specific measures needed to achieve its purpose.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; he is always courteous in the Chamber. Let us be clear: is the Bill a result of too few prison places —I acknowledge, by the way, that successive Governments have built too few prisons—or is it driven by a certain ideology? Is it about rehabilitation, which I describe as the treatmentist approach to crime? There is a confused message emanating from this Chamber. On the one hand we are told that it is a matter of convenience, because we do not have the places, but on the other hand we are told it is a matter of principle, because we do not believe in prison. Where does the hon. Member stand on that?
Andy Slaughter
The right hon. Member is not easily confused. I will turn to exactly that point later, but in brief it is both, and there is a contradiction in it being both. There is going to be a massive expansion in prison places, and there are going to be more people in prison. However, at the same time, partly to reduce the need for even more prisons to be built and partly because there are alternatives to custody, there will be people leaving prison as well. It is a difficult trick to pull off, I appreciate, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is up to the task.
The Sentencing Bill shifts the focus from custodial sentences to dealing with offenders in the community. It is paramount, therefore, that probation services are adequately funded to manage the substantial increase in workload and that supporting resources, such as electronic monitoring, are available and reliable. There are several measures in the Bill that will increase the pressure on probation services. These include a statutory presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less; an extension of the availability of suspended sentences to three years rather than two; and new community orders, including those that ban offenders from public events and drinking establishments, prohibit offenders from driving and impose restriction zones on them.
In the 2023-24 annual report and accounts for the Prison and Probation Service, the overall annual leaving rate for Probation Service staff was over 10%. His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation said:
“High workloads and a lack of support are critical factors in driving practitioners away from their roles”.
A report leaked to the BBC estimated that there is currently a shortfall of around 10,000 probation staff, which is four or five times the number being recruited. I welcome the extra £700 million pledged during the spending review period to assist the Probation Service in dealing with the increased pressures. It will be vital in filling the shortfall and increasing staff retention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged that in response to me during Justice questions today.
The success of the measures in the Bill relies heavily on the use of electronic monitoring, primarily through the use of tags. The Justice Committee has continually raised its concerns about the performance of Serco, the Government’s current tagging provider. In correspondence with the Committee dated 7 May this year, the Prisons Minister revealed to us the shocking fact that Serco had received financial penalties for poor performance every month since it took on the electronic monitoring contract a year earlier.
In oral evidence given to the Committee, Ministers have recognised that Serco’s performance has been unacceptable and that stronger punishments for Serco are possible, should it continue to fail. Those should include possible debarment and exclusion from bidding for public contracts. Indeed, some of us wondered how Serco was ever awarded that contract by the previous Government after the appalling fraud it committed during its previous tenure as contractor. Ministers have reassured us that Serco’s performance is beginning to improve. It is difficult to see how the Government can continue to have faith in Serco, but it is also evident that they cannot easily shift to another contractor as there appears to be no viable alternative.
Sir Julian Lewis
Naturally, I had assumed that if people were not going to serve short sentences, in many cases they would be tagged. It is worrying to hear what the hon. Member is saying about Serco’s performance. Is he saying that effectively the people being tagged are not being properly monitored? In which case, does that not bring the viability of the whole system into question?
Andy Slaughter
That is a valid concern. Ministers assure us that performance on the contract is improving in exactly those areas, but we are not just waiting for that improvement; we are introducing a huge additional burden, because all those offenders who will now remain in the community, rather than being incarcerated, will need tagging. I worry that an unreliable contractor with a poor record—even if it is improving—is being given a great additional burden.
Let me turn to another aspect of the Bill. It amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to revise down the statutory release point for standard determinate sentence prisoners to one third, although additional days added to time in custody as a consequence of breaches of the Prison Rules 1999, known as adjudications, will be served after the one-third point. Those changes follow the sentencing review’s recommendation that the Government should introduce an earned progression model for those serving SDSs. The review argued that, as a large proportion of offenders will be released after one third of their sentence,
“custodial sentences should be used to incentivise good behaviour and focus on limiting the risks of reoffending.”
As the sentencing review set out:
“The criteria for compliance should also include the expectation that the offender will engage in purposeful activity and attend any required work, education, treatments and/or training obligations where these are available.”
The review also held the view that,
“as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding.”
I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on what exactly is meant by a “more demanding” regime.
The Justice Committee is currently halfway through its inquiry into the rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders. It has heard of the difficulties that prisons face in administering proper rehabilitation programmes when prisons are full, which results in most of their efforts being focused on dealing with day-to-day incidents and combating widespread drug use. Rehabilitative programmes also vary greatly between prisons.
I welcome the steps taken towards an earned progression model in the Bill and hope they can free up capacity to allow for a better and more consistent rehabilitative regime. It is important that once the changes are made, rehabilitative regimes remain robust and continue to be focused on combating the behaviours that lead to reoffending, rather than being focused primarily on prisoners meeting the goals that lead to their early release—that is a rare point of agreement with the shadow Lord Chancellor.
Under the earned progression model, there is also the possibility that some prisoners may stay in prison for longer than they currently would as they do not meet the new criteria for release and are required to serve additional days. That, of course, will put further strain on the numbers in prison. Prisoners should be provided with clear guidance setting out how they should implement the earned progression model. This will ensure consistency for prisoners subject to the model and ensure that victims are informed of what to expect under the scheme.
In brief, we need to ensure, first, that the reasons for rehabilitation are clear—are they undertaking additional work, or are they simply keeping their noses clean in prison? We need to consider how rehabilitation will be used in prisons in future, and we need look at every aspect of incarceration as to how the earned progression model will work.
The Bill contains two clauses that make provisions relating to the Sentencing Council. Clause 19 introduces a statutory obligation on the Sentencing Council to obtain joint approval from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice for all sentencing guidelines before final definitive guidelines are issued. It is borne out of the disagreement of the former Lord Chancellor with the Sentencing Council earlier this year regarding the revised guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. The revised guideline was the subject of much, and often poor-quality, political debate at the time.
The former Lord Chancellor promised to further review the Sentencing Council’s powers during the Bill stages of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 in April this year. On Second Reading, I expressed my concern that it could cause
“damage to the relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary.”——[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 1012.]
I also expressed regret about how it had been used to support attacks on the judiciary. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact that the Lord Chancellor’s veto in clause 19 could have on the judicial independence of the Sentencing Council.
However, if we are to have a double lock, perhaps we should have a triple lock. One suggestion that was made to me was that the Justice Committee—as well as or instead of the Lord Chancellor—should be granted the power to veto or approve guidelines. That would operate alongside the equivalent power of the Lady Chief Justice. It would go beyond the Committee’s current role as a statutory consultee for ordinary Sentencing Council guidelines, but the logic would be to rebalance power so that democratic parliamentary oversight is given to the guidelines, rather than there being a veto on behalf of only the Executive and the judiciary.
One area not covered in the Gauke review or the Bill is the question of those who are in prison on imprisonment for public protection sentences. It has been 12 years since the last IPP sentence was handed down, yet around 2,500 people are still serving IPP sentences in prison. It is now widely acknowledged that the nature of such sentences causes serious distress for those who are serving them and their loved ones. I welcome the Government’s progress in reducing the numbers of IPP prisoners, with a 9% reduction in the year to 31 March 2025. More could still be done, but the work being done through the action plan by the current Prisons Minister, and indeed the previous sentencing Minister, has gone some way towards achieving that.
In 2022, the previous Justice Committee recommended that a resentencing exercise should be carried out to bring the sentencing for IPP prisoners into line with current sentencing practice. Successive Governments have chosen not to take up that recommendation. My position remains that a resentencing exercise is the most effective and comprehensive way to reduce the number of IPP prisoners, and I think IPP prisoners should have been included in this legislation.
In conclusion, I welcome the legislation and commend the Government for bringing forward these bold reforms. However, I note that there are a number of areas where more detail is needed and where I can see challenges in its implementation. Many of the measures in the Bill will place extra pressures on an already stretched Probation Service. I hope that some of the issues that I have highlighted can be covered during the Bill’s passage through the House, despite the limited time that we will have in Committee of the whole House. I and my colleagues on the Justice Committee will consider ways in which we may be able to press the Government on points of concern through amendments. I hope that the Bill will go at least some way towards solving our prisons crisis and restoring the faith of the public in our damaged criminal justice system.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The last Conservative Government crashed our criminal justice system, and ever since it is victims who have been paying the price. The shadow Justice Secretary spoke today of surrender, but who was it that surrendered victims to years-long waits for trials? They did. Who surrendered victims to reoffending rates through the roof? They did. Who surrendered victims to a failing tagging regime? They did. Who surrendered victims to their own early release scheme, with no specific exclusions for domestic abusers? They did. This is not justice; this is Conservative chaos.
Sir Julian Lewis
Will the hon. Gentleman just remind the House with whom the Conservatives were in coalition for several years when they started their 14-year term?
Josh Babarinde
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but should he look at the figures for 2015, he will see that all the things that I have described surged under the last Conservative Government. It is chaos and it cannot go on.
The Bill contains a number of measures that Lib Dems have proposed to help fix our pummelled prisons and crashed courts, but it also contains some problematic provisions that will need to be addressed if the Bill is properly to deliver justice for victims and survivors. The Liberal Democrats therefore cautiously support the Bill on Second Reading, but unless considerable changes are made throughout the remainder of the legislative process, the Government cannot expect our support any further.
Following a long campaign on one of the measures in the Bill, working with fellow victims and survivors of domestic abuse, I am heartened that the Government are honouring the commitment they made to them and to me to create a formal domestic abuse identifier in the criminal law for the first time. Convicted abusers will fly under the radar no longer. I thank the survivors who campaigned on this alongside us, including Elizabeth Hudson, as well as Women’s Aid, Refuge, Victim Support, ManKind and the 50,000 people who signed my petition in favour of greater identification of domestic abuse in the law.
Sir John Hayes
I did not know that the hon. Gentleman had done that, so may I congratulate him on that? What he says is absolutely right and will, I think, be widely welcomed across the House. However, I must press him on one point. Does he, like me, believe that such people, once caught and convicted, should spend much longer in prison? Does he agree that they should be incarcerated because punishment is the right thing for people who have done wicked things, spoiled lives, and hurt families, hurt women and hurt children?
Josh Babarinde
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Speaking as a survivor of domestic and child abuse myself, and as someone who has been hurt in those very contexts, I have significant sympathy and alignment with a lot of what he describes. When I come to the domestic abuse identifier later, I will talk about how I think that should play out when it comes to the presumption against short sentences.
We will be closely monitoring the force of the new identifier through its implementation, and we will continue to make the case for a full aggravated offence of domestic abuse to strengthen the identifier.
Can the Government confirm that they will work with organisations such as Fair Hearing to provide domestic abuse training for judges and magistrates, so that the domestic abuse determinations that they make under clause 6 of the Bill can be informed by domestic abuse survivors’ experiences?
We also welcome measures to introduce a presumption against short sentences, which we know are failing to reduce reoffending. According to Ministry of Justice figures, 62% of people receiving a sentence of 12 months or less go on to reoffend. This compares with a 24% reoffending rate for equivalent suspended sentences. However, there must be an exclusion for domestic abuse offences. For domestic abuse victims and survivors, the respite period—as it is often referred to—represented by a custodial sentence for their abuser is critical. Will the Government commit to excluding any offender convicted of a crime where the new domestic abuse identifier is applied from the presumption against short sentences?
We welcome the reasonable and proportionate use of robust community sentences and licence conditions in the context of the earned progression model, but the Probation Service must have the tools it needs to manage this. I am sure we will hear again that the Government have pledged £700 million to the Probation Service to help enhance its capacity, but how will they resolve the 2,315 full-time equivalent shortfall in probation officers by next spring when those measures are set to be enacted?
On some of the new conditions, the income reduction orders and the additional driving prohibition powers may disincentivise or even inhibit employment, which is a key factor when it comes to rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. How will the Government militate against that unintended consequence of potentially driving up reoffending through those measures?
The recall provisions need to change. It cannot be the case that offenders can benefit from an automatic “get out of jail free” card after 56 days, with no assessment by the Parole Board before re-release. The Bill also threatens the independence of the judiciary from the Government by granting the Lord Chancellor a veto over judge-made sentencing guidelines. That looks like textbook Executive overreach, and it must be reviewed.
On foreign national offenders, the Bill offers placeholders for secondary legislation, which will evade scrutiny by the whole House. Our constituents instead deserve clarity and full parliamentary scrutiny of that matter, and I hope the Minister will commit to providing that.
Beyond that, there is lots missing from this legislation. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said, where is the reform on IPP sentences? Where is David Gauke’s recommendation of an independent advisory body on prison capacity? Where are the measures to prevent offending in the first instance and not just to increase the supply of prison places? Where is the statutory footing for the publication of sentencing remarks for those victims of sex offences in perpetuity?
I will ask many more questions throughout the process, but I hope the Government will work with us and with the victims and survivors whose concerns we have all been platforming this evening to make significant improvements in the Bill which fix the criminal justice system that the Conservatives broke, while affording victims the freedom, dignity and welfare they need.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The police in Torbay tell me that in Paignton and Torquay town centres a number of habitual offenders see a call back to prison as just a professional risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that after years of a lack of investment by the Conservatives, we need to see investment in rehabilitation to help keep those individuals on the straight and narrow?
Josh Babarinde
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I refer to the comments I made on recall. As someone who spent their career setting up an organisation that supports young ex-offenders out of crime and into employment, I know that investment in rehabilitation is key. Rehabilitation prevents reoffending, and preventing reoffending prevents victims, reducing misery and improving lives.
I hope the Government have heard loud and clear where we stand on this issue. We stand ready to work with them to improve the Bill.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I rise to speak in the debate from the perspective of a former serving police officer; I saw first hand how our justice system far too often failed communities and, most importantly, victims—repeat offenders cycling in and out of custody, victims living in fear, and prisons at breaking point. That is why we need urgent reform and why I welcome this Government’s delivering the most significant changes to sentencing in over a generation.
Last summer, prison overcrowding reached an all-time high, as we have heard. Our system was stretched to crisis level, and we cannot let that happen again. The independent sentencing review exposed what many of us working in the system knew all too well: too few prison spaces, too little support for victims and short sentences doing nothing to cut reoffending.
The Conservatives extended sentences for serious crimes by almost two years on average, but built just 500 new places in 14 years. The result was prisons so overstretched that 10,000 offenders had to be released early. That is unacceptable and unsustainable, and it must not happen again. I welcome the Government’s commitment to building 14,000 prison places over the next decade; 2,500 have been added already.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The expansions of the prison estate by 10,000 additional places through new houseblocks and through refurbishments, including for category D prisons, are rated “red” because the supplier has gone into administration. I heard nothing this morning from the Minister about what the Government are doing to ensure that the plans stay on track. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns?
Matt Bishop
I would share those concerns, but I have complete faith and confidence in my Front-Bench colleagues—more so than the previous Government.
Building new places alone is not enough. If we are serious about cutting crime, we must change the way in which sentencing works and future-proof the justice system. In the police force, I saw victims living in fear as violent offenders were released early, while petty offenders wasted away in jail cells serving short sentences that did nothing to change their behaviour and nothing to make our communities safer. I also saw the opposite: community sentences—the tough and visible ones that we are talking about—gave offenders a chance to change course. I remember offenders cleaning graffiti, clearing rubbish and, for the first time, making a positive contribution to the very communities that they had once damaged. For some vulnerable offenders, a short prison stay is not a deterrent but a danger. It exposes them to hardened criminals, pulls them into more violent lifestyles and leads them further down a path of reoffending.
That is why the Bill’s provision to suspend short sentences in favour of unpaid work and community service-style punishment is so important. Done properly, such sentences can foster community cohesion by making offenders visibly repay the public for the damage that they have done, reassure victims that wrongdoers are held to account, and deter crime by breaking the cycle of reoffending that short sentences too often fuel.
Another thing that is close to my heart is the idea that victims and survivors deserve a system that keeps them safe and listens to their fears—too often, they do not have that. That is why I welcome the provisions for victims in this Bill. Domestic abuse will now be explicitly called out in court, creating a clear and consistent record that will help to protect victims and manage offenders. Specialist domestic abuse courts will mean stronger support for victims and proper rehabilitation for abusers. Victims of rape and sexual offences will have access to judges’ sentencing remarks and better information. And above all, the purposes of sentencing will now place the protection of victims at the heart of justice. I will continue to advocate for transparency so that victims can understand how sentencing works. After experiencing crime, they should not have to face a justice system that leaves them in the dark. We need to do more for victims, such as giving them unfiltered victims statements and allowing them to say what they want during sentencing, but that is a step for another Bill.
In my policing days, I saw how victims were left unheard and unprotected, and how sentencing failed to deliver justice or reduce crime. The Bill begins to put that right. We are building prison places, reforming sentencing and putting victims—finally—at the centre of justice. That is what the public expects, it is what victims deserve, and it is what this Labour Government will deliver. The Bill is about turning sentencing from a revolving door into a system that protects victims and cuts crime.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
We need more prisons and prison places, but I find the Conservative case absolutely incoherent. They talk about being tough on crime, but they closed police stations, closed courts, cut the number of police officers and completely failed to deliver the number of prison places that they speak about—talking tough without delivering the goods. Frankly, that does not work and the country has had enough of it. We need to move on.
I recognise, however, that courts need to make greater use of community sentences. Courts need to be agile, and they need tools that deal harshly with persistent offending. Community sentences can do that. Defaulting to prison every time, almost fetishising prison, cares nothing about the victims of petty criminals who are sent to prison for short stays, where they learn more about crime than they had ever learnt in their whole lives, and then come out and reoffend. We heard no concern from Conservative Members about the victims of reoffending. Why not? It is not convenient for their argument that prison is always the answer. Community sentences, demonstrating that people are paying back to their community and society, can be a tough sentence and the right sentence.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that requiring an offender to look at the root causes of their offending is far from the easy option? Facing up to those life difficulties is very hard, but it is a really effective way of stopping the cycle of offending.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Lady makes a compelling point about the depths to which that kind of sentencing can go. The lack of concern from Conservative Members about reoffending after short-term prison stays is surprising, to say the least.
Coming down hard on crime means we need to bring back proper community policing, quicker justice that halves the time between the offence and the sentence, and better and tougher supervision of community sentences, as set out in our Lib Dem manifesto. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) referred to our position on the Bill, which I wholeheartedly support, and he does a tremendous job.
In my Taunton and Wellington constituency, I am working with local businesses and the police to try to stamp out shops that are trading illegally. Time and again, police and trading standards raid premises and find counterfeit cigarettes or unlicensed alcohol, with evidence of sales to under-age youngsters. However, I have spoken to the police about this, and they find that the only person they can put before the courts is the individual behind the counter—a fall guy for the shadowy layers of owners who lie behind the business. Conniving and cowardly fraudsters are basically employing and putting behind the counter vulnerable people who often have little grasp of the law and the regulations that apply.
All criminal behaviour deserves to be punished, but sentencing the fall guy for up to 10 years in prison, as provided for in the Trade Marks Act 1994, does not effectively deal with the menace of dangerous goods being sold to our children. The convicted man or woman often deserves less blame than their employers, while those employers—the shadowy bosses—simply open a new business under a new name in the same shop and carry on trading illegally, with a different fall guy behind the counter.
Back in 2008, research in the British Medical Journal found that
“Smuggled tobacco kills four times more people than all illicit drugs combined”.
In 2018, the Mesothelioma Center reported on a study of counterfeit cigarettes imported into Australia from China which showed alarming results:
“Each cigarette is packed with up to 80 percent more nicotine and emits 130 percent more carbon monoxide. Worse still, many contain other impurities such as rat poison, traces of lead, dead flies, human and animal feces and asbestos.”
It is a menace that we have to deal with.
Why should those who are trading honestly—like my constituents who run shops, pubs and businesses, sustaining town centres and communities across Taunton and Wellington—and paying their taxes be forced to compete with criminal enterprises, for which it takes months and months to obtain a closure order under the current legal process? Is it not time to change the law to “one strike and you’re out” when it comes to shops trading in illegal substances? Why must it take months for such orders to be granted? Why can we not empower the police officers in my constituency, who are as frustrated as I am, to close down premises overnight? I hope that the Secretary of State will meet me to discuss that aspect of the legislation—I will explain that to him afterwards, if I have the chance, because I am not quite sure that he caught it. Being tough on this kind of crime should mean being swift with the punishment. That would put a stop to the behaviour immediately, and rightly send a shiver down the spine of any shop owner contemplating illegal sales.
In conclusion, although better supervision is needed, tough new community sentences including tagging are welcome to deter repeat offending. That will not increase the reoffending in the way that prison often does. There is, though, a wider lesson: sentencing reform alone is not enough when the real culprits are able to hide in the shadows. We need to strengthen the powers of the police and councils not only to prosecute the individuals at the counter, but to close down the premises that police know are repeatedly flouting the law. If we do not, we risk punishing the least powerful while allowing the real fraudsters to keep raking in their gains, to keep harming our children, and to keep evading their taxes.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill for many of the reasons already highlighted by the Justice Secretary and many Labour colleagues earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) made many of the points that I wished to make so, because of the shortage of time, I do not intend to repeat them, although I would like to reinforce them.
The Bill is a bold step towards easing the pressure on our overcrowded prisons and repairing a criminal justice system so badly broken by the Conservative party’s agenda of economically illiterate austerity. However, concerns have been expressed to me by the trade unions—including Napo, which represents probation staff—especially on the extra workload that the Bill will mean for their members. I say respectfully to the Minister and to the Justice Secretary that I hope they will engage fully with the justice unions as the Bill progresses in order to address these legitimate concerns in good faith.
Robust community sentences in the right circumstances —contrary to what many Opposition Members have been saying—can offer a better and more effective alternative to prison, provided that they are supported by new tagging technology, but only if that is done correctly. At Justice questions this morning, the Justice Secretary gave some excellent responses to concerns raised about the existing contract that the previous Government signed with Serco. Indeed, the Government’s own assessment suggests that change will be required, and the changes will require hundreds of additional probation officers in order to keep the public safe. Early release for good behaviour is supported by the unions, provided that prisoners show that they are turning their lives around and addressing the issues behind their offending. Again, early release comes at a cost, and at a cost to the Probation Service.
Other measures in the Bill have been welcomed by people working in the sector. Probation staff have long complained that rehabilitation activity requirements and post-sentence supervision, which are leftovers from the previous Government’s failed privatisation experiment, are ineffective and time-consuming. Napo is therefore relieved to see the Bill abolish them for good. Although it is true that this will free up more staff time, the Bill still puts additional pressure on the Probation Service. Yes, the extra resources already announced by Ministers will help to bring more staff into the service, but what will make them stay? Attrition rates—the rates of skilled probation officers leaving the service—are appalling. That is unsurprising, given the unbearable workloads for staff on top of 15 years of real-terms pay cuts and a degradation in the service presided over by the previous Administration. I am also told that the Government still have not made a formal pay offer to probation staff this year, so I respectfully encourage Ministers to reflect on how best to hold on to these key workers, who perform such a vital and demanding role.
The Bill would benefit from stronger safeguards around tagging and unpaid work, to ensure that the biggest beneficiaries are the public at large, not profit-hungry private corporations. We have heard many times in the House recently, including at Justice questions this morning, about Serco’s catalogue of contractual failures, especially with electronic monitoring. As we expand the use of tagging, we should try our hardest to reduce private sector involvement, partly because it has proved to be such a costly failure in the past and partly because this new form of punishment should be harnessed and used for the public good, not private profit. The Government have earmarked an extra £4 million a year at least for tagging expansion, but that money must not be used simply to line the pockets of rip-off failing privateers.
In conclusion, if we want to turn our criminal justice system around, we must work harder to prioritise public good, not private profit. I know that this Labour Government share that ambition and I hope that they will work closely with their own frontline workers in the Probation Service to fully realise the benefits that the Bill could bring.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It has become increasingly clear that we see huge discrepancies across sentencing for offences. Comparatively trivial offences receive stiff penalties, while serious crimes appear to go relatively or actually unpunished. There is an increasing feeling that the punishment rarely fits the crime, that the law is soft, that criminals act with impunity and that justice has become hard to come by.
I would like to recount a story about a family from my constituency. Michael Gough was a keen cyclist and had been cycling weekly, on Saturday mornings, with a group of four friends for a number of years. He would head off early, before 8 am, and go out for three to four hours, returning home by lunch time. He rode all over Cambridgeshire, usually covering between 35 km to 50 km on a ride. As a keen cyclist myself, who rides the same roads and the same sort of distances, I know what a joy it is to get out on my bike at the weekend.
On 16 March last year, Mike and the group went out as usual. His daughter, Kim, recalls what happened as the family waited for him to return:
“I had gone to mum’s around 12.25 and we set off shortly after. Mum did think it was unusual dad wasn’t back yet, but he did like to talk so thought he’d probably had an extra cuppa at their cake and cuppa stop. We only made it round the corner when my phone started to ring. Mum picked it up and answered it as she noticed it was dad’s friend Tim calling. I pulled over as soon as I could. Tim had said there had been an accident and dad had been knocked off his bike”.
The family made their way to the scene of the accident on George Street, in Huntingdon town centre.
“We were stood in the street outside Elphicks, opposite Wetherspoons, waiting not having a clue what was going on. Lots of the public were walking up the street and being allowed to walk up and past the scene of the accident to get to where they wanted to go but we were told we had to wait. After a while an officer came down from the scene to talk to us. He asked us to sit in the back of the police car where we were told that dad had been knocked off his bike and had died from his injuries.”
The post-mortem subsequently outlined that Mike had been crushed across his chest and could not be resuscitated.
It was not until December 2024, some nine months later, that the Crown Prosecution Service charged the driver with causing death by careless driving. A further six months later, on 27 June 2025, the driver—Dennis Roberts, aged 74—plead guilty to causing death by careless driving. He was banned from driving with immediate effect. Roberts was given a one-year sentence suspended for two years, a two-year driving ban and 250 hours’ unpaid work, and was ordered to pay court charges of around £200. As Kim says:
“The sentence is within the guidelines of the law, but does the law fit the crime? He has lived his life like normal for 18 months, whilst we have lost our dad, husband, friend, grandad, and lived the last 18 months encompassed in a whirlwind of grief. Even after sentencing he continues to live his life, just with a small inconvenience of not being able to drive and giving up a few hours to work unpaid. How is that justice?”
Mike’s tragic and untimely death is sadly not an outlier, but the current sentencing guidelines for causing death by careless driving are far too lenient, given the impact that such a tragedy clearly has on family and loved ones. The factors determining culpability as “careless” as opposed to “dangerous” are largely subjective and the difference between them is opaque, but it is the factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation that I find difficult to understand.
A good driving record is taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. The inexperience of the driver is taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. Efforts made to assist or to seek assistance for the victim are taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. A lack of maturity is taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. A mental disorder or learning disability is taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. A deprived background is taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. The prospects of education are taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. What prospects do the victims have now—or their family or dependants?
These mitigating factors beggar belief. This is not a trivial offence or a victimless crime; it is one that devastates lives. Would any one of us here who lost their partner, child or parent to the carelessness of someone’s driving be content to see that person leave court with little more than the inconvenience of having to get a lift home? Furthermore, the minimum level of sentencing starts at a medium-level community order to one year’s custody. The bare minimum must be a custodial sentence, and it must not be suspended. If we are to trivialise a crime with the most serious outcome—that of ultimately taking a life, even through carelessness—then what price stiffer sentences for less serious crimes?
I would not wish anyone to suffer the trauma of enduring such a tragedy, but those who sadly do should at least take comfort that justice has been served. We must stiffen the sentence for causing death by careless driving. We must eliminate the ludicrous mitigation factors that offer too much opportunity for offenders to avoid justice. We must ensure that victims and their families get justice. To prevent others from suffering the lack of justice that Mike and his family have endured, I will table an amendment to address this issue and ensure that Mike’s death was not in vain.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
When this Government came into power last year, we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. After 14 years of Tory neglect and underfunding, our prisons were at breaking point. If we had not acted, prison places would have run out within weeks. When our prisons are full, violence rises, putting prison officers at risk. When no cells are available, suspects cannot be held in custody, which means that vanloads of dangerous people are circling the country with nowhere to go. That is the appalling situation that the Conservatives left us with.
Rather than letting that happen, this Government took decisive action and are ensuring the future of the system by introducing this landmark piece of legislation. There are many forward-thinking measures in this Bill. This is about creating a sentencing system that punishes those who commit crime, ensuring that victims see justice served. It is also about creating a system that works for rehabilitating those who have committed crime and, critically, preventing reoffending.
Similarly to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), I will focus my remarks on driving bans and vehicle crime. Since becoming an MP, I have heard countless stories from families and individuals who have lost loved ones or had loved ones seriously injured on our roads. I have heard horrific stories of grandmothers killed in hit-and-runs, and of tiny toddlers whose lives have been cut short by drivers racing around in stolen cars and fleeing the scene. These families have been let down by huge backlogs that have been in the system for years.
I have been working closely with the charity RoadPeace, which was mentioned earlier. It has opened my eyes to all the ways in which the system is failing. I was shocked to find out that even after someone has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, they are often allowed to continue driving until they are actually found guilty, which can take years and years; that may be similar to the case that was just mentioned.
The thing I found most shocking is that once offenders are released from prison, they often have incredibly short driving bans. One such case is that of a woman who ended up in prison after taking the life of a man from Tividale in my area. Martyn Gall was an experienced cyclist. He was killed by a woman who was on her phone for her entire journey—sending messages, taking pictures and using social media apps behind the wheel. The first call she made after hitting Martyn was not 999; it was to her sister. That driver was sentenced to four and a half years in prison, but following her release she will have a driving ban of only five years—which I and Diane, Martyn’s wife, think is far too lenient for the suffering that she has caused.
Another indication of the historical failure of the system is the chronic rate of reoffending in our country. We know that half of all crime in the UK is committed by just 10% of offenders. The campaign group Crush Crime has highlighted examples of chronic offenders, who commit crime again and again. Unfortunately, the same is true of serious driving offences. Data released to me following a parliamentary question shows that nearly 20% of offenders convicted of dangerous driving in 2024 had committed a similar offence previously. Of those offenders, 6% had received several convictions for dangerous driving, and the worse the offence, the higher the reoffending rate. While nearly 20% of those convicted of dangerous driving were reoffenders, less than 5% of those convicted of careless driving had a previous conviction.
The length of bans given to those who commit these serious offences needs to be much longer. Let me give the House some examples. One man hit a 13-year-old girl in a 60 mph hit and run. The child suffered life-changing injuries. The perpetrator already had a conviction for dangerous driving, yet when he was released from prison, he only received a five-year driving ban. In another case, a woman who was doing 60 mph in a 30 zone smashed into a taxi. She was uninsured, was under the influence of cannabis, and had a baby in the front seat. It was her second driving conviction that week, but she was given a driving ban of just two years and five months.
Jane Haynes, a campaigning journalist from the Birmingham Mail, alerted me to one of the very worst cases I have heard of. Grant Meredith-Trafford was doing more than double the 30 mph limit on Tipton Road in the Black Country when he mowed down and killed a 64-year-old pedestrian in January 2023. The driver sped away and tried to cover his tracks—he went on the run for weeks and hid in a country hotel. The most shocking part is that he was already disqualified from driving. Following the crash, he was jailed for 15 years and banned from driving for 17 years. Even though the judge described the case as
“one of the most serious cases of its kind…in recent times”,
the offender still did not receive a lifetime driving ban. I think most of the public would be shocked that some of these people will ever be allowed behind the wheel again, yet the reality is that just 1% of people who were convicted of causing death by dangerous driving in 2024 had their licences revoked for life.
I think the public would also be shocked to realise how many people with 12 points on their licence are still on our roads. In 2021, research by Cycling UK found that one in five people were spared an automatic ban when they reached 12 points by claiming exceptional hardship—for example, that they needed their car for their job. In my view, if a person requires a licence for their job, they should be extra careful on our roads. The exceptional hardship frame is being applied far too liberally, and this loophole needs to be addressed. I encourage Ministers to look at how we can tighten up the rules around that loophole and lengthen driving bans as this Bill progresses through Parliament.
My final point is how important it is that the Bill uses driving bans as part of community sentences and licence conditions. Driving is a privilege, not an inalienable right, and vehicle crime is often linked to other types of crime. It is absolutely correct that a driving ban is one of the options available to judges to ensure a tough sentence for offenders who receive a community sentence or are released on licence.
At the heart of this Bill is the question of how we deliver justice for victims, tough punishments for perpetrators, and protection for the public. After years of failure by the Conservative party, I am proud that this Government will take the strong action needed to fix our prison system and ensure criminal justice in Britain is working once more.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I cannot deny that clause 4 of the sentencing Bill is a step forward for victims, but I believe it can go further by specifically mentioning physical and psychological harm. Clause 4 amends the statutory purposes of sentencing to specifically include the protection of victims of crime, a measure recommended by the independent sentencing review. By adding an explicit reference to protecting victims into the statutory purposes of sentencing, it makes clear that justice is not just about deterring future crime or punishing offenders, but about safeguarding those who have already suffered. It is about recognising not only the harm that has been done, but the very real need to shield victims from ongoing and future harm.
Four months ago in my constituency of West Dorset, 14-year-old Isabella was lured to a cemetery by another girl she knew. As she arrived, somebody already had their phone out, recording—they knew what was about to happen. Moments later, Isabella was savagely attacked. She was stamped on and kicked in the face repeatedly, and her head was smashed on a concrete step. The physical attack was horrific, but so was what followed: the video of Isabella’s attack was deliberately circulated almost immediately, shared on social media and in private WhatsApp groups across schools in Beaminster, Bridport and Lyme Regis. Children who did not even know Isabella watched her brutal assault play out on their phones. What might have been one terrible moment has instead become a lasting trauma. This is exactly why strengthening clause 4 matters, because sentencing must reflect not only the physical harm caused to the victims, but the lasting psychological harm, the humiliation, the distress and the ongoing trauma that follows them for months and even years after the attack. The bruises may have faded, but Isabella’s pain has not.
I cite Isabella’s case as an example of a wider problem. According to the Youth Endowment Fund, 70% of young people report having seen real-world violence online in the past year. That means that countless children across the country are being victimised twice: first in the violence itself and then in the endless replaying of that violence on phones and on social media. Clause 4 gives us an opportunity to send a clear message that the law will stand with victims. However, we should go further and expressly include physical and psychological harm. That would mean that when judges and magistrates pass sentence, they treat cases such as Isabella’s not as a single moment of violence, but as an ongoing and deliberate act of cruelty that continues long after the assault ends. I hope that the Government will use the opportunity as this legislation moves forward to strengthen the provision.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I am glad to support a Bill put forward by the only party serious about reforming our criminal justice system. I say that as a barrister with 19 years’ experience, and I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Having been in full-time practice right up until last July’s elections, I saw at first hand the chaos in our prisons, the leaking and inadequate court buildings, and the overstretched probation officers, criminal barristers and others who were doing more for less in increasingly challenging circumstances.
This Bill is critical to delivering meaningful justice for victims, protecting them more effectively, punishing perpetrators and rehabilitating offenders so that they become better citizens, not better criminals. We often talk about the Government’s inheritance from the Conservatives, but I argue that the prison and probation system is the area of the public realm that is most affected by the Tories—where they did most damage. They had 14 years, and they created 500 prison places, as the Lord Chancellor said. The number of frontline prison officers fell by 31% and the Conservatives decimated the Probation Service. Their so-called transforming rehabilitation reforms, which privatised part of the Probation Service, resulted in taxpayers bailing out failing private companies with £467 million of public money. There is nothing more serious than ensuring law and order, and the Conservatives became the party of lawlessness and disorder.
It will take time to fix our prison and probation system, and this Bill begins that vital work. There is much I strongly support in this Bill. I particularly welcome the commitment to transition to an earned progression model for standard determinate sentences, inspired by reforms in Texas. There, as we heard, crime is at record lows, and it is important to stress that the behaviour of prisoners will impact their release. The principle on which this reform is based—that offender risk is relevant to how long they will stay in prison—is sound. If they reoffend and breach the terms of release under this system, the system will come down on them like a ton of bricks.
The inescapable fact is that we send too many people to prison who then become better criminals. The point of prison is to face punishment as part of taking personal responsibility for their actions, but most people in prison can be rehabilitated. People must be accountable for their actions without us becoming cynical about human nature.
I also strongly support other measures in this Bill, such as the expansion of tagging to monitor offenders in the community, which, as the Lord Chancellor said, has been shown to cut crime. I also strongly support the streamlining of deportation for foreign national offenders, on which I have a recent constituency example. In June, three men from Folkestone and Dover were convicted of raping a child and committing related sexual offences. They were together sentenced to around 54 years’ imprisonment. It was an utterly horrendous case. They were foreign nationals. Under existing laws, they can only be deported after serving the minimum term of their custodial sentence, which is often between a third and a half of it. Why should the British taxpayer foot the bill for their incarceration here for the next seven, eight or nine years while our prisons are at capacity?
Clause 32 of the Bill answers that question by allowing the Home Office to remove the offender from prison at any time and subject them to deportation action, irrespective of how long they have spent in prison here. I support that common-sense measure, which is yet another example of a measure that could have been enacted by the Conservatives, yet was not.
Sir Julian Lewis
Despite the party political edge to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s remarks, I want to ask him a serious question. Presumably there need to be safeguards to ensure that when people are deported before they have served their sentences, those sentences will be served in the country to which they are deported. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what sort of guarantees there will be that these people will not get off scot-free after deportation? I am sure that there must be some such safeguards.
Tony Vaughan
I do not think anyone is suggesting that people are going to leave their sentences early from the UK and walk free in their country of origin. There is a range of existing rules relating to prisoner transfer agreements and so forth, which will apply in any event. This may be a matter that the right hon. Member will be able to raise in Committee, but I have no doubt whatsoever that this measure—which will still be subject to the safeguards that are already in existence, whether in the deportation process or the justice process—will ensure that justice is done, which is the whole point of the Bill.
There is much in the Bill that I welcome, but let me ask the Minister a few questions. How can we keep the strongest possible safeguards in place for victims during the transition to more community sentences, how can we ensure that our Probation Service is well resourced and able to support the expansion of such sentences, and what additional measures are Ministers considering to support more effective rehabilitation of prisoners who have addiction and mental health conditions?
The Bill is a serious and radical response to our prisons crisis and our reoffending crisis, which are costing our society more and more every day in every way, and I invite Members to vote for it today.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
I was a magistrate for 20 years, so I hope that I speak with some authority and have something to contribute on Second Reading.
This Bill is based on recommendations in the recent Gauke review, which falls woefully short of addressing the many concerns that the British people have about the current judicial system. Worse still, it does nothing to reverse the current trend for woke justice, and enables the further politicisation of our once great judicial system. The left will describe the Bill as progressive, but in fact it is unrealistic, requires vast amounts of investment and funding for the Probation Service, and will take years to implement, and in the meantime it puts the public at risk.
The Bill makes whole life orders mandatory for certain types of murder, but does not specify which types of murder. It allows for
“special sentences for offenders of particular concern”
to be imposed for rape and certain other serious sexual offences, without giving any explanation of what that actually means. The British people want to know that life means life—that murderers, terrorists, rapists, hate preachers and paedophiles will be sent to prison and never allowed out to threaten the safety of the British people again, that they will face harsh conditions in prison, and that prison is punishment, not a soft option.
The Bill does nothing to defend our democracy and end the era of two-tier justice in this country, where free speech is a crime punishable by a more severe sentence than sexual assaults or paedophilia. It enables the continued facilitation of the special treatment of defendants according to their racial, cultural or religious identity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Pochin
I will make some progress, please. It allows for the even earlier release of dangerous criminals into the community on licence, reducing the time served from 50% of a sentence to a mere third. The implications for public safety in general, and for the safety of women from repeat offender domestic violence perpetrators in particular, are concerning. Prisoners recalled to prison for breaking licence conditions would receive a reduced sentence of, I believe, 56 days—it was 28 in the Gauke review—as opposed to serving the full term of their sentences. That would apply to criminals convicted of serious offences, which is a betrayal of justice for victims and for brave women who have gone through the harrowing experience of a trial.
What of the Bill’s intention to eradicate custodial sentences of less than 12 months? That in effect removes the ability of the magistrates court to give out a custodial sentence, leaving only community orders available as a means of rehabilitation and punishment. By the time a streetwise defendant has pleaded mental health problems and declared they are on universal credit, there are very few options available to the sentencing bench, and without custody there are even fewer.
These elements of the Bill are designed to free up prison spaces as opposed to administering the justice that the British people want convicted criminals to face in return for the crimes committed. There are no concrete plans to increase prison capacity, and there is no policy on deportation. This Bill is all about leniency, not about the reality of the dangerous places that prisons currently are.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Member is speaking with great authority from her experience as a magistrate, but she criticises the Bill for having no concrete plans to expand prison capacity. Could she talk about her party’s plans to increase prison capacity, how much they would cost and when that capacity would come on line?
Sarah Pochin
I thank the hon. Member—I was going to call him an hon. Friend, but I am not sure that is appropriate—and, yes, I could do that, but I think all Members know Reform’s policies on building prisons. [Hon. Members: “No, we do not.”] Let me finish my speech.
The Bill proposes increased powers for the Probation Service such that it could shorten the length of a community order. It is entirely inappropriate for the Probation Service to be able to alter the sentence given by a magistrate or a judge. All this is open to abuse, and it means that the already stretched Probation Service can release convicted criminals from its books to free up capacity, rather than because rehabilitation or punishment has been successfully completed. The Bill is purposely vague and open to interpretation. It is not tough enough, and it does not address the problems our judicial system is facing. For that reason, I will not be supporting it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
To respond to the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), in 1997—I do not know if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was with us then—we were concerned that the prison population was 40,000; it is now 80,000 and it is predicted to go up to 112,000 if we continue on the current flightpath. I just say to the hon. Lady that we are all straining to do our best to make sure that all our constituents are safe and that there is a just and effective system in our society to deal with crime and injustices. However, based on what I heard of her understanding of the Bill, I suggest it would be worth her while to sit down with Justice Ministers so that they can take her through some of the detail of the Bill, because I genuinely think there are elements of it that she has completely misconstrued. I say that not in any party knockabout way; I just think that would be worth while, because we want, particularly with this Bill, to build as much consensus as possible to reassure people out there that this House cares about their concerns.
I declare an interest in that I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. There is no financial relationship or nexus to that and, as I have said before, the POA has made it clear that there is no benefit to me whatsoever—I would not get a south-facing cell, an extra pillow or anything like that; it is a privilege. I want to make four or five points very briefly, because I know that others want to speak, and they will to a certain extent echo those of my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).
On the sentence management process, all the advice we get from Napo, which represents probation officers, shows that there is a shortfall of about 10,000 staff, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick said. The morale in the service itself—remember that probation officers have gone through privatisation, and then been brought back as a public service—is pretty low. They are very committed professionals, but having wages stagnate for a long period has had its effect, and recruitment and retention is a real issue that we need to address. I would not underestimate the stress they are under at the moment. We welcome the additional resource, but realistically there is a demand for more that we need to take on board.
One issue with resettlement that has been raised with us by probation officers and others is that because of the cutbacks in local government and other funding regimes, a lot of the voluntary sector bodies that they relied on to refer their clients to are no longer operating or have been starved of resources for a long period. A lot of those voluntary sector bodies were specialists in their own way, in particular with regard to drug abuse.
The second issue is about prison. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick that we need a lot more detail about earned progression, but prison officers tell us that the reality is that rehabilitation is almost impossible at the moment. Prisoners cannot access the courses that are needed. We do not even have the staff who will go to their cells to accompany them to rehabilitation and education courses. Again, the pressure staff are under is immense.
One specific issue with the skilled worker visa system has been raised by the Prison Officers Association. It has had an impact on the number of staff working in our prisons. I was not aware of this to be honest, but there were recruitment campaigns in Africa and elsewhere. Staff have been brought here and now we are at risk of losing them because they fall foul of the new visa regime. It does not just affect prisons—it affects a whole range of services—but it needs to be looked at again.
Another issue that has been discussed is the supervision of unpaid work. I am really worried that there are discussions about privatising that again. In London, we had the experience of Serco a number of years ago when it was privatised. To be frank, it was an absolute disaster. I am worried that it could be interpreted as simply exploiting prisoners for private profit in some instances.
There is not much reference in the Bill to children and I wonder whether we will come back to that, because unless we look at the regime for children as well, we could be in a situation where children will be serving longer sentences than some adults. One other point in relation to children that has been raised by a number of organisations, such as the Howard League, is the publication of a prisoner’s or convicted person’s photo. I can understand the motivation behind that, but I believe the family often serves the sentence just as much as the prisoner. As a result, stigma is attached to the whole family. What we have found from our experience is that children have suffered because of crimes perpetrated by the parent. We need to be very careful about how we use the identification process. We need to do it wisely and look at the implications for the whole family.
I will make two final points. On race, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been goaded by the Opposition, but the work he did on an exploration of the justice system highlighted discrimination in the system—we have to admit that. It is not about two-tier justice; it is about trying to get fair justice for everybody. The reality is that all the statistics demonstrate that for the same crime, those who are black or Asian will get a harsher sentence and will almost certainly have a harsher regime when in prison than others. We need to follow up the work done by my right hon. Friend. We need to be open and transparent, and get all the information out there again and re-examine it on intersectionality and the implications for the justice system.
Finally, I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick on IPP. We have been at this for a number of years and the Select Committee made its recommendation on re-sentencing. The Government rejected it, because they were worried about being branded as releasing prisoners into the community and worried that there would be risks. The re-sentencing exercise was about how to manage and minimise those risks.
Every time we have this debate and we do not move forward, what happens? We have had suicides of those IPP prisoners. I am worried that unless we speed up the resolution of this problem, we will have an injustice. Lord Blunkett, who introduced the system, has subsequently absolutely condemned it, saying it was one of the worst mistakes he ever made in politics. We will render those injustices continuing ones and do more harm to both the prisoners themselves and—as those who have had constituents who have endured this will know—their families. As I say, the families serve the sentence as much as the individuals concerned. Although there has been progress on this, I do think we need to revisit it in some legislative form in the near future.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
As a former Crown prosecutor of 21 years, like my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), I have seen close up the impact of our broken criminal justice system on victims, on communities and on our country as a whole. Because of that, I can say, hand on heart, that I am proud to be stood here today in support of this Bill and the transformative reforms it proposes—changes that will target reoffending and address the root causes of crime in a meaningful, lasting way.
I will use my time to talk specifically about probation resourcing. Before I get into the specifics, I ask Members to cast their minds back to just over a year ago. The Secretary of State has already set some of this out, but, having heard from Opposition Members, I think it is worth reiterating what last year looked like and remembering the crises we inherited from the previous Government: prisons nearing maximum capacity, the Probation Service understaffed and stretched to the brink of collapse, and a court backlog of more than 73,000 cases. And to what effect? Justice delayed is justice denied. We had a revolving door of offenders going through an underfunded, under-resourced system that was nearing the point of being unable to effectively deter, punish or rehabilitate criminals.
Difficult decisions were taken to manage those issues, regain control of our prisons and ensure that the most dangerous offenders were kept off our streets. I am pleased that the Government acted quickly and decisively, but we must never find ourselves in that position again. That is why it is time to look forward and to consider how we can create a system that breaks down the cycles of reoffending, enables victims to secure swift, fair justice, and always has space to lock away society’s most violent and perverted offenders.
Those are precisely the provisions that the Bill will drive through, with measures such as the move away from short custodial sentences, which are shown to be ineffective in deterring and rehabilitating offenders, and towards a system that puts those aims at its heart. Current evidence shows that nearly 60% of people sentenced to 12 months or less in prison reoffend within a year of release—a clear sign of a system not working as it should. It is not cheap, either: it is estimated to cost the taxpayer £47,000 per year per prisoner. Those shocking statistics only confirm what I witnessed year in, year out when I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service, where I repeatedly saw the same people coming through the system, often committing the very same offences. I am old enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, that throughout my years working for the CPS, I was saddened to see those regulars later joined by their children, with entire generations of families caught up in gruelling cycles of reoffending.
The Bill introduces a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less, subject to certain exceptions, and creates the pathway to improved community sentences with more effective measures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for her wisdom. There are many measures in the Bill that the DUP supports and sees as commendable, but I would respectfully say that we have some concerns about reducing the length of custody for offenders, and our concern is sufficiently grave that we, as a party, will be supporting the reasoned amendment. I am sorry to say that, but I have to put it on record. There are many things that are good, but that is not good.
Linsey Farnsworth
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am saddened to hear that that is his position, but I am afraid it does not change my view of the Bill.
Strict and stringent measures will be in place to encourage rehabilitation. Those will be accompanied by a simplified probation requirement, which will empower the Probation Service to determine the terms and volume of rehabilitation activity for each offender on a specific and individual level. Every offence is different, and under this system tailored community orders will reflect the nature of the offence and the offender. That means putting in place measures best suited to punish offenders for their crimes, encourage rehabilitation and deter them from future criminal activity. That is supported by evidence. The rate of reoffending for those on community orders is 36%, and it is 24% for suspended sentence orders with requirements, so this approach works.
Let it be clear stated that in this system offenders are far from free to do whatever they like. They will be supervised intensively and placed under a set of strict conditions. That will lead to a shift away from the root causes of crime, such as addiction, and towards gradual reintegration into society.
Of course, these reforms must be accompanied by significant investment in our Probation Service, and I am pleased that the Government have already committed to an extra £700 million in funding and recruited 1,000 new probation officers, with 1,300 more to come. However, as I said in previous debates when the sentencing review’s recommendations were first announced, the Government must be prepared to provide further resources to the Probation Service if that becomes necessary.
I am honoured to sit on the Justice Committee. Our inquiries have involved speaking to probation officers, and two things have been made clear. First, officers are absolutely committed to rehabilitating offers. Secondly, regardless of their goodwill and no matter how hard they work, probation officers cannot do their jobs effectively without proper resources. It is clear that the Probation Service has been working for many years on extremely limited resources, and we cannot let that continue under the measures in the Bill.
As a young prosecutor in the mid-2000s, under the previous Labour Government’s Respect agenda, I worked as part of the community justice initiative in Nottingham. The initiative, which was based on the Red Hook community justice centre in Brooklyn—America’s first multi-jurisdictional community court—adopted a holistic approach to tackle the root causes of a person’s offending, with agents such as housing officers, drug treatment workers and employment advisers under one roof taking part in the sentencing process together. The approach has been shown to significantly reduce the number of people receiving jail sentences while enhancing public confidence in the Government. The award-winning centre is still running today, but sadly the Nottingham community justice court is not. Despite early and promising signs of success, it lacked resources and sustained funding. We must learn from our previous mistakes.
Many of the recommendations of the independent sentencing review are carried forward in the Bill. Importantly, the review noted specifically that probation officers
“should be provided with the time, resources and autonomy necessary to build meaningful relationships with offenders and discharge this new responsibility to determine the appropriate content of probation requirements.”
Justice, the cross-party law reform and human rights charity, has also outlined concerns about shortfalls of probation staff, including a deficit of around 10,000 Probation Service staff in August this year. The charity suggests that despite more Probation Service officers being appointed in the last year, the target staffing level of full-time equivalent probation officers has not yet been met.
As I said, I have seen at first hand what happens to great projects and well-evidenced initiatives if they are under-resourced. The Bill’s provisions rightly place increased responsibility on the Probation Service to deliver proper justice and to rehabilitate offenders, but it needs to be supported to do so. Therefore, although I welcome the Bill and the Government’s announcement of increased funding for the Probation Service and the aim to recruit more probation officers, I am compelled to urge the Minister to ensure that adequate resource is in place so that the changes in the Bill will ensure that our criminal justice system can once again keep our country safe, protect victims and reduce crime.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, which seeks to make our society safer through more effective sentencing of offenders, whether in custody or in the community. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on penal affairs and as a member of the Justice Committee. I also declare a prior professional interest as an historian of criminal justice.
Sentencing is one of the ultimate powers of the state: the power to punish by depriving a citizen of their liberty. It also protects the liberty of others by preventing crime, whether through deterrence or rehabilitation. The history of our prisons system tells us that when prison neither deters nor rehabilitates, prison fails and the public are let down.
The Bill draws on the independent sentencing review conducted by the former Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke. The review was driven, as we have heard, by a crisis we inherited from the previous Government, with a massive rise in the number of inmates and an utter failure to plan and prepare for them. We have far too many people in prison. The number has doubled over the past 30 years, from 43,000 in 1993 to over 87,000 last year. That rise in inmate numbers has been caused not by an increase in reported crime, but largely by an increase in the use of short custodial sentences and an increase in recalls to prison of those who have breached their licence conditions. When our prisons are packed to the gunwales, they cannot do their vital job of turning offenders away from crime and they cannot offer value for the billions of pounds of public money put into them.
The Gauke review found that, in the year to September 2024, nearly 45,000 people—58% of all custodial sentences—were given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months. It also found that the recall population has more than doubled over the past seven years, rising from around 6,000 to well over 13,000.
In recent months the Justice Committee—I am surrounded by several members of the Committee—has heard shocking evidence about the everyday impacts on a prison system that is running red hot. We have heard about education sessions that cannot be delivered due to lack of space, about substance-free wings being used to house inmates who may not need those services but simply need a cell, and about repairs to crumbling prison buildings that cannot be completed because no decant space is available.
The Bill seeks to tackle that by reviewing short sentences and resetting sentencing culture. It will do that by: as set out in clause 1, a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less unless exceptional circumstances apply; and, in clause 2, extending the availability of suspended sentences. As we have heard, the Bill will do much more than that. Notably, it will strengthen community justice and refresh the powers of our Probation Service, although I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) about the resources needed to sustain that. It also seeks to make it easier for domestic abusers to be flagged across the justice system. That is all to be welcomed.
That said, some proposals in the Bill will require close attention in Committee. For me those include: the procedural mechanisms for flagging domestic abusers, which must be robust; the proposed use of photographs of offenders undertaking paid work, which will need careful consideration; definitions of excess wealth when applying income reduction orders; and the procurement arrangements for enhanced electronic tagging. I hope that Ministers will be willing to engage on those questions as a means of strengthening this much-needed Bill, as this is a much-needed reset of our sentencing processes.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I want to speak today about how the Sentencing Bill will bring some common sense to sentencing and bring in an evidence-based approach to stopping reoffending and protecting victims of crime. That is the primary duty of government: to protect citizens from harm. I will particularly highlight changes that mean that victims and survivors will be at the heart of sentencing and that punishments will fit the crime, protect survivors and focus on true rehabilitation, not just warehousing.
One example is the move from the existing system of exclusion zones, which prevent domestic abuse or sexual assault offenders from entering specific areas where the victim might be, to restriction zones that will limit the offender’s movement to an agreed-upon area. For too long, the burden has been on the victim, with survivors moving house, switching jobs and changing bus routes to avoid the person who hurt them. Restriction zones mean it is the offender whose life is reshaped, not the victim’s. Technology will track compliance, breaches will mean prison and survivors will help design the zones alongside probation officers, so that their freedom, not the attacker’s, is the priority.
For years, magistrates and judges have been calling for more constructive and flexible sentencing options—more than fines that can be dodged or custody that does not fix the underlying criminal behaviour. The Bill introduces that, whether through driving bans, travel restrictions, football banning orders or sexual harm prevention orders. It moves past a one-size-fits-all approach and allows judges to deliver personalised punishment, hitting criminals where it hurts.
Short prison sentences do not cut crime and they do not stop reoffending. Hon. Members need not just take my word for it, or decades of evidence; maybe the Conservatives will accept the word of a former screw. My constituent James, who worked in the Prison Service for decades, said to me:
“Short sentences do nothing.”
He welcomes many of the measures in the Bill:
“In short, the Bill is the law we’ve all been advocating for, for a long time.”
All the money that we currently spend on short prison sentences is not spent on Best Start centres, hospitals, schools, healthcare and drug treatment, where the root causes of crime can actually be addressed.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am trying to go along with the thrust of the hon. Lady’s argument, but I just wonder whether it is as absolute as she suggests. Admittedly, people who undergo short sentences may be repeat offenders, and that is particularly true of shoplifters, for example, as we have heard. However, if a store is a victim of the same shoplifter over and over again, to be relieved of that shoplifter raiding the premises even for a period of eight or 10 months must be some sort of salvation, must it not?
Lizzi Collinge
I agree that retail premises need relief from that shoplifting, but I would like that relief to be permanent. I would like to see the causes of shoplifting stopped, and quite often that is drug use and organised criminal behaviour. I do not want just to chuck people in prison for a bit and then let them out to reoffend again.
We need sentences that give offenders proper access to drug and alcohol rehab and mental health care—the kind of support that tackles the root causes of crime. We need sentences that ensure the offender pays back their debt to society. Public safety is the bottom line here. Judges will have discretion to hand out prison sentences of less than 12 months, say, for domestic abusers or violent offenders. They will be able to make sure that survivors have the confidence to rebuild their lives knowing that the perpetrator is behind bars. Rapists and criminals who commit other serious sexual offences will spend their custodial term in prison.
Lizzi Collinge
I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the Bill is correct. I understand that perhaps he has some personal experience here and I appreciate that he has very strong feelings on the matter. Perhaps he will listen again to my former prison officer, who welcomed the changes.
Lizzi Collinge
I will not give way—[Interruption.] I think the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not showing the House the respect it deserves—[Interruption.] I would appreciate it if he would allow me to continue without this continuous chuntering.
At their core, these reforms do two things at once. They keep the most dangerous offenders where they belong, in prison, protecting the public, and they end the waste of locking up low-risk offenders. The evidence is really clear. I know that the Conservatives really struggle when the evidence contradicts their instincts and their prejudices, but it is simply true. The hon. Gentleman disagreeing does not make it any less true.
The victims of crime in my constituency deserve better than this current crumbling justice system. They deserve better than our overstuffed prisons that just churn out more and more criminals. They deserve this Sentencing Bill.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I want to speak today about justice; not just about punishment but about rehabilitation, dignity and the transformative power of second chances. For too long, our criminal justice system has been shaped by short-term thinking and political posturing—we have seen a fair amount of that in this debate—but we are changing that. This Government are committed to a smarter, fairer approach to sentencing that protects the public, supports victims and gives offenders a real chance to rebuild their lives. That is why this Bill matters. It enacts key recommendations from the independent sentencing review and marks a turning point in how to deliver justice.
This landmark legislation will ensure that our prison system never again reaches the brink of collapse. It introduces a presumption against short custodial sentences under 12 months, except in cases of serious risk or a breach of court orders. Instead, we are expanding the use of robust community sentences and giving judges greater flexibility to tailor punishments to the individual. Also, as has been mentioned, we are investing in technology to monitor offenders outside prison. This has very much been shown to reduce reoffending. Overall reoffending rates in 2023 were 26.3%. This was far too high, and short custodial sentences were a significant problem. Over 56% of offenders serving less than 12 months go on to reoffend. Young people are especially vulnerable. Those aged 18 to 20 have the highest reoffending rate at 36.2%, followed closely by 15 to 17-year-olds at 32.6%. Theft offences top the list with 48.4% of individuals reoffending. That highlights the deep link between socioeconomic hardship and repeat crime.
These figures underscore the urgent need for targeted rehabilitation, education and employment support to break the cycle, and one of the most pressing challenges is literacy. Over half of the UK’s prison population struggle with basic reading. According to the Ministry of Justice, 57% of adult prisoners read below the level of an average 11-year-old. That is incredible. In 2022-23, 65% of those assessed were at entry levels 1 to 3 in English, which is below the lowest GCSE level. Poor literacy is closely linked to higher reoffending rates and diminished chances of rehabilitation. However, we can look to other countries for inspiration in this area.
In Brazil, the Remission for Reading programme offers a powerful example of how education can transform lives. Introduced in 2012, it allows prisoners to reduce their sentences by reading books and writing reviews. Each approved review earns four days of sentence remission, up to 48 days per year. This is not just about reading; it is about rehabilitation. As one teacher involved in the programme said,
“This is about acquiring knowledge and culture and being able to join another universe.”
The programme fosters literacy, empathy and self-reflection. It gives prisoners a new perspective and a pathway to reintegration.
The Philippines has also followed suit, with the “Read your way out” initiative launched in 2023. This time, prisoners can reduce their sentences by 15 days for every 60 hours of reading, study, teaching or mentoring. Thirteen new prison libraries have been created to support the scheme.
The programmes show what is possible when we treat prisoners not just as offenders, but as people capable of change and growth. I ask the Minister if the Government would adopt a similar scheme to the “Remission for Reading” programme in Brazil across our entire prison estate. The initiative would make our justice system smarter, safer and more humane. It would provide an opportunity for change while still being tough on the causes of crime. Of course, this approach aligns with the principles set out in the independent sentencing review, chaired by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke.
Let me be clear: dangerous criminals will continue to be locked up for a very long time. For those who can be rehabilitated, we must offer hope. Helping them improve their literacy is one way to do that. The Conservatives left us with a broken system. We are building a better one that is smarter, safer and more humane.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare the interest that, as a former prison officer, I am still a member of the Prison Officers’ Association. Having served as a Justice Parliamentary Private Secretary until only last week, this is the first time I have been able to speak on these departmental matters in the Chamber since I was elected. I want to use this opportunity to pay tribute to my friends and former colleagues at His Majesty’s Prison and Young Offender Institution Moorland who I served with prior to the general election. They are some of the bravest and most dedicated people I have ever known and, as only the second prison officer ever elected to this place, I want to use my time on these Benches to ensure that their voices are heard.
I want to acknowledge the work done by the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), and the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), as well as the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending in the other place, for all they have done to get us to today. I wish the very best of luck to the new Minister and the new Lord Chancellor in their roles.
I am proud that this Government have had the backbone to take the bold but necessary steps to reform our sentencing and justice systems in this country. Context in this debate is incredibly important, because over the last year I have heard the shadow Front Benchers criticise this Government month after month, and it has been, frankly, galling—the sheer audacity of them sitting there with their faux outrage, knowing what they have done. The Conservatives nearly brought our prison system to the point of collapse; it is frankly beyond comprehension. Under them, we saw huge rises in violence, self-harm, drug abuse, overcrowding and an abject failure to build the spaces we needed. Rather than deal with that crisis, rather than face up to the challenge, they called a general election. This dereliction of duty is not something we can shrug off or pass over because they are not in power any more. Catastrophic handling on that scale means that they should be held accountable. Their decision making, or lack of it, has put the safety of our prison estate in huge jeopardy and has had real-life and horrific consequences for staff and prisoners. I for one will not forget their legacy, and I will not allow anyone else to forget it either.
I want to shine a light on the additional measures in the Bill that are focused on victims, who must always be at the centre of our thinking when discussing the justice system: creating new restriction zones, limiting the movement of offenders, better identifying perpetrators of domestic abuse and creating a defined category that can be used to better manage domestic abuse perpetrators, both in custody and on release. I hope that that package of strengthened rights for victims will, along with all the other measures, be an important step forward in the journey towards ensuring that their rights are respected and their voices heard.
I am also pleased that the legislation recognises that prisoner behaviour should dictate whether they are released as part of the earned progression model. Although it is important that we are able to manage population numbers, it should not come at the detriment of support for good behaviour and punishment for bad. The additional powers to extend the number of days added at adjudication level are important. I am keen to explore in more detail with the Minister how we can use and improve the adjudication system to enforce that. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that, as a trained adjudication liaison officer myself, I have many views on how to strengthen the system so that prisoners who are violent—they are, frankly, the chief trouble-causers—face maximum penalties, and we capture those who should not benefit from the earned progression model. I ask Ministers to consult operationally experienced voices at every level of implementation to ensure maximum impact in that area.
I am aware that there is limited time and many colleagues wish to speak, so I will not go into further detail on the Bill. These reforms are not just about cutting prisoner numbers—we will have more prisoners at the end of this Parliament than we had in the previous one—but about making our prison system safer and more manageable, and, in doing so, giving prisons space to focus once again on rehabilitation, reducing reoffending and driving down the number of victims.
I hope that the success of the Bill will mean that, in time, we are able to place extra focus on supporting groups of people who are often over-represented in the prison system—not least care leavers. It is estimated that 52% of young offenders and 29% of the overall prison population are care-experienced. That is not something that we as a society can accept; change must come. I hope that reforms in the legislation will allow the space for that to happen over time.
We must ensure that our prisons are safer for prison staff, we must drive down reoffending rates to protect victims, and we must recognise that the previous Government’s approach did not work. These reforms are bold, yes, but they are long, long overdue. I congratulate the Government on taking the first steps towards getting a grip of our prisons and wider criminal justice system so that we never again find the system on the point of collapse.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Like my colleagues, I very much welcome the move to favour community sentences over short custodial sentences, as the Sentencing Bill provides. As we know, short-term sentences often lead to reoffending, which places a much-needed emphasis on rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation plays a vital role in addressing the root causes of offending. There is a wealth of research on the risk factors associated with offending and reoffending, with drug and alcohol dependency among the most prominent factors. Although there is slightly less research on this matter, I am increasingly concerned about the link between problem gambling and crime. Gambling disorders can and do lead to criminal offending, which is often committed out of desperation. The Commission on Crime and Gambling Related Harms has highlighted clear connections between gambling and various types of crime, including acquisitive crime, street robbery, domestic abuse, criminal damage and drug offences. Although gambling can be a fun activity for some, a gambling disorder can very easily take over an individual’s life: rates of suicide are significant, disordered gambling can ruin families, and gambling disorders push people into debt and subsequently into crime.
I am concerned about the fact that gambling disorders are not given parity of esteem with substance addictions by the criminal justice system. There is a range of rehabilitation requirements to support prisoners sentenced with severe drug and alcohol dependencies, but there is no such statutory support for gambling-related offences. That is a potential gap in the Bill that could be addressed in Committee. Gambling disorders share similar cognitive and mental health characteristics to substance addiction. Problem gambling is officially recognised as a mental health disorder in both the World Health Organisation’s international classification of diseases, and the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”, sitting alongside traditional substance addictions. Addressing problem gambling in the criminal justice system must therefore be treated as a public health and rehabilitative issue, in much the same way that we address drug and alcohol addiction.
The gambling levy, introduced in April, will fund treatment, research, education and prevention in relation to gambling harms. I credit the Government and the NHS for working exceptionally hard to support those suffering from this cruel addiction. However, I am concerned that departmental silos may hinder the effective delivery of support in the criminal justice system.
The Sentencing Act 2020 mandated drug rehabilitation for offenders convicted of drug and alcohol-related crimes. Part 10(19)(1)(a) of schedule 9 to the Act states that the offender
“must submit to drug rehabilitation treatment, which may be resident treatment or non-resident treatment”.
Dr Gardner
Unfortunately, the legislation did not mandate that individuals sentenced for gambling-related offences must seek rehabilitative treatment for their gambling disorder. Again, I suggest that the Bill could correct that as it progresses through the House.
In a survey conducted by the University of Staffordshire, 99.6% of stakeholders supported sentencing options that mirror those used for drug and alcohol addiction, including the option to contribute to rehabilitation activity requirement days. Currently, community sentence treatment requirements propose drug and alcohol rehabilitation requirements for individuals sentenced to a community order, where the offender has consented to receiving treatment for substance misuse. Again, that is not offered to those with gambling disorders.
There is a clear need for greater intervention. In a report commissioned by the Centre for Crime, Justice and Security at the University of Staffordshire, between 2022 and 2024, 41% of people under probation supervision reported regular gambling. I echo the heartfelt support that Government Members have expressed for all the probation officers and prison officers working extremely hard and their need for resources to support offenders in rehabilitating.
In 2023, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities estimated that the imprisonment costs associated with problem gambling are equivalent to £167.3 million per year. I thank the Minister for our conversations regarding this issue. I ask him to consider the merits of mandating rehabilitative treatment for individuals sentenced for gambling-related offences because of a gambling disorder and whether a proportion of the gambling levy funds could be ringfenced to fund this treatment.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, put yourself in the place of a victim of crime. You want to go out for a walk with your family, out to the park or to the other side of town, but you are worried that the perpetrator might see you there. You want to go for a night out or to support your football team, but you are worried about what they might do or how you might react if they are there too, so you do not. They are the one who was convicted, but you still feel like the prisoner. They received the sentence, but you are being punished. It happens too often, and I have come across cases like these not just as an MP but in my time as a barrister.
This is a Bill whose time has come, because it turns that injustice on its head. Currently, some offenders can be excluded from certain limited areas, but under this Bill, they can be restricted from all areas apart from a limited one. Whether it is the pub, the match or driving around, expanding community punishments and licensing conditions will ensure that it is the offenders who face restrictions on what they can do and enjoy, not the victims.
I do not need to tell my constituents in Derby North about the situation inherited from the Conservatives—a broken justice system, prisons full and in crisis, severe criminal court backlogs and decaying infrastructure—because too many of them live the reality of having to deal with the thousands of antisocial behaviour incidents that we see in our city every year. There is a need to tackle prolific and persistent offenders with strict monitoring and co-ordinated support. The expansion of intensive supervision courts is designed to do just that, and it is hugely welcomed by those I have spoken to who work in our criminal courts. They have said to me, “Roll this out as fast as possible.”
The additional £700 million that this Government are investing in our Probation Service—with the recruitment of 1,000 trainee probation officers already and 1,300 more to be recruited in the next six months—is rebuilding that service. We are rebuilding after the Conservative Government’s vandalism, their failed experiment in privatising probation, which pushed it to crisis, and their having to bring it back into public hands. Probation officers work incredibly hard to keep our communities safe, and I am grateful that this Government are investing in their essential work.
May I also take this opportunity to thank those who work in our prisons? The number of prisoners will, of course, still go up. The Government are building more prison places—something that the previous Government all but failed to do—and more offenders will be behind bars than ever before under this Government. We therefore need to turn prisons from creating better criminals to creating better citizens. The earned progression model rewards good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour in our prisons. It is an important tool to break the cycles of offending that we have seen for far too long, and when offenders stop offending, our communities are safer.
The Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending—a businessman who throughout his career enabled offenders to turn their lives around and to break those cycles—knows better than anyone how to make this work. I recently visited HMP Ranby to see how it is increasing the type of work that the prisoners there undertake, from creating furniture and doing laundry for prisons and other public services, saving taxpayers’ money, to working on reading and writing, or undertaking work for the private sector, giving offenders the skills to secure work on release. Utilising and increasing the opportunities for offenders to work in prison can build on the important measures in the Bill, reducing reoffending by giving them purpose and skills, while instilling a work routine. I will make that case in an Adjournment debate on 15 October.
I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight these three aspects of the approach: the intensive supervision to tackle antisocial behaviour and prolific offending; measures to help end the revolving door of offending; and new restriction zones and community punishments to give freedom back to victims. The Bill was born of necessity, because of the mess in which the Conservatives left our prisons and criminal courts. While born of necessity, though, I am excited about the transformative difference that the Bill will make, so that fewer offenders reoffend, victims are where they must be—the focus of our criminal justice system—and our communities are safer as a result.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill, because in so many ways it epitomises what the Government have had to do over the last 14 months. We inherited a prison system in crisis, having been fit to burst for years—something that evidently did not catch the attention of the then Ministers, given that in their 14 years they added only 500 places, one 40th of what they promised the people of this country they would deliver.
Despite rapidly ramping up prison building as a national infrastructure priority to address the failed legacy of the Conservatives—whose reputation as the supposed party of law and order is, frankly, in tatters—this Government are being honest with the public that we will still face a shortfall in prison places of some 9,500 by 2028. That is why generational reform of sentencing is needed to ensure that our legal system is fit for the future. That is the responsible thing to do, which is why it is so unedifying to see the party of Peel, Disraeli and David Gauke disgracing itself with the scaremongering and party political point scoring we have heard from the Conservatives, over a Bill that will clean up the mess that they created.
Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. The changes to early release will ensure that that release is genuinely earned. It is indisputable that over many years we have seen an erosion of discipline and order in many of our prisons, as evidenced by the amount of contraband that makes it into secure facilities and the number of assaults on prison officers. The changes in the Bill will ensure that possession of a mobile phone, for example, or violent behaviour can add months to a sentence, and that there will be no limit to that, as additional time can be added consecutively. Far from being soft on criminals, the clear message is that if people cause disorder and intimidation in our prisons, they will spend longer behind bars.
On rehabilitation, we have to be pragmatic and do what works. In my view, the primary purpose of our sentencing system is to punish offenders and make them repay society for their crimes, but I am also a pragmatist. If, as the Justice Secretary clearly outlined, the reoffending rate and the likelihood of offenders going on to commit more serious crimes is sky high, particularly for those serving short custodial sentences, then we have a duty to look at this again. It is right that the consequences that are proven to be more effective, such as community orders, are used, but with vital carve-outs for dangerous and prolific offenders, so that judges can ensure that victims, like those of vile domestic and sexual violence, are protected.
On that point, this Government’s efforts to fix the mess that the last Government made of tagging will help us to protect victims through pragmatic changes, including a pilot of tagging before prisoners reach the gate for release. That will be coupled with the measures in the Bill of which I am proudest: restriction zones, which will be important for victims, often women, who have so much to fear from offenders—often ex-partners or family members.
In one of the first surgeries that I held as an MP last July, I spoke to a constituent who lived in constant fear of her manipulative, violent and abusive ex-partner, who she felt would kill her. She had a restraining order in place but she felt that it was no protection at all, because her ex-partner would repeatedly find out where she lived and knew exactly how to get around the order. I know that many hon. Members have heard such stories, where the victim feels that they are now the one being restricted to a geographical area. Under this Bill, it will be the offender who feels that sense of geographical restriction. It should always have been that way around.
On making offenders feel restrictions on their life and liberty, I also welcome the proposed reforms to community sentences, so that rather than a one-size-fits-all approach that will not affect every offender, there will instead be a broad range of punishments that can be tailored to the nature of the offending and to what would act as a deterrent to each offender.
Finally, I welcome the Bill’s introduction of a requirement that the Lord Chancellor is consulted on new sentencing guidelines. That was a firm commitment made by the previous Justice Secretary, when new guidelines—stating that judges should take facts including the defendant’s ethnicity into account—were put before us without her oversight. She stated that this Government would take urgent legislative action to address that, and that commitment is being put into effect in this Bill.
In conclusion, the measures in the Bill are necessary after the last Government’s abject record of failure on criminal justice and prisons. They will ensure that all our constituents can have the assurance that the criminal justice system is once again effective, fit for purpose and on a solid footing for the future.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak on Second Reading. This is an historic debate, as I believe it is the first piece of legislation to be introduced by a Deputy Prime Minister who is a graduate of the King’s school in Peterborough. I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place, as well as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards).
As an MP who represents a prison and a crown court, I am very much alive to the issues that the Bill covers, including the failure not only of full prisons, but of a criminal justice system on the point of collapse, with backlogs in the courts, crime unpunished and, for too many people, often justice denied. Having listened to many of the important contributions from Members on the Government Benches, I wish that more Members from the Conservative Benches could have been here to bear witness to the legacy that they have left this country, which this Government are beginning to unpick.
In my advice surgeries and in my postbag, I regularly hear the issues: of families worried that justice will not be served, but also of a broken system, where the idea that people can offend but go on to have a good life has been lost. I warmly welcome the speed with which the Justice Secretary is grasping the prison crisis with two hands, because that crisis is also a crisis of trust in our public services. It is crucial that we have a just system that punishes offenders and supports victims.
To make better use of time, I will not repeat many points, but I will focus on one particular aspect of the legislation and talk in favour of rebuilding our broken probation system. One of the biggest challenges facing society is that our prisons still turn out too many repeat offenders, particularly among young people. Recent data shows that if someone leaving prison is employed within six weeks of release, their likelihood of reoffending is cut by half. That is a powerful testament to the impact and meaningful nature of work. It also speaks to a truth: too many young offenders have been failed by school or lack the skills and opportunities to get on in life. They should be held accountable for the crimes they have committed, but we need a pathway back, with community orders in the Bill to give people a chance to contribute to society as well as serving their time and doing their punishment.
This issue interests me greatly through both my faith and my values, and it matters greatly in Peterborough. I am lucky enough to know Gez and Rosy Chetal, who set up Prismstart to work with employers, prisons and offenders to create work experience opportunities. Through their huge efforts, they have secured meaningful employment for more than 60% of the individuals who have come through their scheme and have produced work experience and opportunities for others.
I also draw the House’s attention to the work I have been doing as a Co-op MP with the Co-operative movement. In July this year, the Co-operative Group launched a new partnership with City & Guilds for a new apprenticeship scheme for serving prisoners at HMP Highpoint in Suffolk. The scheme offers level 2 rail engineering operative apprenticeships, with guaranteed employment in the rail sector on release. This initiative aims to address the rail skill shortage that this country desperately needs to fill and to reduce reoffending by providing prisoners with qualifications and work experience before they leave prison. The scheme speaks to something that I hope this House holds dear. By providing clear employment pathways, we can break the cycle of reoffending, fix our prisons and rebuild our country.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Every single one of us is here because we want to deliver justice for every one of our constituents. As a former police officer, it has been really welcome to hear of the lived experiences of barristers, criminal prosecutors and people who have worked in our Prison Service, because it is their expertise that makes this place deliver for people.
As a former police officer, I know that this Government have inherited a criminal justice system on the brink of collapse after 14 years of Conservative neglect. I can see that the early release scheme has been in action tonight, with Conservative Members being absent. Probation was hollowed out and police numbers see-sawed; they were cut in the early part of the Conservatives’ tenure, only to grow later after crime rose. The stark truth is that the Conservatives left prisons full at the end of their term; they know that, and they have never apologised for that derogation of responsibility. The Conservative party is the party of law and disorder, and this is its failure. No matter the gimmicks of the shadow Justice Ministers—whether it be chasing people in tube stations or climbing lamp posts—that record will have been on their watch. That is why this Bill is so urgent.
We know that the number of prison places is growing, with 14,000 more before the end of the decade. We have a Government who are finally stepping up and listening to the public when it comes to putting people in prison, but we know that that cannot be the only solution and that we need to adopt other approaches. That is why the Sentencing Bill is so necessary; it recognises that capacity must be built, but also that sentences must be reformed so that the right people are behind bars for the right length of time and the public can have confidence in justice. Our prisons should not be a revolving door for ever more prison experience and criminals rotating through the system, and we need to change that.
This Bill takes a clear-eyed approach. Let us be clear about this: dangerous offenders and those posing the highest risk will continue to serve long sentences—no ifs, no buts. For most offenders, though, we will move towards an earned progression model. Behaviour in custody will determine how much of a sentence is served. As we have learned from the States, that is a model that works, and I look forward to seeing it develop in action, overseen by Ministers who will consult with the professional bodies and prison staff. I welcome the reforms to the way in which we approach sentencing, listening to professionals such as The Times’ Crime and Justice Commission and David Gauke so that we can have a system that delivers the outcomes we want. This shift is not about being soft; it is about being smart and ensuring that punishment is effective.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill is not perfect, and I look forward to improving it in Committee, working with all Members. It learns from the failures of the past, of which there are many; it builds on the findings of an independent review; and it balances punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. I hope Members will support it today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am grateful to colleagues on all sides of the House for their contributions to the debate, and I welcome the Minister to his post—I think today is his first time at the Dispatch Box. As I have said before, wanting to see more consistent delivery of justice for victims of serious crime was one of the primary reasons I sought election to this place, and I do not think that any Government in my lifetime has universally delivered that. For decades, across parties, our justice system has fallen short far too often. I am sure that many Members from all parties can relate to the experience of hearing about some of the most horrific crimes that take place and being appalled by the sentences given. That is not new, but the question we have to ask ourselves today is whether the Bill we are considering will make the situation worse or better. Will more victims get what we would consider justice as a result of this Bill, or fewer?
Since this Labour Government came to power, we have quite rightly been holding them for account for the measures they have already taken to let people out of prison earlier. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar with the consistent debate we have had about pressure on prison places, where responsibility for that lies, and what can be done about it. Labour Members point to our prison-building record, while I point out to them that the pressure on the prison system left by the last Labour Government was worse, and that there are other options for foreign nationals and the remand population. A lot of heat is generated, but there is not much more to it. Labour Members point out that they have had to take emergency steps, and it is true that the measures they have taken have not been permanent changes to our sentencing framework. However, I say to them that the Bill we are considering today does something very different.
As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and others have demonstrated, I am not sure that Labour Members fully recognise what the Government are asking them to support today. There are measures to be welcomed in this Bill—the new restriction zones and the measures to better track domestic abuse cases, which the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), also supported—but there are a number of reasons why I do not support the Bill. We have heard Members including the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), raise criticisms relating to short sentences, community sentences, Parole Board reform, probation and the Sentencing Council, but I am not surprised that Labour Members do not agree with those criticisms.
However, I do not believe Labour Members can sincerely think what I am about to talk about is something they would knowingly want to support. I am going to read out a list of offences: rape; assault by penetration; rape of a child under 13; assault of a child under 13 by penetration; inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13; kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence; and creating or possessing indecent photographs of children. I hope Labour Members felt as uncomfortable being forced to consider those offences and what they entail as I did while reading them out. I am going to read them again: rape; assault by penetration; rape of a child under 13; assault of a child under 13 by penetration; inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13; kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence; and creating or possessing indecent photographs of children. In fact, there are even more of those sorts of offences that we need to have in mind this evening.
Why do we need to consider these offences? Because despite what some Labour Members have said to the contrary—without ill will, I accept—and for all the things it does that Members might support, the Bill we are considering this evening will mean one thing for the vile criminals who commit those sorts of offences. It will mean that they are let out of prison earlier, not as a temporary measure in response to the kind of short-term prison crowding challenge that we have debated and recognised, but as a permanent and profound change to our sentencing laws.
Members who support this Bill will be putting their name to legislation that will forever change our sentencing laws to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier. The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) talked about legacy. I cannot honestly believe that Government Members want to support a Bill that will allow rapists and paedophiles to get out of prison earlier. That is not political posturing or hyperbole or scaremongering, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) described it. It is not an unfair interpretation or misrepresentation of the Bill before the House today. Rapists and paedophiles—those are the people that Members will be voting to let out of prison early if they support this Bill this evening. Is that really what they came to this place to do?
Gareth Snell
The shadow Minister is reading out a series of crimes that are reprehensible, and no one in this House would want to see the individuals who commit such crimes having anything but the book thrown at them. In the spirit and tone in which he has read that list out, his Government oversaw a 2.6% charge rate for people who were arrested for rape. Does he want to say anything to the House about that particular damning figure? There are people today who have not been let out of prison early, because they never even got there in the first place. What does he say to that?
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member will have noted that at the outset of my remarks I said that I have never been entirely in support of all the policies of a Government of either party on these issues. He has every right to make those criticisms, but they do not change the vote he is being asked to make tonight. They do not change the policy he will be putting his name to and supporting. There is no excuse for the things he will be changing on a permanent—not temporary—basis to deal with a short-term prison crisis. I do not think that that is what any Government Member’s constituents want.
These profound and permanent changes to our sentencing laws are the exact opposite of what the vast majority of victims, their families and the public want. They will sit on the record of those Members and this Government until the next election. They will need to justify themselves to their voters. I do not believe that the majority of Labour Members, deep down, want to support such changes tonight. It will be a great compliment to party managers if, after this reality has been spelled out to Labour Members, they decide to support this Bill anyway. If they speak to their constituents like I speak to mine, and ask them about child abusers and rapists, their constituents will tell them that they are already concerned by the limited time they spend in prison, which undermines justice. We have heard so many times from Members in this House about the horror of rape and other sexual offences, about the victims of grooming gangs and about the horror of all kinds of sexual abuse. Not once do I recall a campaign or a concern raised by Members that the answer is to make such offenders spend less time in prison.
I accept that there is a different debate to be had about different cohorts of offenders and different offences. There is always a tension between prison time as a punishment and helping to rehabilitate offenders. As others have said, and I agree, I do not think the Bill strikes the right balance in that area, but I respect those Government Members and members of the public who would draw the line in a different place from me for certain types of offences and offenders. However, we are not talking about drug addicts stealing to fund their habit, or the young man from a broken home who spent their childhood in care and vandalises the local playground. The hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), and others coherently and sensibly raised the debates we might have about how long those individuals spend in prison and how we rehabilitate them.
However, here we are talking about rapists and paedophiles—criminals who sexually assault children, criminals who create sexual images of children and circulate them around the world and criminals who snatch unsuspecting women walking home through a park, drag them into the bushes and rape them. Those are the sorts of criminals that Labour Members will agree should be let out of prison earlier if they support this Bill.
We should be clear that not a single voice among victims’ representatives supports this element of the Bill—not a single one. The Victims’ Commissioner does not support it. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner does not support it. Justice for Victims does not support it. Victim Support does not support it. The Victims’ Commissioner for London does not support it. Apparently, however, we will see this evening that Labour MPs do.
Let me also clear up any confusion about the circumstances under which these violent and sexual offenders will be released early. Members, innocently, may have been led to believe that prisoners will have to jump over considerable hurdles to secure early release. In fact, the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) told us they would need to “earn” their release. The reality of the proposals in the Bill make clear what a complete sham that suggestion was. Actually, prisoners will actively need to break prison rules to run the risk of losing early release. That is not earning anything. That is doing what the majority of the public do day in, day out, without any reward—just behaving themselves and not breaking the rules. Apparently, however, if a rapist or a child abuser does it, Labour Members think that should entitle them to walk away from the proper punishment that they have been given for their crimes.
In fact, what Labour said to the press in an attempt to manage the news of this terrible set of policies gave the impression that the large discounts amounting to, in some cases, many years off prison time could be quickly reversed for bad behaviour, and that this was a radical departure. While the amount of time after which the Government are choosing to let people out is certainly radical, the mechanism to keep people in is nothing of the sort. As we see in the detail of the Bill, they will simply make use of the existing prison punishment legislation.
I wonder whether Labour Members are aware of the average number of days in prison that is added by the prison punishment regime. According to the latest data I could find, the average number of additional days given to a prisoner who breaks the rules is 16. When sentences for rapists and child abusers will be discounted by many months and years, they run the risk of having a handful of days added back on for breaking prison rules. That is shameful, and it does not apply only to the offences that I have mentioned. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) spoke about a 15 year sentence, and about how the victims of the person concerned would feel about their not being given a lifelong driving ban. How will they feel when they are told that instead of serving 15 years in prison, that person will spend five years there?
The parlous state of this Government is a blessing for Labour Members tonight. There are many other issues receiving media coverage at present—the political survival of the Prime Minister himself is in question—so they may get away with voting this Bill through unnoticed. However, this is just the first stage. I know that the timetable for the Bill is as short as the Government could make it—just a day of Committee of the whole House, which also means that the many victims groups will not be able to come before the House and voice their objections, and then one day for Report and Third Reading. The Government clearly hope that the Bill will also go through its future stages unnoticed by their constituents, who, they hope, will not know that Labour MPs want to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier. [Interruption.] That is the reality of the Bill that they are voting through. Labour Members are chuntering and saying, “Shameful.” What is shameful is that they are preparing to vote for that policy this evening. Shame on all of them.
The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Justice Secretary and I will do our utmost to hold Labour Members to account for this grave, grave injustice to victims and their families. We will do our best to make sure that their constituents do know, do hold them to account, and do understand the choice that they make in the end. I honestly do not believe, despite the chuntering, that that is a choice many of them would want to make if they had listened clearly to the position that I have set out. I do not think it is a choice that any of them came to this place to make.
We have seen Labour Back Benchers exercise their power over the welfare Bill. They can do that again—if not tonight, in future stages of the Bill, because we will seek to amend it. Labour Members can support us in that. Rape, assault by penetration, rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration, inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, paying for the sexual services of a child under 13, kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence, creating or possessing indecent photographs of children—tell your Whips that you will not support people responsible for those offences being let out of prison early. Do your job as representatives of your constituents, do your job as advocates for women and girls—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. “You” and “your”—it has to stop, Dr Mullan.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I see that we have a fresh Minister, whom I congratulate and welcome to the Dispatch Box. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to deliver the closing speech on Second Reading of this important Bill, which will tackle the prisons crisis that we inherited from the Conservative Government and confront the scourge of reoffending in this country. I thank all Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions to the debate—some more thoughtful than others—because this should be an agenda that enjoys support throughout the Chamber.
Most of today’s debate has been measured and helpful, indicating a recognition that it is necessary to stabilise a broken criminal justice system after 14 years of Tory misrule and to prioritise victims and the prevention of crime. The Bill achieves that aim. It is necessary to fix our prisons crisis, and it is also desirable, as it will confront reoffending and keep our communities safer. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in his opening speech, it takes us back to the central purpose of sentencing: punishment that works.
Let me deal with the Conservative amendment and the arguments we heard from the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the shadow Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). They say that the Bill puts the public at risk, but without it we face the threat of prisons running out of places entirely, with no space to lock up the most dangerous offenders, which was their legacy when they left office last July. They say it will undermine the confidence of victims, but nothing is worse for victims than prisons running out of places and crimes going without punishment, which was their legacy when they left office last July. They say that the Probation Service cannot cope, and it certainly could not cope under the Tories, with a botched part-privatisation that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds and a persistent shortage of staff.
We are beginning to rebuild the Probation Service. We will increase investment in probation by up to £700 million by 2028-29, which is a 45% increase. We are recruiting: we hired 1,000 trainee probation officers in our first year, and we are on track for 1,300 more this year. It is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of an independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke. I take this opportunity to thank him for all his work, as well as the previous ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin).
It is a great shame that the Opposition have attempted to play politics on sentencing and law and order. The Conservatives could have adopted a more mature position, appreciating the difficult context in which this Government took office. They could have drawn on previous Conservative traditions on rehabilitation and prison reform to support an agenda that aims to cut reoffending and keep our communities safer. Instead, they are more interested in social media clicks than serious government. It is their mess that makes this legislation so urgent. It is their failure to deliver appropriate prison places and their failure to confront reoffending rates and invest in community sentencing that has led to the mess this Government are clearing up.
As for Reform, I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), and I say with the greatest respect that it is quite clear she simply has not read the Bill. She was given ample opportunity during her speech to set out what Reform’s position is, and she simply refused. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to her, but I notice that she is not going to intervene. She lent on her role as a magistrate, and there are an enormous number of magistrates across the country, but I note that the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said of her time as a magistrate that her behaviour
“fell below the standards expected of a magistrate”,
and her speech fell below those of an MP.
I want to address a number of the points raised by hon. Members in this debate. The issue of probation was raised by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), whose expertise in this area we will no doubt lean upon. It was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth).
We are very aware of the pressures the Probation Service faces, especially after the damage done by the last Conservative Government. That is why we are investing £8 million in new technology to lift the administrative burdens on probation officers and enable them to refocus their time on where it has the greatest impact. I joined the Justice Secretary on his first visit to speak to probation staff, and they told us how important that technological change could be to the work they do. However, that is not enough, and as I have said, we are increasing funding by £700 million—a 45% increase—and hiring more probation officers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) raised the issue of trade unions, and the challenges that this new sentencing regime will place on probation officers. I reassure him that I and the Justice Secretary will be having conversations with the trade unions throughout this process.
Electronic monitoring was raised by a number of Members, including the Chair of the Justice Committee and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. There are significant challenges in how we ensure that tagging works, but we know that tagging does work. There is clear and reliable proof of an individual’s whereabouts and behaviour, and reoffending rates are reduced by 20% when tagging is used as part of a community sentence. That is why we are investing £100 million—a 30% increase—on the biggest expansion of tagging since 1999.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), spoke passionately, as he always does, about victims. In my submission, this Bill strengthens protections for victims in our system. The Government inherited a prison system that was in crisis, and—as I have said before, but it is worth repeating—if our prisons collapse, it is victims who will pay the price.
The Bill is not just about building prison capacity and stabilising the prison system. The legislation aims to go further in offering victims protection. The Bill updates the statutory purposes of sentencing to make it clear that judges must consider the protection of victims during sentencing. This is a really important reform and I am very pleased to hear that the Liberal Democrats support that aspect of the Bill.
On domestic abuse, I again praise the hon. Member for Eastbourne for his campaign on the domestic abuse flag. I listened to the arguments he made today and I will no doubt have further conversations with him in future. The domestic abuse flag is a massive improvement to ensure that protective services across Government—local government and Whitehall—have better powers to track domestic abusers and keep victims safe. I am pleased that that measure has received so much support.
I would push back on the argument we have heard today about short sentences. I want to be absolutely clear, on behalf of the Government: we are not abolishing short sentences. Judges will have the power to send offenders to prison when they want to: where a court order has been breached, where there is significant risk of harm, and in any exceptional circumstances. I want to put it on record that in many domestic abuse cases short sentences have a really important role to play. They will continue to play that role under this legislation.
Very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am aware of the time—we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), who brought great expertise from his experience in the police. He spoke about the depressing reality of reoffending in our communities, whereby offenders are caught and put in jail for a few weeks, and then come out and reoffend again. That is why we are taking this action today. Alongside sentencing reform, we need better rehabilitation in our prisons. That is why my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised important issues relating to literacy and gambling. I have already had conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and I will be having more with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley.
Before I close, I will address two shorter issues if I may. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich Albion—[Laughter.] Forgive me, I got carried away there; it’s nearly recess. I mean my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes). They raised important and very serious cases relating to driving offences. I reassure them that I have heard their speeches and will follow up in due course about the specific cases they raise, but also the general issues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a number of issues, but one very important one was youth sentencing. Youth sentencing is outside the scope of the Bill, but I reassure him that I will be looking into the consequences of this legislation for youth sentencing in due course.
There are few more acute crises than that which this Government inherited in our prisons. Last summer, the Government took the difficult but necessary decisions to keep the system afloat. Now, we need long-term and sustainable reform, and that is what the Bill delivers. Alongside our efforts to boost prison capacity, it is time for fundamental sentencing reform to stabilise the prison estate, confront our rates of reoffending and deliver punishment that works. We know it is possible because the evidence is clear, but we must have a laser focus on public protection and reducing reoffending. That must mean a system that incentivises offenders to become better citizens, not better criminals, and reacts swiftly when they breach the conditions of their release; that puts strong restrictions on offenders serving sentences outside prison, enforcing them where possible with the best technology available; that tackles the root causes of reoffending; and that puts victims first, with the right safeguards to protect them.
It is a great shame that, as I said, the Opposition have chosen to chase social media traction, rather than engage sensibly with this important agenda. The modern iteration of the Conservative party has stuck its head in the sand on progress, rather than facing up to the legacy it left. I am pleased the Bill does not shirk from the challenge we have been given, but faces up to it head-on and delivers the change that will keep our communities safer in the years and decades ahead. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sentencing Bill
Tuesday 21st October 2025
(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberSentencing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 21 October 2025 - (21 Oct 2025)
17:56 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 381 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:11 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 389 / Noes: 102 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:29 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:55 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 104 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:07 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 390 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I remind Members that in Committee, they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable.
Before I call the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) to move amendment 46, I should advise the Committee that once that amendment has been disposed of at the end of the debate, I am provisionally minded to call the following amendments and new clauses for separate decision: amendment 24, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan); new clause 6, in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty); new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle; and new clause 30, in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).
Clause 1
Presumption of suspended sentence order for sentences of 12 months or less
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out “not more” and insert “less”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, page 1, line 14, after “months” insert
“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.
Amendment 50, page 1, line 17, after “order” insert
“with the maximum operational period”.
This would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 48, page 3, line 8, after “individual” insert “or the public”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at significant risk of harm.
Amendment 49, page 3, line 8, after “at” leave out “significant”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at risk of harm.
Amendment 51, page 4, line 3, leave out “not more” and insert “less”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.
Amendment 52, page 4, line 3, after “12 months” insert
“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea (typically one third).
Amendment 55, page 4, line 6, after “order” insert
“with the maximum operational period”.
This would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.
Amendment 36, page 4, line 11, at end insert
“, or the court is of the opinion that, having considered the basis of opinion provisions in section 77 Sentencing Act 2020, it should mitigate the sentence to one of a community sentence as provided for in that section.”
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Amendment 53, page 5, line 15, after “individual” insert “or the public”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at significant risk of harm.
Amendment 54, page 5, line 15, leave out “significant”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at risk of harm.
Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Amendment 29, in clause 3, page 10, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—
“(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), “monthly income” means monthly income after deduction of—
(a) such amounts as are required to be paid or deducted from the offender’s income under, or by virtue of, any enactment, or
(b) such amounts as may be specified in the regulations.”
This amendment changes the definition of “monthly income” for the purposes of income reduction orders so that any amount of money that is required to be paid or deducted from an offender’s monthly income as a result of other enactments (such as child support maintenance payments or under an attachment of earnings order) is not counted for those purposes.
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 14, line 4, after “(including victims of crime” insert “, ensuring their protection from further physical or psychological harm”.
This amendment would amend the statutory purposes of sentencing to incorporate safeguarding victims from further physical or psychological harm.
Clauses 4 and 5 stand part.
Amendment 30, in clause 6, page 14, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—
“(1) This section applies if—
(a) a court is passing sentence for an offence,
(b) the court has indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse, and
(c) having regard to any evidence and any representations that are made by or on behalf of the offender or the prosecution, the court is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse.”
This amendment introduces two procedural safeguards before a court can record that an offence involved domestic abuse: first, the court must have indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse; and, second, the court must have given an opportunity to the offender and prosecution to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that an offence involved domestic abuse.
Government amendments 6 to 8.
Amendment 31, page 15, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—
“(1) This section applies if—
(a) a court or officer is passing sentence for an offence,
(b) the court or officer has indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse, and
(c) having regard to any evidence and any representations that are made by or on behalf of the offender or the prosecution, the court or officer is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse.”
This amendment introduces two procedural safeguards before a court can record that a service offence involved domestic abuse: first, the court must have indicated that it appears the service offence may have involved domestic abuse; and, second, the court must have given an opportunity to the offender and prosecution to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that the service offence involved domestic abuse.
Government amendments 9 to 11.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Government amendment 12.
Clause 8 stand part.
Government amendment 13.
Clauses 9 to 12 stand part.
Government amendments 14 and 15.
Clauses 13 to 15 stand part.
Government amendments 16 and 17.
Clauses 16 to 19 stand part.
Amendment 24, in clause 20, page 37, line 14, at end insert—
“(ab) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) do not apply to any person convicted of—
(a) rape;
(b) assault by penetration;
(c) rape of a child under 13;
(d) assault of a child under 13 by penetration;
(e) inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity;
(f) paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13;
(g) kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence;
(h) creating or possessing indecent photographs of children;
(i) grievous bodily harm;
(j) grooming;
(k) stalking;
(l) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult; or
(m) death by dangerous driving, and
(ac) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted on and ensured exclusions for all offences considered to be serious violence, offences against children, sexual offences and domestic abuse offences, and”.
This amendment would disapply the clause 20 early release provisions of the Bill in relation to those convicted of the offences listed in the amendment, and would require the Secretary of State to consult on and ensure exclusions for those convicted of other serious violent and sexual offence categories.
Clauses 20 to 23 stand part.
Amendment 41, in clause 24, page 46, leave out lines 20 to 23.
This amendment would leave out the Bill’s provision to give probation officers more discretion in relation to licence conditions.
Amendment 34, page 46, line 23, at end insert—
“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—
‘(4B) In exercising any power under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State must have regard to any representations made by the offender.’”
This amendment introduces a right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations as to their necessity and proportionality.
Amendment 35, page 46, line 23, at end insert—
“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—
‘(4B) The Secretary of State must not include a condition under subsection (4)(b)(di) (a restriction zone condition) in a licence, either on release or subsequently, or vary or cancel any such condition included in a licence, unless the Board directs the Secretary of State to do so (and must, if the Board so directs, include, vary or cancel such a condition).’”
This amendment introduces a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones which will confine offenders to specific areas in the community while on licence.
Amendment 44, page 48, line 17, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (4) of this section, undertake an assessment of the potential effects of a driving prohibition condition on a person’s ability to attend—
(a) employment,
(b) education, or
(c) a rehabilitation programme.
(11) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the assessment carried out under subsection (10) including recommendations on—
(a) offender rehabilitation,
(b) offender reintegration, and
(c) any other matters that the Secretary deems appropriate.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before commencing the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill, to publish a report on their potential effects on the ability of ex-offenders to attend employment, education and rehabilitation providers.
Amendment 45, page 48, line 17, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (7) of this section, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on a person’s ability to attend—
(a) employment,
(b) education, or
(c) a rehabilitation programme.
(11) The court may provide for exemptions in a restriction zone condition to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.
(12) A probation officer may vary a restriction zone condition imposed by the court to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.
(13) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on—
(a) the number of people subject to a restriction zone condition,
(b) the number of cases where a restriction zone condition has included an exemption or modification to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme, and
(c) evidence on the effects of restriction zone conditions on reoffending and rehabilitation.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before implementing the relevant provisions, to assess the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on an ex-offender’s ability to attend education, employment or a rehabilitation programme. It would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, and require an annual report on their use and effectiveness.
Clauses 24 and 25 stand part.
Amendment 33, in clause 26, page 50, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 254 (recall of prisoners while on licence), in subsection (1) after ‘prison’ insert—
‘where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance with licence conditions or a specific and imminent risk of harm.’”
This amendment gives effect to the recommendation 4.3 of the Independent Sentencing Review for “stricter criteria and thresholds” for recall.
Clauses 26 to 28 stand part.
Amendment 22, in clause 29, page 55, line 5, leave out “both” and insert “more”.
This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 23.
Amendment 23, page 55, line 27, at end insert—
“(8A) The third condition is that the basis for P’s recall is that P has breached a license condition, civil order, or criminal order in relation to the victim of the crime for which P is serving the sentence in question.”
This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 22.
Clauses 29 to 34 stand part.
Amendment 32, in clause 35, page 65, line 33, at end insert—
“(7) Before making regulations under section 46 to bring this section into force, the Secretary of State must issue a code of practice giving guidance to providers of probation services about how to discharge those functions lawfully having regard to—
(a) section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and
(b) the data protection legislation (see section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018).
(8) The Secretary of State may not issue a code of practice under subsection (7) unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has consulted providers of probation services and any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate about a draft of the code,
(b) the Secretary of State has laid a draft of the code before each House of Parliament, and
(c) each House of Parliament has by a resolution approved the draft of the code.”
This amendment prevents clause 35 from being brought into force until the Secretary of State has issued a code of practice to providers of probation services about how to take and publish photographs lawfully in light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the data protection legislation. Before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult providers of probation services, lay a draft before Parliament and obtain approval from both Houses.
Clauses 35 to 44 stand part.
Government amendment 19.
Clause 45 stand part.
Government amendment 20.
Clauses 46 and 47 stand part.
Government new clause 1—Deportation of foreign criminals—
New clause 2—Electronic monitoring: oversight—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In Part 14 of Schedule 9, in paragraph 31 (Electronic monitoring: person responsible for monitoring), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
‘(3) Regulations under this section must ensure that—
(a) electronic monitoring is overseen by the Probation Service;
(b) the fitting of necessary apparatus for the purposes of electronic monitoring may only be undertaken by those in the employment of an organisation with responsibility for delivering electronic monitoring; and
(c) the fitting of necessary apparatus may not be undertaken by an employee of HM Prison and Probation Service unless the responsibility for the delivery of electronic monitoring is held solely by HM Prison and Probation Service.’”
This new clause would ensure that the probation service oversees electronic monitoring, and that prison officers would not be responsible for fitting tags unless tagging contracts are brought into the public sector.
New clause 3—Unpaid work requirements: community work—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 9 (Restriction on imposing unpaid work requirement), after sub-paragraph (1)(b) insert—
‘(c) that the unpaid work is work undertaken for a non-profit organisation, social enterprise, voluntary organisation or local authority.”’
This new clause would prohibit private sector involvement in unpaid work as part of a community sentence.
New clause 4—Probation capacity: independent report—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, a report must be published and laid before Parliament by HM Inspectorate of Probation (‘the Inspectorate’) determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service to meet provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service.
(2) If the report under subsection (1) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service may not come into force until a further report determines that the Probation Service has adequate capacity.
(3) Following a report under subsection (1), the Inspectorate must publish and lay before Parliament a further report, no less than once every twelve months, determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service.
(4) If a report under subsections (1) or (3) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, the Inspectorate may direct that a prioritisation framework must be issued to the areas in which the capacity concerns apply, in order to provide local services with guidance about which activities to deprioritise.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within two weeks of the laying of a report under subsections (1) or (3) with a finding of inadequate capacity, make a statement to Parliament setting out how probation capacity will be increased to an adequate level.”
This new clause would ensure that the provisions of this Bill likely to increase demand on the Probation Service cannot be implemented until HM Inspectorate of Probation determines that there is adequate capacity to address those demands, and would enable the Inspectorate to trigger the issuing of a prioritisation framework to help local areas to identify which activities to deprioritise.
New clause 5—Further release after recall: offenders eligible for risk-assessed release—
“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 255C, after subsection (3) insert—
(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if the basis for P’s recall is that P has breached a license condition, civil order, or criminal order in relation to the victim of a crime for which P is serving a sentence.
(3B) Where this subsection applies—
(a) at the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which P returns to custody, P must be considered for referral for executive release rather than automatic release;
(b) if P is referred for consideration for executive release, the Secretary of State may release P again on licence, and
(c) if P is not referred for consideration for executive release, or if P is denied executive release, the Secretary of State must refer P’s case to the Board.”
This new clause, along with amendments 22 and 23, would ensure that offenders who have been recalled to prison on the basis of a breach of license condition or of an order related to the victim are risk-assessed, to determine whether it is safe for them to be re-released into the community, rather than being automatically released after 56 days.
New clause 6—Lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—
“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under sections 1, 2B, 3ZB, 3ZC or 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for life.”
This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous or careless driving (or related offences) would be banned from driving for life.
New clause 7—Under-18 anonymity for cases involving serious crime—
“(1) This section applies where a person (‘P’) aged under 18—
(a) has been convicted of an offence; and
(b) will receive a custodial sentence of four or more years.
(2) Where this section applies, prior to delivering sentencing remarks, the court must lift any reporting restrictions identifying P.
(3) This section applies notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter IV of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.”
This new clause would require reporting restrictions to be lifted at the point of sentencing for young offenders who have received a sentence of four or more years.
New clause 8—Victim personal statements—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.
(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.
(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.
New clause 9—Duty to collect and publish data on sentencing—
“(1) Within 24 hours of the conclusion of the passing of a sentence, the relevant court must provide HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) with information regarding—
(a) the offence category;
(b) the sentence length; and
(c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations, but which must include—
(i) nationality,
(ii) sex at birth,
(iii) country of birth,
(iv) method of entry to the United Kingdom,
(v) visa route,
(vi) visa status, and
(vii) asylum status.
(2) HMCTS must collect and record the information set out in subsection (1) in a safe and secure manner.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish statistics on the information set out in subsection (1) no less than once every three months.”
This new clause would require HMCTS to collect data and other information on sentencing and sentenced offenders, and would require the Government to publish statistics on that data every three months.
New clause 10—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—
“(1) All transcripts of sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.
(2) All published sentencing remarks must be made freely available, including online.”
This new clause would require all sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court to be published and made available to all.
New clause 11—Prohibited steps orders—
“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 8 (Child arrangements orders and other orders with respect to children), in the closing words of subsection (3), after ‘include’ insert ‘proceedings in the Crown Court or Magistrate’s Court under section 10A or’.
(3) After section 10 insert—
‘10A Duty of a sentencing court to make a prohibited steps order in respect of sexual offences
(1) This section applies where an offender has parental responsibility for a child and the offender is convicted of a sexual offence involving any child victim.
(2) Where this section applies, a court must make a prohibited steps order when sentencing the offender.
(3) A prohibited steps order made under this section must—
(a) cease to have effect if an offender is acquitted on appeal for the offence in relation to which the prohibited steps order was imposed; and
(b) continue to have effect during an offender’s licence period after release for the relevant offence.
(4) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (Proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.’”
This new clause would require the courts to make a “prohibited steps order” (PSO) – preventing a parent from taking a specific action or set of actions regarding their child – after the conviction of a person with parental responsibilities for a sexual offence involving a child victim.
New clause 12—Unduly lenient sentences scheme: victims—
“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An application may be made to the Attorney General to review any sentence passed by a Crown Court under the terms set out in this section.
(2B) An application under subsection (2A) must be made within—
(a) one year of the sentence being passed, if the application is made by—
(i) the victim of the offence for which the sentence was passed; or
(ii) the next of kin of a deceased victim or a victim who lacks capacity; or
(b) 56 days of the sentence being passed, if made by any other person.
(2C) The Crown Prosecution Service must write to—
(a) any victim of any offence for which a sentence has been passed in the Crown Court; or
(b) the next of kin of any deceased victim;
within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, to provide details of the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, the application process for the scheme, and the deadlines set out in subsection (2B) of this section.’”
This new clause would extend the deadline for applications to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days, or for a year for victims of crime (or the next of kin of deceased victims). It would also require the CPS to notify victims about the scheme.
New clause 13—Sexual offences: offender personality disorder pathway—
“(1) The Prison Rules 1999 are amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 20 (Health services), after sub-paragraph (1), insert—
‘(1A) Provision under subsection (1) must include access, for all eligible prisoners serving custodial sentences for sexual offences, to services provided under the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway.’”
This new clause would require the Government to provide access to the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway to all eligible prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences.
New clause 14—Sexual offences: chemical suppression—
“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on how most effectively to introduce mandatory chemical suppression for certain individuals serving sentences for sexual offences, with appropriate legal and clinical safeguards.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on mandatory chemical suppression for certain sex offenders.
New clause 15—Sentencing Council: abolition—
“(1) The Sentencing Council (established under section 118 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) is abolished.
(2) The Secretary of State may prepare—
(a) sentencing guidelines which may be general in nature or limited to a particular offence, particular category of offence or particular category of offender;
(b) sentencing guidelines about the discharge of a court's duty under section 73 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentences for guilty pleas); and
(c) sentencing guidelines about the application of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences.
(3) The Secretary of State may prepare sentencing guidelines about any other matter.
(4) When developing sentencing guidelines, the Secretary of State must—
(a) promote understanding of, and public confidence in, the sentencing and criminal justice system;
(b) consult Parliament on all draft guidelines; and
(c) publish the reasons for proposing any guidelines that could result in an offender receiving a shorter sentence than that set out in an Act of Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State may report, from time to time, on the impact of sentencing guidelines on sentencing practice.
(6) The Secretary of State must monitor—
(a) the application of the sentencing guidelines; and
(b) the impact on victims of sentencing decisions.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’
This new clause would abolish the Sentencing Council, give the Secretary of State the power to publish Sentencing guidelines, and impose various requirements linked to consultation and monitoring.
New clause 16—Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after ‘duty,’, insert ‘or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,’”
This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim's current or former duties.
New clause 17—Management of offenders: devolution to Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In Paragraph 175 (Prisons and offender management)—
(a) omit sub-paragraph (2); and
(b) in sub-paragraph (3), omit ‘probation’
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”
This new clause seeks to devolve probation services and offender management to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
New clause 18—Reporting on use of electronic monitoring requirements—
“In the Sentencing Code, in Part 14 of Schedule 9 (electronic monitoring), after paragraph 35 insert—
‘36(1) The Secretary of State must as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each calendar year prepare a report on the imposition of the electronic monitoring requirements during that year.
(2) The report must set out—
(a) the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed during the year;
(b) the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed on offenders under 18 during the year;
(c) the rate of compliance with the electronic monitoring requirements during the year;
(d) the cost of administering the electronic monitoring requirements during the year;
(e) the average amount of time taken during the year to activate a device used for the purposes of an electronic monitoring requirement after such a requirement took effect;
(f) the number of devices used for the purposes of the electronic monitoring requirements that malfunctioned during the year.
(3) The Secretary of State must—
(a) publish the report, and
(b) lay a copy of the published report before Parliament.’”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report each calendar year on the use of electronic monitoring requirements. The report must include the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed each year, the rate of compliance and the cost of administering the requirements each year. The report must be laid before Parliament.
New clause 19—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements to ensure that every person serving an IPP sentence, whether in prison or the community, has been re-sentenced in accordance with this section within 24 months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Lord Chancellor must establish a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).
(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must—
(a) include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice; and
(b) within 12 months of being appointed, lay a report before Parliament on the process of re-sentencing individuals serving an IPP sentence.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may disband the committee established under subsection (2) after a report has been laid under subsection (3)(b).
(5) The Lord Chancellor must disband the committee once all those serving IPP sentences have been re-sentenced under this section.
(6) Subject to subsection (8), a Crown Court designated by the Lord Chancellor (“the re-sentencing court”) must re-sentence a person serving an IPP sentence in relation to the offence or offences for which they were previously sentenced to an IPP sentence.
(7) The re-sentencing court must not impose a sentence more severe than the notional determinate sentence upon which the IPP sentence was based.
(8) The re-sentencing court may confirm the IPP sentence only if—
(a) the re-sentencing court determines that, at the date of the original sentencing, ignoring the alternative of an IPP sentence, the person serving the IPP sentence might appropriately have received a whole life order under section 321 of the Sentencing Act 2020; and
(b) at the date of re-sentencing, there is a substantial risk of P committing a further offence if released.
(9) The re-sentencing court may only confirm an IPP sentence where the judge hearing the matter is authorised to try cases of murder.
(10) The re-sentencing court may recommend that the re-sentenced person may be subject to an extended licence, if the re-sentencing court considers this appropriate.
(11) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (6)—
(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020;
(b) the Sentencing Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).
(12) The Lord Chancellor must, at the end of every twelve-month period beginning with the day this section comes into force, lay before Parliament a report that sets out—
(a) the number of persons who have been re-sentenced under subsection (6);
(b) the number of persons who have had their sentences confirmed under subsection (8).
(13) For the purposes of this section, “IPP sentence” means—
(a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; or
(b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; or
(c) a sentence of indeterminate imprisonment or detention passed as a result of sections 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006;
(14) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Select Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.
New clause 20—Provision for a prisoner to apply to the Parole Board for a licence termination review following expiry of the qualifying period on annual basis—
“(1) The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 31A (imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Where—
(a) the prisoner has been released on licence under this Chapter;
(b) the qualifying period has expired; and
(c) if his case has been considered for termination previously by the Parole Board and a period of at least twelve months has expired since the disposal of that application,
the prisoner may make an application to the Parole Board under this subsection.’
(3) In subsection (4)—
(a) after ‘reference’ insert ‘or application’;
after ‘subsection (3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’.”
This new clause would allow a prisoner whose licence has not been terminated by the Parole Board two or three years after their first release to make an application annually to the Parole Board for termination. This would increase the opportunities for licences to be terminated.
New clause 21—Further release after recall: requirement for a review—
“(1) Before sections 27 to 30 come into force, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effectiveness of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025, including but not limited to—
(a) an evaluation of its impact on—
(i) public protection;
(ii) rehabilitation;
(iii) reconviction;
(iv) probation capacity and resource; and
(b) an assessment of how any learning from the evaluation specified in subsection (1)(a) will be applied to the implementation of the provisions of sections 27 to 30 of this Act.
(2) A copy of the review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause provides an opportunity for the current legislation for recall to be reviewed prior to new legislation being rolled out, to ensure it is effective and adequately protects the public.
New clause 22—Review of sentence following a change in law—
“(1) Where a person is serving or subject to a sentence imposed for an offence, and—
(a) the offence has been abolished, or
(b) there has been a change in the law which materially alters the sentence that would be imposed for the same offence following that change in the law,
that person may apply to the sentencing court, or to such other court as may be prescribed, for a review of the sentence.
(2) On such an application, the court may—
(a) quash the sentence and resentence the person in accordance with the existing law; or
(b) make such other order as necessary in the interests of justice.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedure and eligibility criteria for applications under this section.”
This new clause would allow a person still serving a sentence under a law that has changed to seek review or resentencing in line with the existing law.
New clause 23—Review of the impact of a change in the law on unspent convictions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—
(a) the effect of changes in the criminal law, whether legislative or judicial, on those serving sentences for offences that would attract a different sentence following the subsequent changes to the criminal law; and
(b) the adequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing any perceived injustice arising from such changes.
(2) The Secretary of State must thereafter lay a further report under subsection (1) every three years.
(3) A report made under this section must include—
(a) recommendations for legislative or administrative steps to prevent any instances of injustice arising from changes in the law; and
(b) data on the number of persons serving sentences in the scenario set out in subsection (1)(a) and, of those, the number who remain imprisoned.”
This new clause would create a statutory duty for the Government to review, on a recurring basis, how changes to the law affect those already convicted or sentenced.
New clause 24—Sentencing Council—
“The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.”
New clause 25—Deportation of foreign criminals—
“(1) A foreign criminal who has been sentenced to—
(a) a custodial sentence of at least 6 months; or
(b) a community sentence of at least 6 months,
must be the subject of an immediate deportation order, subject to subsection (2) below.
(2) The Secretary of State may determine, in exceptional cases, that a deportation order under subsection (1) does not apply.
(3) In this section, ‘foreign criminal’ means a person who—
(a) is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen, and
(b) is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence.”
This new clause is intended to replace Clause 42. It would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six month community sentence.
New clause 26—Criminal cases review—
“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), insert—
‘Part IVB
CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (PUBLIC PETITION)
36A Scope of this Part
(1) A case to which this Part applies may be referred to the Court of Appeal under section 2 below.
(2) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under section 36B shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this Part shall be construed as references to that division.
(3) This Part applies to any case—
(a) of a description specified in an order under this section; or
(b) in which sentence is passed on a person—
(i) for an offence triable only on indictment; or
(ii) for an offence of a description specified in an order under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that this section shall apply to any case of a description specified in the order or to any case in which sentence is passed on a person for an offence triable either way of a description specified in the order.
(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) In this Part, “sentence” has the same meaning as in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, except that it does not include an interim hospital order under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983, and “sentencing” shall be construed accordingly.
(7) In its application to Northern Ireland, this section shall have effect subject to the modifications set out in subsections (8) to (11).
(8) Subsection (2) shall not apply to Northern Ireland.
(9) In this section—
“offence triable only on indictment” means an offence punishable only on conviction on indictment;
“offence triable either way” means an offence punishable on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction; and
any reference in subsection (4) to the Secretary of State must be construed as a reference to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
(10) For subsection (5), in Northern Ireland an order under subsection (4) shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (and not a statutory instrument), and any such order shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).
(11) References in subsection (6) to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall be respectively construed as references to Part I of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 and Part III of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
36B Criminal cases review (public petition)
(1) If it appears to any adult British citizen aged 18 or over—
(a) that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the Crown Court (“the person sentenced”) has been unduly lenient or unduly harsh; and
(b) that the case is one to which section 36A applies,
that British citizen (“the petitioner”) may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“the Commission”) for it to review the sentencing of the person sentenced, in accordance with section 36C below, and if the Commission refers the case to the Court of Appeal, upon such a reference the Court of Appeal may—
(i) quash any sentence passed on the person sentenced; and
(ii) in place of it pass such sentence as they think appropriate for the case and as the lower court had power to pass when dealing with the person sentenced,
provided that the petitioner has filed the reference with the Commission in writing, signed by at least 500 signatures (“the co-petitioners”) including his own.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations stipulate the information and form that the petitioner must provide when filing the reference.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the condition specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection may be satisfied whether or not it appears that the judge—
(a) erred in law as to his powers of sentencing; or
(b) failed to comply with a mandatory sentence requirement under section 399(b) or (c) of the Sentencing Code.
(4) For the purposes of this Part, any two or more sentences are to be treated as passed in the same proceeding if they would be so treated for the purposes of section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
(5) Where a reference under this section relates to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code, the Court of Appeal shall not, in deciding what order under that section is appropriate for the case, make any allowance for the fact that the person to whom it relates is being sentenced for a second time.
(6) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of, or shall determine any application in proceedings incidental or preliminary to, a reference under this section of a sentence passed by himself.
(7) Where the Court of Appeal has concluded its review of a case referred to it under this section, and given its judgment thereon, the Court of Appeal, the petitioner or the person sentenced may refer a point of law involved in any sentence passed on the person sentenced to the Supreme Court for its opinion, and the Supreme Court shall consider the point and give its opinion on it accordingly, and either remit the case to the Court of Appeal to be dealt with or itself deal with the case.
(8) A reference under subsection (6) shall be made only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal that the point of law is of general public importance and it appears to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (as the case may be) that the point is one which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.
(9) For the purpose of dealing with a case under this section, the Supreme Court may exercise any powers of the Court of Appeal.
(10) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—
(a) subsection (2)(b) shall read as if for the words after “failed to” there were substituted “impose a sentence required by—
(i) Article 70(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004,
(ii) paragraph 2(4) or (5) of Schedule 2 to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006,
(iii) Article 13 or 14 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, or
(iv) section 7(2) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015”.
(b) the references to sections 11 and 35(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall be read as references to sections 10(2) and 33(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, respectively; and
(c) the reference in subsection (3A) to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code shall be read as a reference to an order under Article 5(1) of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.
36C The Commission
(1) The Commission under section 36B is the same body as that established under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the provisions of section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to the role of the Commission under this Part.
(2) Sections 9, 10, and 12A to 25 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to this Part.
(3) The Commission must review all cases referred to it within 8 weeks of receiving any such referral and must, within that time, make its decision.
(4) If the Commission decides that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal by reason of an unduly harsh sentence then, immediately upon receipt of the referral, the Court of Appeal must make an order that the person sentenced be released on temporary licence (“ROTL”) until further order of the court, and the Court of Appeal must also determine suitable bail conditions, if any and the person sentenced must remain ROTL until the Court of Appeal has determined the referral.”’
New clause 27—Foreign criminals: stalking—
‘(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—
“32A Deportation following stalking offences
(1) This section applies where a foreign criminal—
(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and
(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.
(2) Where this section applies, prior to deportation, a risk assessment must be prepared to assess the likelihood after deportation of the foreign criminal—
(a) committing an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or
(b) contacting or seeking to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.
(3) A risk assessment prepared under this section must be shared, subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, with the relevant authorities in the country to which the foreign criminal will be deported.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’”
This new clause would require the preparation of a risk assessment for any foreign criminal being deported after a stalking conviction, and for the assessment to be shared with the authorities in the country to which the offender is returning.
New clause 28—Gambling treatment requirement—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In section 201 (community order: community order requirements table), after the entry in the table relating to the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement, insert—
‘(3) In Schedule 9 (community orders and suspended sentence orders: requirements), after Part 12 insert—
“Part 12a
GAMBLING TREATMENT REQUIREMENT
26A(1) In this Code “gambling treatment requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement that during a period specified in the order the offender must seek gambling addiction treatment through the National Health Service.
(2) In this paragraph—
(a) “gambling treatment”, in relation to an offender, means—
(i) treatment provided through a specialist NHS gambling service or gambling clinic; or
(ii) another form of NHS treatment determined by a qualified clinician to have the best chance of reducing or eliminating the offender’s gambling addiction; and
(b) ”qualified clinician” means an NHS clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist with appropriate professional qualifications.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) apply to a relevant order which imposes a gambling treatment requirement.
(4) The order may specify separate periods comprising the period specified under sub-paragraph (1).
(5) For each treatment period, the order may specify the treatment provider but must not otherwise specify the nature of the treatment.
(6) In sub-paragraph (5), “treatment period” means—
(a) if the order specifies separate periods under sub-paragraph (4), any of those periods;
(b) otherwise, the period specified under sub-paragraph (1).”’”
This new clause would introduce a new gambling treatment requirement, requiring an offender to seek NHS gambling addiction treatment as part of a community order.
New clause 29—Gambling addiction: support for offenders—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on how the Government will ensure that—
(a) sentencing courts treat gambling disorder as a mental disorder for the purposes of section 232 of the Sentencing Code;
(b) sentencing courts have access to appropriate clinical advice on the impact of a gambling disorder on offending behaviour, where relevant; and
(c) offenders have access to treatment and peer support for gambling disorder, both in prison and in the community.
(2) Within twelve months of the publication of a report under subsection (1) above and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report on progress against the objectives set out in subsection (1).”
This new clause would require the Government to report to Parliament on how it will improve support for offenders with gambling addictions and ensure that gambling disorder is recognised as a mental health condition by sentencing courts.
New clause 30—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).
(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.
(4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence.
(5) But the court may not impose a sentence that is a heavier penalty than the sentence that was imposed for the original offence.
(6) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (4)—
(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under the Sentencing Code (see section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020);
(b) the Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).
(7) In this section—
‘IPP sentence’ means a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act (including such a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of section 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);
‘original offence’ means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.
(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.
New clause 31—Use of funds raised through income reduction orders—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits and costs of directing the funds raised from income reduction orders into a fund that provides support for victims.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of using the monies raised through income reduction orders to fund support for victims.
New clause 32—Probation caseloads—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations to commence the provisions in this Act, establish maximum caseload limits for probation officers supervising individuals subject to—
(a) licence conditions;
(b) community orders; or
(c) any other form of court-imposed supervision by the probation service.
(2) The Secretary of State must, each year, lay before Parliament a report on compliance with the caseload limits set under this section.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set maximum caseloads for probation before implementation of the Act, and to report annually on compliance.
New clause 33—Access to rehabilitation and support services—
“(1) The probation service must ensure all individuals subject to licence conditions, community orders, or other court-imposed supervision have access to—
(a) NHS mental health and substance misuse services,
(b) education, training and employment support, and
(c) approved behaviour change or offender behaviour programmes.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on the availability and use of the services provided under subsection (1).”
This new clause would require the probation service to ensure people under its supervision can access mental health and substance misuse services; education, training and support; and approved behaviour change or offender management programmes, and to report annually on the availability and uptake of those services.
New clause 34—Digital systems for tracking offender progress—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the benefits and costs of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals who are subject to supervision by the probation service.
(2) The assessment must consider the following potential functions of a sentence management system—
(a) tracking offender progress,
(b) providing for the sharing of information between the courts, probation service, and other relevant agencies, subject to the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018,
(c) monitoring compliance with rehabilitation programmes, and
(d) any other functions that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals subject to supervision by the probation service.
New clause 35—Specialist teams for high-risk or complex offenders—
“(1) The probation service must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise—
(a) high-risk offenders,
(b) offenders with complex mental health needs,
(c) offenders with substance misuse needs, and
(d) young offenders who are transitioning to adult supervision.
(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits of specialist probation teams having lower average caseloads per probation officer.
(3) The assessment must consider the potential arrangements for specialist probation teams accessing support from other relevant agencies.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the probation service to assess the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise offenders who are high-risk; have complex mental health or substance misuse needs; and young offenders transitioning to adult supervision.
New clause 36—Domestic abuse aggravated offences—
“(1) A court must treat an offence committed in England and Wales as domestic abuse aggravated, if—
(a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other; and
(b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse.
(2) In this section—
(a) ‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and
(b) ‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”
This new clause would require a court to treat a domestic abuse offence as aggravated.
New clause 37—Rehabilitative programmes for offences relating to violence against women and girls—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for—
(a) assault;
(b) battery; or
(c) actual bodily harm
when the victim is a woman or girl.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for certain offences.
New clause 38—Screening for traumatic brain injuries—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of screening all prisoners for traumatic brain injuries at the start of their custodial sentence.
(2) The assessment should consider—
(a) how screening for traumatic brain injuries could inform the management of a prisoner’s sentence,
(b) the health services and rehabilitation programmes available for prisoners with traumatic brain injuries, and
(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment made under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of introducing standardised screening for traumatic brain injuries for prisoners starting a custodial sentence.
New clause 39—Suspension of driving licences during bail for driving related offences—
“(1) This section applies where an individual has been granted bail in respect of one of the following offences—
(a) dangerous or careless driving;
(b) drink driving; or
(c) drug driving.
(2) The court may suspend the driving licence of the individual, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings.”
This new clause would allow the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged for certain driving offences, pending the outcome of the trial.
New clause 40—Access to rehabilitation programmes and education for individuals held on remand—
“(1) Where an individual is held in custodial remand pending sentencing, the probation service must provide access to the same rehabilitative programmes that are available to prisoners after sentencing.
(2) Where an individual is held in custodial demand pending trial, the probation service must provide access to the same—
(a) education;
(b) therapy; and
(c) any other support that the probation service deems appropriate,
that is available to prisoners after sentencing.”
This new clause would allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence.
New clause 41—No presumption of suspended sentence—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”
New clause 42—Tagging of offenders receiving suspended sentences—
“Where a court has imposed a suspended sentence, it must impose a condition that an offender must be subject to electronic monitoring for the duration of that sentence.”
New clause 43—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 2)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is an offence under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996.”
New clause 44—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 3)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, either involves possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon.”
New clause 45—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 4)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”
New clause 46—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 5)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has committed or been convicted of three other offences in the 12 months preceding the offence.”
New clause 47—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 6)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has committed 10 or more other previous offences at the time of the offence or at the time of conviction for the offence.”
New clause 48—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 7)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has previously received a suspended sentence order for the same offence.”
New clause 49—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 8)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has previously received a custodial sentence for the same offence.”
New clause 50—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 9)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, has a mandatory minimum sentence.”
New clause 51—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 10)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, involves a firearm or ammunition including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”
New clause 52—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 11)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is one of burglary.”
New clause 53—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 12)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, has a connection to terrorism, including but not limited to offences relating to terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Explosive Substances Act 1883.”
New clause 54—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 13)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is one that falls under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.”
New clause 55—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 14)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has breached previous suspended sentence orders three or more times, either by failing to comply with the requirements of the orders or by re-offending during the order’s operational period.”
New clause 56—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 15)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was subject to a supervision order.”
New clause 57—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 16)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).”
New clause 58—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 17)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”
New clause 59—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 18)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has a history of poor compliance with court orders.”
New clause 60—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 19)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender is being sentenced for three or more offences.”
New clause 61—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 20)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has already been convicted of committing the same offence three or more times.”
New clause 62—Expiry—
“This Act expires at the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”
Schedules 1 to 4 stand part.
Government new schedule 1—Sentence with fixed licence period in Scotland or Northern Ireland: consequential provision—
Government amendment 21.
Esther McVey
I oppose the whole idea of forcing courts to give suspended sentences when they should be sending offenders to prison. We all know that it is hard to get sent to prison in the first place, and judges and magistrates do not send people to prison lightly. In fact, they do not send people to prison enough, as far as I can see, so it is extremely worrying that we are to force them to send even fewer people to prison. My amendments seek to address this issue.
We cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so it will not be possible to transform this disastrous Bill into a good one—all we can seek to do today is make it less bad. Hon. Members should be under no illusion: the Bill takes a sledgehammer to our justice system, and will dismantle law and order in this country. To call the Bill a “sentencing” Bill makes a mockery of us all. It should be called the “avoid a sentence” Bill, because it is a slap in the face to victims and will embolden offenders, who will quite literally be laughing all the way to their next crime.
Let me put on record my support for amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), particularly in relation to the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the deportation of foreign criminals, but because of time constraints I will speak only to those amendments tabled in my name.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Lady suggests that the Bill will bring law and order into question, but as a former prison officer I would say it was the previous Government running our prison system to a boiling point that nearly brought law and order crashing down, with fewer than 100 bed spaces available last summer. It might be poignant for Conservative Members to reflect a little during the debate on what they did to His Majesty’s Prison Service while they were in office—and while I was serving.
Esther McVey
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, although I would point out that under the last Government three prisons were built—HMP Five Wells, HMP Fosse Way and HMP Millsike—which added an extra 8,500 places. Three further prisons will also be built.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The active management of the prison service at those levels of occupation was of course hard work, but that hard work was absolutely necessary, and far preferable to simply taking a view that we will not have all those criminals in prison at all. The reality is that what we are doing now is much worse.
Esther McVey
I agree with my right hon. Friend. This disgrace of a Bill will not be sending people to prison, and at the same time it will be letting people out of prison.
Amendments 46, 47, 51 and 52 would change the length of sentences that qualify for the “get out of jail free” suspended sentences to those of less than 12 months and only before any credit is given for a guilty plea. Sentences of 12 months or more are obviously given for more serious offences. As the Bill stands, I understand that those for whom a sentence of 18 months would be appropriate could hit the jackpot, because the credit of a guilty plea will be taken into account. That will reduce the sentence to 12 months; therefore, those people will qualify for a suspended sentence under this Bill. Sentences of those lengths are not given for nothing, so I hope the Government will reflect on my amendments, which would reduce the maximum sentence that has to be suspended.
I did a quick scan of my local papers to see who had got an 18-month sentence, which could now become a suspended sentence. They included a lady who caused the unnecessary suffering of an animal and was in possession of a samurai sword, and a lady who glassed a pregnant friend in the face. Another sentence was for coercive and controlling behaviour, and that person also got a five-year restraining order. They could now all get suspended sentences.
The Bill currently states that the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence need not apply
“if the court is of the opinion that making the order would put a particular individual at significant risk of physical or psychological harm.”
Amendments 48 and 53 would extend that to include the public—who are, after all, a collection of individuals. They, too, deserve protecting. If the court is concerned that an offender is likely to be a danger to the public, it should absolutely have the right to ensure that that offender goes to prison, not back into the community on a suspended sentence.
Amendments 49 and 54 would change the risk level for not imposing an immediate custodial sentence by removing the word “significant”. I would have thought that any identifiable risk should be covered. We are talking about protecting people’s lives; we should not be playing a game of Russian roulette with them. Ironically, it seems that the Sentencing Council has seen things similarly, as it has previously listed this as a reason not reason to suspend a sentence.
Amendments 50 and 55 would mean that anyone not being sent to prison as a result of this change, who otherwise would have been, would have to be given the maximum length of suspended sentence. In other words, the sentence would hang over them for the longest possible time and they should not be given a shorter period, as could be the case with normal suspended prison sentences.
New clause 42 would ensure that those given the suspended sentences are electronically tagged throughout. Using a tag to monitor someone’s location out of prison could make them think twice about reoffending, and if they were to reoffend it could make detection and resentencing much easier.
Other amendments concern the type of offending that we are allowing to be included in this ridiculous prison avoidance legislation. So many offences will be covered by this exemption that is hard to know where to start. This has to be addressed, and I sincerely hope that the Government will accept my amendments. Most people will believe that we have completely lost the plot if we allow there to be some offences for which prison sentences cannot generally be handed down. New clause 44 would exclude knife crime from being one of those offences.
I cannot believe that I have to table an amendment to prevent a whole load of criminals who carry knives from being kept out of prison—yet without my amendment, that is what this Bill will do. Does no one anywhere think through what is being proposed and how it will affect public safety? It would be completely disgraceful for the Government ever to claim to be serious about tackling knife crime when, under the Bill, the presumption will be that many people carrying a knife will no longer be sent to prison. How will that help to prevent the loss of life on our streets?
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point, because many of us will have examples in our constituencies of families who have been tragically affected by knife crime. Some go on to do amazing work to educate young people, but at the same time it is important that where a sentence has been given, it is carried out and that that deterrent is in place. Yet again, we are seeing the removal of deterrent by the Labour Government.
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that this Bill removes a deterrent.
Repeat knife offenders are supposed to get a mandatory immediate custodial sentence of six months, minimum—not a guarantee, effectively, that they will evade prison because their sentence is 12 months or less. Why would anyone think twice about carrying a knife if they know that they will not see the inside of a cell, and that the courts will be powerless to send them to prison?
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I understand and appreciate the effects of knife crime; we have all had cases in our constituencies that demonstrate the devastation that it causes. Does the right hon. Member agree that we should focus on rehabilitation, and on preventing people from carrying knives? Education on this issue is important. It is the way forward in ensuring that knife crime is decreased.
Esther McVey
Rehabilitation is key, but so is prison. Prison for people who have committed crimes is essential. Prisons are about removing a danger from society.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
We hear a lot about rehabilitation from Labour Members, and we hear a lot about recidivism. The most likely spur for recidivism is letting people out who will continue to do harm. We will be told by the Government that those people are being let out on licence, so will my right hon. Friend invite the Minister to predict how many people will be recalled while they are on licence? The Justice Secretary has already described that number as being too high, but will it rise as a result of these measures?
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend makes his point clear. The Minister was listening, and I hope that he will answer that question in his remarks.
People cannot seriously think it is acceptable for those who commit offences involving firearms or ammunition, or even those who commit terror-related offences, to be eligible for a suspended sentence, but as things stand, those offences would be covered by the Bill. My new clauses 51 and 53 would amend that ludicrous position, and new clause 52 would exclude burglars. We do not see nearly enough burglars in court, because of a lack of detection of their crimes, so the ones we do see in court should routinely go to prison, not be spared jail, as they would be under these measures.
New clauses 43 and 45 would mean that those assaulting our dedicated police officers or emergency workers would not be eligible for suspended sentences; they are eligible for them under this Bill, and that is an absolute disgrace. When the Government were in opposition, they made a huge noise about how those who assault emergency workers, police officers and prison officers should be sent to prison. For example, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) introduced a private Member’s Bill that became the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, under which the maximum prison sentence for assault on an emergency worker was increased from six months to 1 year.
Part of the problem is that all too often people do not feel that there will be justice at the end of the process. When in opposition, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) said:
“the attitude…sadly exists across the criminal justice system…that being punched or kicked is somehow to be expected and accepted....we will never accept that people should be assaulted while they are doing their job and we will do everything in our power to protect them.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1150.]
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) said:
“We must put legislation in place to guarantee that a tough line will be taken on anyone who assaults an emergency worker.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1172.]
That is what Government Members said when they were in opposition, but they are ensuring the exact opposite now; these offenders will be let out on a suspended sentence. I cannot believe that Government Members would not join me in voting for new clause 43. I would like to test the will and the temperature of the House on that matter, and I will not back down on that.
The presumption in the Bill against immediate custody will also apply to those committing a host of other nasty, violent and sexual crimes, all of whom will be eligible for these get-out-of-jail-free suspended sentences, if they are sentenced to 12 months or less for their crimes. New clause 50 would mean that offences with a mandatory minimum sentence would not be included in the Bill; that would alleviate the damage in some cases.
New clause 54 would exclude from mandatory suspension sentences that can be appealed for being unduly lenient. The unduly lenient sentence scheme covers sexual offences; stalking; putting someone in fear of violence, serious harm or distress; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship; and inflicting grievous bodily harm or unlawful wounding, among other offences. It would be nonsense for crimes included among the most serious under the scheme to be dealt with by way of a suspended sentence, instead of immediate custody. How would the measures in the Bill work on appeal? Would all sentences be overturned as being unduly lenient, or would the new law trump that scheme? My new clause would inject a bit of common sense and avoid all these questions.
My other amendments mainly concern the past of the offender. It is bad enough that a first-time offender who has committed a serious crime will avoid prison, but it is outrageous that under the Bill, serial offenders will be rewarded for reoffending. New clause 46 would mean that any offender who has committed three or more offences in the preceding 12 months would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence, and new clause 47 would stop them from qualifying if they had committed 10 or more offences previously. People are committing multiple offences, yet the Government are letting them off with a suspended sentence.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Eighty per cent of offenders are reoffenders because of the 14 years of mess that this Government are having to clear up. The real travesty of justice is that there are no prison cells available for people who are convicted. The last Government failed to build the prison places that are needed; this Government will ensure that they exist, because they will always be needed. It is as though the Conservatives left the tap running and are whining about the flood that they let happen.
Esther McVey
I am glad that the hon. Lady raised that point. When I was brought back into the Cabinet Office, people in the left-leaning civil service, in the Ministry of Justice, said, “Let’s let people out of prison. It’s running too hot.” Thankfully, I stood firm and said no, and so did the Conservative Government, unlike this Government, who have let thousands of people out of prison and are destined to do so again. I am afraid that this is ideological. Labour Members do not think that more people should go to prison; they think that those people should be in the community. That is ideological, and certainly not logical. It does not support law and order in this country, and it is a slap in the face for victims.
Esther McVey
I will not.
New clauses 48 and 49 would mean that offenders would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence if they had previously been given a suspended sentence or an immediate prison sentence for the same offence. If an offender commits a burglary now and goes to prison for it, and is convicted of committing another burglary after the measures in the Bill come into force, it would be ludicrous if, instead of being given a longer prison sentence—most people would think that was fair—they were given a suspended sentence; however, the courts would not have any other choice, in many circumstances.
New clause 55 would exclude criminals who had previously breached suspended sentences on three or more occasions from qualifying for a suspended sentence. It could be argued that those who have breached a suspended sentence once should not qualify. I completely agree, but I have decided that it should be “three strikes and you’re out”. People cannot keep committing offences and keep getting suspended sentences.
Another strong case for “three strikes and you’re out” is covered by new clause 61, which covers offenders who are convicted of committing the same crime three or more times. Someone who commits the same crime three or more times will now get only a suspended sentence. These people should be getting appropriate prison sentences, not a guarantee of no prison sentence at all.
New clause 59 lists
“poor compliance with court orders”
as a reason not to suspend a sentence. If a court can see that a criminal has not complied in the past with non-custodial alternatives and is therefore highly likely to breach a suspended sentence, it should have the option of imposing immediate custody on the offender. In fact, that is already what current and past sentencing guidelines say about considering an optional suspended sentence, never mind a mandatory one, which criminals will have if this Bill is brought into being. Under new clause 60, offenders being sentenced in court for three or more offences at once could not expect a presumption in favour of a suspended sentence.
All the examples I have given come from judges and lawyers. These are not possibilities, or scenarios that I have dreamt up; they are happening now. These people should go to prison—and they would have done, but the Government are letting everybody out. That is why I say that we will be dismantling law and order in this country if this Bill goes through. There is nothing to stop magistrates and judges handing out suspended sentences if they think that they are appropriate, but these amendments would not force them to hand them out when they are clearly not appropriate. That is what the Government are doing. They are tying the hands of the justice system.
The Government have already made amendments to earlier legislation after presumably realising that they had missed something. I hope that, on reflection, and having heard about some of the disasters that are about to befall the country as a result of this legislation, they will do likewise today. My new clause 56 is very similar to Government amendments 2 and 4, for example, which will exclude those who are already subject to a suspended sentence. They have seen one loophole, but the Bill is like a colander of loopholes, and I hope that they will see a few more.
The Government have not ensured that the Bill will not apply to those on licence. My new clause 57 says that those who have been released early from prison on licence should not be eligible for a presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence if they offend again; really, they should be locked up.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What the right hon. Lady is putting forward is a very logical and sensible way forward, but I am conscious that young people in particular can do something wrong in life, and then return to the area that they came from. They are subject to peer pressure, and can be affected by all the things that happen in that community. Sometimes, they probably need help from outside the legal system. Has she considered that when putting forward her amendments? Do they ensure that people get a second chance, and get help where they need it—in the place where they live?
Esther McVey
We all believe in second chances, and that is where rehabilitation comes into play. We are possibly dealing with continual offending here. People have come before the courts, been given some kind of community sentence or been subject to tagging, and still repeat their crimes. We do not want them to think that there is absolutely no deterrent, and that they can commit crimes as often as they want because they will get only a tiny slap on the wrist.
People need to understand that their actions are unacceptable. There is a victim, and a price to pay. Some people will understand, go on the straight and narrow, and go on to have a good life, but not as a result of what is being delivered today. The Bill says, “Commit a crime and you will not do any time.” That is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is the wrong message to send out. That really should not need saying, but it seems that it does. How on earth can it be right that someone who has been released early from prison will get a second get-out-of-jail-free card? That will happen under this ludicrous legislation.
Under new clause 41, the presumption against prison would not apply to foreign nationals. If people come to this country and commit crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence, they should not be left wandering around our streets freely as a result of this Bill. Foreign offenders should be deported, as protecting the public is one of the main duties of a Government—I will have to repeat that several times to the Government, who do not seem to understand that that is a major part of their duty—and in the meantime, those offenders should be locked up. While we have to put up with our own British criminals, I do not see why we should be lenient to those who have come to this country and committed offences. I do not think the public will agree with the Government’s Bill, either.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The importance of the sunset clause is that it relieves the monstrous contradiction we have had from the Government. They have presented this legislation as an emergency measure because the prisons are too full, yet at the same time they boast about their great, expansive prison-building programme. Clearly the two are at odds with one another. Who will be put in these prisons if this legislation persists? That is why my right hon. Friend’s sunset clause is so important.
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why I pointed out that the Bill is all about ideology; it is not about logic.
I mentioned the extra prisons that were started in 2020, when the previous Government gave £4 billion to expand prison capacity, and three of those prisons have been built. There was a delay and it was obviously slow—we were in lockdown for two years, which is why they are coming on board now—but another three prisons will be built.
If people are really serious about cleaning up our streets, getting crime down and supporting victims, they will not vote for this Bill. Prison places are either here or on their way. The Prisons Minister has said he thinks that only a third of prisoners should be in prison and that two thirds of them should be out on the street. That is why I say that this Bill is about ideology over logic and over the public.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
As I did at the start of my speech on Second Reading, I put on record the continuing crisis in our prisons. The prison population currently stands at 87,427, with usable operational capacity being 89,286. Prison population projections estimate that the population could rise to more than 100,000 by March 2029. That is an indictment of the previous Government and it gives the lie to their mantra that this Bill is soft on crime; we will have record numbers of people in prison. This Bill is a necessity, and we must make a virtue of that necessity.
I welcome the principles of the Bill and the reforms suggested in it. They are essential, both to reduce the prison population and to improve the way in which the justice system deals with punishment, rehabilitation and public safety. The measures in the Bill that derive from David Gauke’s independent sentencing review include varying suspended sentences and short custodial sentences, adopting the earned progression model for release, and changes to recall and licence. All have their risks, so the purpose of the amendments that I and other members of the Justice Committee have tabled—to which I now turn—is to reduce those risks and make practical improvements to the Bill. I have also tabled two new clauses relating to imprisonment for public protection prisoners, who are not currently considered by the Bill—in my view, wrongly.
The first amendment I have tabled is amendment 29 to clause 3, which relates to income reduction orders, or IROs. These will act as financial penalties for offenders, who will forfeit a percentage of their disposable income as a form of punishment and reparation. My amendment would change the definition of monthly income for the purposes of an IRO so that any amount of money that is required to be paid or deducted from an offender’s monthly income because of other enactments, such as child support maintenance payments or an attachment of earnings order, is not counted. This will ensure that IROs do not impact on an offender’s ability to pay outstanding debts or, in the case of child support maintenance, to meet their obligation to support their children and family members in the community.
My second set of amendments relates to clause 6, which introduces a statutory requirement for courts to make a formal finding of domestic abuse where relevant during sentencing. My amendments 30 and 31 introduce two procedural safeguards before a court can record that an offence involved domestic abuse. First, the court must have indicated that it appears that the offence may have involved domestic abuse. Secondly, the court must have given the offender and the prosecutor an opportunity to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that an offence involved domestic abuse.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Chair of the Select Committee is talking about indications of domestic abuse. Does he agree that, particularly in cases of domestic abuse—as I have heard from constituents of mine—it is critical that resources are allocated through this Bill to the Probation Service and for electronic tagging? The legislation allows for it, but does he agree that it is very important that the Government make clear how they will adequately resource those two elements, so that victims of domestic abuse—who will have this indicator to identify that perpetrators have committed domestic abuse and violence—will be properly protected after the potential release of the perpetrator?
Andy Slaughter
I do agree with that, and in a moment I will talk about a new clause that deals specifically with tagging. I am rattling through my speech because I have a lot to get through, but what I am specifically talking about in relation to domestic abuse is simply the need for there to be due process. That is something that I think we all want to see. Amendments 30 and 31 would ensure that the requirements of clause 6, which are important in allowing police and probation services to track perpetrators of domestic abuse, are carried out in a manner that is as thorough and fair as possible.
My next amendment, amendment 32, relates to clause 35, which amends the sentencing code to allow for the publication of the photographs and names of offenders serving community sentences. The explanatory notes say very little about this clause, but the justification in the memorandum on human rights suggests that the Government believe that this measure will have a deterrent effect on criminals, although there is little evidence for that assertion. The measure engages the article 8 right to private and family life for the individual, their victims and their family. Some concerns have been raised about how this measure can be operated safety in the modern social media age, in which photographs and names can be readily and quickly shared.
My amendment would prevent clause 35 from being brought into force until the Secretary of State has issued a code of practice to providers of probation services about how to take and publish photographs lawfully in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection legislation. Before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult providers of probation services, lay a draft before Parliament, and obtain the approval of both Houses. That would ensure proper parliamentary oversight of this measure.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is indicating his diligence—as though any evidence of that were required—in tabling these technical but important amendments. However, will he deal with the fundamental issue? As he has just said, the Criminal Justice Act 2003—from memory, section 250—allows criminals who are released on licence to be subject to all kinds of conditions, but the truth is that if we let more dangerous people out, more people will be recalled, because they will do immense amounts of harm. Recalls are going to go up as a result of this legislation, and many more people are going to suffer because of those who are let out early.
Andy Slaughter
I have quite a lot to say about recall, which I will come to in a moment, but I have reflected on this question. Licence is an established part of the criminal justice system, as indeed is probation. Almost every prisoner, other than a handful of the most serious criminals, comes out of prison at some stage. The issue of public safety when people are released from prison is one that this Bill is trying to address. We may disagree on the means to that objective, but I am sure we agree on the objective itself.
I also tabled new clause 18, which relates to the provision of information to Parliament regarding offenders who are subject to electronic tagging and the operation of the tagging contract. The success of the measures in this Bill will rely heavily on the use of electronic monitoring, primarily through the use of tags. The Justice Committee has continually raised concerns about the performance of Serco, the Government’s current tagging provider. As a reminder, on 7 May, the Prisons Minister revealed to us that at that point, Serco had received financial penalties for poor performance every month since it took on the electronic monitoring contract on 1 May 2024. Ministers have assured us that Serco’s performance is beginning to improve.
New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report each calendar year on the use of electronic monitoring requirements. That report must include the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed each year, the rate of compliance, and the cost of administering those requirements each year. The report must be laid before Parliament. This would improve transparency and allow parliamentarians to assess for themselves how successfully Serco or other providers are administering tagging contracts.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. New clause 18 makes the point that the cost of administering the electronic monitoring requirements during the year should be released. Does he agree that that should include the size of the fine that is imposed on the provider? When I have asked the Ministry of Justice for that information, it has not been able to release it. I think it is a matter of public interest to know what the fine for the provider’s failures is.
Andy Slaughter
I am delighted that my friend is still taking a strong interest in these matters and remains on the Justice Committee, even though he no longer has his Front-Bench responsibilities—we know that he has other responsibilities that he wishes to take on. I entirely agree with him; it is a point that we have made in Committee, and I hope the Minister has listened to it. I am sure that the words “commercial confidentiality” were used at some point, but this is not about commercial confidentiality; it is about us knowing how well electronic tagging is working, which is a very serious matter in the criminal justice system. That is very well illustrated by the level of fines imposed.
I have tabled two new clauses, new clauses 19 and 20, regarding prisoners who are subject to imprisonment for public protection sentences. It has been 12 years since the last IPP sentence was handed down, yet around 2,500 people are still serving IPP sentences in prison. It is now widely acknowledged that the nature of those sentences has severe consequences for those who are serving them and for their loved ones. New clause 19 would implement the recommendation of the previous Justice Committee’s 2022 report that there should be a resentencing exercise for all IPP-sentenced individuals, and that a time-limited expert committee that includes a member of the judiciary should be established to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way and for speaking to his new clause. It contains similar wording to the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which Ms Nokes has indicated we may get a separate vote on. Does that mean that the Chair of the Select Committee will be voting with the Liberal Democrats and encouraging his Back-Bench colleagues to do the same?
Andy Slaughter
It means that I will listen very carefully, not only to what the hon. Member says but to what the Government say. I know that the Government are unlikely to accept new clause 19, because they have made their position on resentencing clear. Nevertheless, I wanted to set out that that is the best option, but I am just about to talk about other options, which might be more practical and which I urge on the Minister today.
The Justice Committee remains of the view that a resentencing exercise is the best and most comprehensive way to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison. Knowing, however, that the Government are yet to be persuaded of the merits of resentencing on the balance of risk, I have also tabled new clause 20, which would allow a prisoner whose licence has not been terminated by the Parole Board two or three years after their first release to make an annual application for termination to the Parole Board. This would increase the opportunities for the licences of IPP prisoners to be terminated, and would reduce the amount of time those prisoners have to wait in limbo between Parole Board hearings. In contrast to resentencing, this more modest amendment would enhance the process for IPP licence terminations. IPP terminations have been the single most effective measure in permanently reducing the stain of the IPP sentence. Some 28% of IPP sentences have been terminated by the Parole Board, ending the shadow of the sentence by cancelling it and removing the risk of recall for those who have been deemed safe by the Parole Board or complied with their licence for two years.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
On another form of recall, does the hon. Member have any sympathy with new clause 62, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), and the idea that there should be a sunset on this provision? However we look at the contents of this Bill, it is a bit of an experiment, so we should make sure that two years on we examine it and, if the circumstances require, renew it.
Andy Slaughter
We have to do something about recall and do it now. The number of prisoners on recall has more than doubled over the seven-year period from March 2018 to 2025. It was 6,000 then and it is now 13,500. That is a significant part of the prison population.
Andy Slaughter
I am not going to give way again, because I am taking too much time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a difficult process to manage. That is why this Bill was presented on the same day that fixed-term recall 48 came into operation. FTR 48 is the recent provision mandating fixed-term recalls of 28 days in determinate cases of less than 48 months. The new 56-day recall model recommended in the Bill replicates FTR 48, with the exception that the default recall period is extended from 28 to 56 days. Prior to this new provision being laid, there has been no opportunity for the efficacy and impact of this model to be evaluated. New clause 21 would allow that evaluation to take place. I think I am trying to do the same as what he is saying, which is to ensure we look carefully and evaluate the effect. We are into new territory here, and there may be unintended consequences.
The sentencing review received numerous reports that offenders are recalled for breaches, such as their tag running out of power or a failure to keep in touch, and that breach and recall processes are overly punitive and often felt to be unfair. As the Bill stands, the legal test for recall remains unchanged. As more offenders will be released at an earlier date and the use of electronic tagging will increase, there is a greater risk that people may be recalled when there are minor problems with the tag or housing issues. Tightening the legal test for recalls would confine their use to instances where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance, or a specific and imminent risk of harm, as recommended by the review. Without amendment, there is a real risk that the prison capacity crisis will not be adequately addressed, and we could even see an increase in recalls, albeit for shorter periods. A tighter test would guard against unintended consequences from the overuse of 56-day recalls.
Amendment 34 to clause 24 introduces the right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations as to their necessity and proportionality. That could be an important safeguard, given the suite of new conditions in the Bill that enable a wide range of restrictions to be imposed in the community. Without safeguards, the use of these conditions could lead to increased recalls and increased pressure on the probation and prison systems. Giving offenders an entitlement to make representations about licensing conditions would assist in alerting the authorities to any unintended consequences, such as where conditions might impact on resettlement or other outcomes, including access to employment or healthcare.
I am coming towards the end, but not just yet. The last of my amendments is amendment 35 to clause 24, which concerns restriction zones. Amendment 35 would introduce a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones for offenders on licence. A restriction zone is, by its nature, highly restrictive and could impact on almost every aspect of an offender’s life, including their ability to work, receive medical care and see family. Any application to leave the zone places an administrative burden on the authorities. The amendment would introduce judicial oversight by the Parole Board of the extension of restriction zones. That oversight could act as an important safeguard before such restrictions are imposed, and may also provide an opportunity for victims to have a voice in setting out the potential impact on them before an independent body.
This is the first time that provision has been made to restrict offenders to a certain geographical area when released on licence without a requirement for judicial oversight or due process. The proposed restriction is akin to control orders, now replaced with terrorist prevention and investigation measures, but without the requirement for a gateway offence or judicial oversight.
Finally, I have put my name to amendment 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox). It would provide an important clarification of the powers of the court to impose a community sentence as an alternative to a suspended prison sentence, in circumstances where that may offer a more effective prospect of avoiding future offending or breach of licence conditions. It would likely be especially beneficial in keeping women out of prison.
To conclude, I repeat my support for the Bill and the Government’s approach to sentencing, which are the biggest changes in 30 years. I thank the organisations working with IPP prisoners, many of whom are relatives and friends of those incarcerated, including United Group for Reform of IPP and the IPP Committee in Action. I also thank the justice unions parliamentary group, the Prison Reform Trust, the Law Society and Justice, among others, for their briefing and assistance with proposing changes to the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments that we have tabled as ways to improve the Bill’s content and bring clarity where it is needed. I hope that he will respond to them in winding up and may even agree to adopt some of them. We survive on hope.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 24 and the other amendments that I have tabled on behalf of the Opposition. I regret that we have not had the opportunity to hear from important voices on these incredibly important issues through a full Public Bill Committee. Victims groups of all different kinds care deeply about the measures in this Bill. We not only do not get to hear from them as MPs, but the nature of Committee of the whole House means that we do not have the opportunity to put forward for inclusion a whole range of measures that are worthy of our consideration and a vote in support. Anyone reading the amendment paper will see the richness and range of ideas that just will not get the level of detailed consideration they should. It would have been beneficial, and we may well end up giving this incredibly important Bill less than 15 hours of consideration in this House.
I cannot help but feel that the measures related to early release are so unpalatable that the Government are doing their absolute best to rush this Bill through the House to avoid proper scrutiny. I will try, though, to at least give some time and thought to some of the amendments, even if ultimately we will not be able to vote on them. New clause 12 relates to changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. At present, the ULS scheme allows anyone to appeal most sentences to the Attorney General’s Office if they consider them to be unduly lenient. I and other Members of this House have made use of this scheme, as have others. It can and does lead to sentences being changed, but there are two major problems with the scheme as it operates.
First, too many victims are unaware of the scheme and do not get long enough to make use of it. At this point, I pay tribute to the amazing campaigners who have done so much to raise this issue. Katie Brett secured thousands of signatures to a petition to change the scheme in memory of her sister Sasha. I pay tribute to Ayse Hussein and other members of the Justice for Victims group. The issue has also been raised for many years by Tracey Hanson, who I had the pleasure of meeting recently, in memory of her son Josh Hanson, who was the victim of an appalling murder. I know that other campaigners are similarly inclined. All of them are clear about the fact that the current scheme does not work. Our amendment will require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify victims, and also extend the time available to appeal to up to a year for victims and their families if the victim is deceased.
Sir John Hayes
I pay tribute to that campaign, and in particular to my hon. Friend’s commitment to victims, which I know is outstanding. Will he acknowledge, too, that many of the people who suffer are suffering at the hands of repeat criminals—career criminals? Sometimes people who have been let out on licence breach the licence conditions. For instance, in my constituency a young woman was killed by a dangerous driver, on licence, who had been banned from driving. There are many like her, and my hon. Friend is standing for them. Will he therefore impress on the Government that they are letting out people who cause grief, harm and hurt? That is just not good enough.
Dr Mullan
As my right hon. Friend says, we can do what we want when it comes to placing conditions on people and expecting them to behave differently, but the only place where we can be sure they are not out committing further offences is prison. Across the board, this measure will let very many serious offenders out of prison earlier, and I shall say more about that towards the end of my speech.
In respect of the undue lenient sentence scheme, the Government have previously said that they will await the outcome of a review of criminal appeals—a review that has already said that the system is working fine, and for the implementation of whose recommendations we have no timetable or plan. The opportunity to make that change is here, and I urge Ministers to take it.
New clause 8 relates to what are clearly unacceptable restrictions on what people can say in victim personal statements, often described as impact statements. This is a further issue that the Justice for Victims group and others have raised. The parents of Sarah Everard, Susan and Jeremy, have made it very clear that the people advising them on their statements were doing their best to act in their best interests, and to help secure the best possible outcome for justice for Sarah, but the system and the rules around this are leading to too many people, like Susan and Jeremy, being told that they cannot say what they should be allowed to say. Glenn and Becky Youens, also from Justice for Victims, had the same experience when making statements about their feelings towards the vile criminals who had killed their precious daughter Violet-Grace. Our new clause will ensure that the Government can help victims to secure the best possible opportunity to say what it is that they want to say, while recognising that the statement is still being made in a court.
New clause 16 is intended to close a loophole that I think all Members agree needs to be closed. Our current sentencing laws require a whole-life order to be passed for those who murder a police or prison officer in the line of duty. That is an important deterrent, and enables the delivery of justice for people who put themselves in harm’s way, dealing with violent criminals, should the worst happen. However, it is clear to me that the courts have not interpreted the meaning of that legislation as I—and, I think, most other Members—would have wanted them to.
In 2024 a former prison officer, Lenny Scott, was murdered. He was murdered by a seriously violent criminal for doing his job as a prison officer. Lenny had bravely stood up to threats from this criminal while he supervised him in prison, as he had reported that he had contraband. Years later, this despicable person came back for his revenge. He was convicted of Lenny’s murder, but the courts decided that the whole-life order tariff did not apply because he had not been actively on duty when the murder took place. I think that is counter to the spirit of the measure. Our new clause would remove the loophole, so that in future if a prison or police officer is murdered because of something they did in their role, whenever that might be, the sentence will be a whole-life order. I imagine that of all the measures we are proposing, that will secure the greatest amount of cross-party support—not at this stage of the Bill, but during future stages in the Lords.
New clause 10 supports greater transparency in our justice system by ensuring that sentencing remarks in the Crown court are available to everyone, and transparency is also at the heart of new clause 9. For too long, for the wrong reasons, we have not been transparent about criminals’ backgrounds. We know that political correctness led to the vile grooming gangs scandal going unchallenged, which should never have been allowed, for many decades. Part of the issue is that we did not have the data and the information that would have enabled us to understand what was happening and who was committing those offences. Why should we not have basic information about criminals that would enable us to have an honest debate about different patterns of criminal behaviour in different communities and different parts of the country, especially when we know that if we refuse to do this—if we refuse to be transparent—all that we do is give fuel to the wrong people? At best, indifference to the need to share this data is looking more and more like a desire to cover up what it might reveal. That has to stop, and our new clause will ensure that it does.
New clause 11 relates to steps that the courts should take to limit parental responsibility for those convicted of child sex offences. In the last Parliament my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) campaigned on this in support of a constituent who met Ministers in that Government to discuss it. In the current Parliament, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has joined the campaign, along with other Members. I understand that yesterday the Government tabled an amendment to the related Victims and Courts Bill, which is due for further consideration, and of course we will look closely at that to consider whether it meets the reasonable expectations of parents seeking to protect their children from child sex offenders. New clauses 13 and 14 also relate to child sex offenders.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is now coming to the nub of the issue. There are different views across the House. There are those of us who believe that the justice system should be retributive, that punishment matters and that punishment should fit crime, and there are those who do not. There are those who do not think that the justice system should be punitive, whereas I think that it should be punitive. I think that more people should go to jail and should go for much longer, not just because it is a deterrent but because it signals public outrage at these heinous acts. That is why it matters, and everyone in the House should realise it.
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend has frequently raised this issue, and we are in violent agreement. In my experience, there is intellectual snobbery towards people who think there is moral value in, and an ethical basis for, punishing people properly. Anyone who talks about that often gets labelled as some bigot who does not understand patterns of criminality and all these other things. Of course they are important to consider, but none of these things means that we should not appropriately punish people. It shocks me that that still remains not part of the statutory purposes of sentencing. Punishing people is important, and we do not consider it enough.
For all the reasons I have set out, this Bill is incredibly important. Today is incredibly important too, because it is the last chance for Back-Bench MPs to decide for themselves which parts of this very significant Bill they will support. Next week we will have Third Reading, where Labour MPs will have no choice but to vote for or against the entire Bill.
We know that a major part of this Bill is the earlier release of nearly all offenders. The Opposition are opposed to the programme as a whole, but it is clear that this Bill is a major part of the Government’s plans to reform sentencing. It would be asking a lot of Labour MPs to ask them to consider voting against the entire programme, but we are not asking them to do that. Our amendment 24 gives Labour MPs the route through which they can most justifiably say to their Whips and the Prime Minister, “No, I can’t support this.” We are asking them to say no and to vote against the early release of rapists, paedophiles, seriously violent criminals, criminals who cause death by dangerous driving and attempted murderers. We are giving Labour MPs a clear route out of doing what would be absolutely unprecedented in the management of offenders in our prisons and a deep insult to the victims of serious violent and sexual crime.
Labour MPs, many of whom I have got to know, work with and respect, will know that I spent the last week trying my utmost to encourage them to avoid being put in a position where the Whips will make them vote to release rapists, paedophiles and serious violent criminals earlier. Most shadow Ministers would happily sit back and watch Labour MPs vote for something that will blight their time in Parliament in the eyes of their constituents, but we have not done that. That is because whatever damage voting for this Bill might do to the electoral prospects of Labour MPs, what is more important to me is that its measures do not go through.
As I have said before, I understand the frustrations that MPs of different parties have had over decades about the resources provided to our justice system and the prison estate. I mentioned on Second Reading that when Labour was last in power, it released more than 80,000 prisoners early because of the capacity issues built up during its time in office. This Government and the last Government have operated similar programmes. I wish that emergency release measures never had to be used, and if—this is a very big “if”—I had ever been Prime Minister or Chancellor during these periods, I would have taken different decisions. But at least these measures have to be announced in the full glare of the public eye, carry a political price and are genuinely legislated for as responses to short-term emergency challenges.
I want Labour MPs to be absolutely clear-eyed about the fact that what we are voting on today is not a short-term response to prison crowding challenges. It is a medium to long-term plan—a decision about how we as a country want to respond to people who commit serious violent and sexual offences. I have never met a victim of a serious violent or sexual offence who thinks that the present system suitably punishes serious offenders. I have never met a victim who thinks that we should let these sorts of people out of prison earlier, but that is what this Bill will do.
On Second Reading, I explained the sorts of offences that are included in these measures. Ministers have said that the very worst offenders will be excluded. Since Second Reading, the Opposition have been able to review sentencing data to try to understand what that means in reality. It highlights a disturbing truth and leaves the Government and any MP who votes for this Bill with a difficult question to answer. Those serving extended determinate sentences and life sentences will be excluded from the early release elements of this Bill, whereas those serving standard determinate sentences will not. Prisoners on standard determinate sentences will have their prison time cut.
Every year, more than 60% of criminals sent to prison for rape are on a standard determinate sentence. Over 90% of criminals sent to prison for child grooming are on a standard determinate sentence. Around half of criminals sent to prison for attempted murder are on a standard determinate sentence. Hundreds of criminals guilty of child rape and sexual assault, including rape of children under 13, are in prison on standard determinate sentences. In total, more than 6,500 criminals sent to prison every year for serious violent, sexual and other offences are given determinate sentences. If Labour MPs vote against our amendment 24, every single one of those criminals will be able to get out of prison earlier. Labour MPs will be voting to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
indicated dissent.
Dr Mullan
The Minister shakes his head. If he wants to intervene and explain why that is not the case, he can. No, he is not going to do so.
Let us be clear: earlier releases will not be done on a retrospective basis. When the measure is enacted, every criminal in prison at that point in time will be able to benefit from these measures, including thousands of serious criminals. It is very clear to me that what is being said by Ministers—I anticipate that they will say the same later in defence of these plans—is in danger of misleading MPs. As it stands, Labour MPs will have to vote in support of the Government’s position that the most serious offenders are excluded. I invite MPs to reflect on how the Justice Secretary can possibly say that any rape—let alone hundreds of them—is not one of the most serious offences. Will Labour MPs who vote against amendment 24 tonight be able to say to survivors of child sex abuse that they supported a Government who wanted to classify thousands of child sex offences as not being the most serious offences?
The Government have said that earlier releases will have to be earned through good behaviour, but that is simply not true. I appreciate that it can be difficult to always believe what MPs from Opposition parties are saying, but MPs do not need to take my word for it. The House of Commons Library briefing note on this Bill is there in black and white for everyone to read. It says:
“As currently drafted, the provisions of the bill do not bring in any new criteria for people to adhere to prior to being released at the one third or halfway point, or any discretionary elements to release.”
I will repeat that: the Bill’s provisions do not bring in any new criteria.
Labour MPs need not look any further than emergency release measures and contrast them with this permanent, long-term change to find evidence that the Government’s approach is totally unprecedented. The SDS40 scheme and other schemes that have come before and sat alongside it have many more exclusions—for example, sex offenders—yet this permanent, non-emergency approach does not. What Ministers have been telling Labour MPs to secure their support is not accurate, which should always make Back-Bench MPs wary. If the Government are making inaccurate statements about a measure in a Bill that they want MPs to support because they cannot face the reality of what it does, then MPs should think very carefully about voting for it, because there is no going back. They will have to defend that decision.
This morning, I emailed every single Labour MP the Library briefing note so that they could see it for themselves, regardless of whether they listen to this debate. Ignorance will be no excuse, because today will not be the end of it. I guarantee Members that the harsh reality is that history tells us that some of the criminals whom Labour MPs are being asked to vote to release will almost certainly commit further serious offences, at a time when they would otherwise have been locked up. MPs will then have to explain why they voted for non-emergency changes that let such people out earlier. I would not be surprised if one of these cases is sufficiently serious that the Government amend the Bill’s measures in future, in response to a public backlash. There is every chance that they will make Labour MPs go through the Lobby tonight and vote for the indefensible, and then at some point pull the rug from under them. I appreciate that a lot of Labour Members are new to this place, and they can speak to longer-serving Members about how it will make them look when they are forced to follow a line that is later withdrawn.
I have made our position clear, and I have set out the consequences. MPs voting against our amendment 24 this evening will be voting to reduce jail time for extremely violent criminals, paedophiles, child groomers and rapists. I have done as much as I can to stop that happening. Ministers are resorting to saying things about the Bill’s measures that are inaccurate to secure support from their Back Benchers, and MPs should not let them get away with it. We have set out clearly how our amendment would ensure that appalling criminals do not see their punishment cut. I know it is difficult for Back Benchers to stand up to the Government and say no, but if we do not, thousands of the worst criminals will get out of prison earlier.
Labour MPs now have to decide whether to vote for what victims of child abuse, family members of people killed by dangerous drivers, victims of rape and others want—victims whom many of them care about—or for what the Prime Minister and his Whips want. Tell the Prime Minister no, tell the Whips no, and vote for our amendment tonight.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I will try to make my remarks fairly brief—not because I am against short sentences, but because I recognise that there are time pressures. I would like to record my support for three amendments to the Bill in the form of new clauses 2 to 4. I might say that I agreed with virtually everything that my good friend my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is an old friend, and I appreciate his attempt to improve the Bill. The new clauses that he supports are interesting and have merit. Will he acknowledge, though, that it is not just probation services that will be put under extra pressure by this Bill, but that the police will be too? Will he invite the Minister, when he sums up, to talk about the extra resources he can make available to Lincolnshire police and other authorities, as well as to the Probation Service, to implement the provisions of the Bill that he has brought to the Committee?
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for that intervention, which I think is quite sensible, and I support the contention. I hope the Minister will respond appropriately when he has the opportunity.
Does the Minister agree that HM Inspectorate of Probation should have the powers outlined in new clause 4? They are just the sort of safeguards we need in the Bill before more pressure is placed on the Probation Service. We are all aware that it is really overstretched, principally as a result of funding cuts implemented by the previous Government and some of the decisions taken before the present Government came into office.
Finally, I am pleased to register my support for new clause 3, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is my good friend. I echo the concerns that he expressed at length on Second Reading about the potential for exploitation by private companies, such as when unpaid work in London was privatised in 2013. Indeed, that was criticised by the International Labour Organisation as an abuse. Does the Minister agree with the probation union, Napo, that unpaid work orders should always be about payback to the community, that they should be run for public good, not for private profit, and that this safeguard should be placed in the Bill?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller
As the newly appointed Justice spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I would first like to acknowledge the hard work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), and his determination to make tangible changes for those that have experienced domestic abuse. I thank the Government for their constructive collaboration with him by introducing into the Bill a domestic abuse identifier at the point of sentencing. The identifier will give victims greater confidence that their abusers are being appropriately dealt with in the justice system, but it would be reassuring if the Minister confirmed that this identifier will be used to ensure that those perpetrators are excluded from any future early release schemes.
This Bill presented a fantastic opportunity to address the endemic challenges that plague our justice system. Those challenges are the result of years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, whose decisions have underpinned the record backlog of cases in the Crown court, as well as prison overcrowding and astronomically high reoffending rates, with victims consistently failed at every stage. We Liberal Democrats had hoped that this Bill would begin to shift the dial towards a justice system that truly protects victims and rehabilitates perpetrators, and there are indeed many elements that we support and that show promise. However, we remain concerned that the scope and ambition of the Bill are lacking, having had many of our amendments rejected due to the lack of financing behind the Bill.
Many of the issues blighting our justice system stem from a lack of foresight and investment, particularly in probation and prisons, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mentioned. It is therefore disappointing that the Bill does not include major efforts to rectify that. As a party, we are supportive of suspending short sentences of under 12 months and have long campaigned for this measure. Not only is it a necessary step to address prison overcrowding, but it would play a vital role in reducing reoffending. While 62% of those serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months go on to reoffend, only 24% reoffend if they are given a suspended sentence. Ending the cycle of reoffending is crucial to reducing crime levels and relieving pressure on the justice system. As the Government have stated, there will be exceptions, but they are yet to clarify what those exceptions will be. Will they include violent offenders, those convicted for sexual offences against children and those who possess indecent images? It would be very helpful if the Minister laid out all the exemptions.
We have tabled a number of amendments aimed at addressing our concerns or furthering aspects of the Bill. New clause 30 aims to address imprisonment for public protection. IPP sentences were a type of indeterminate sentence used in England and Wales from 2005 to 2012 for dangerous offenders who did not qualify for a life sentence, but still posed a public risk. These sentences featured a minimum term, but no maximum, with release contingent on the Parole Board deeming the offender no longer a threat. It was during the coalition Government that we abolished IPP sentences, but many remain in prison serving these sentences long after their tariff has expired. Our new clause would commence a resentencing exercise, which has cross-party support and should be implemented as a priority. The amendment was first recommended by the Justice Committee in 2022, and I note that the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), has tabled a similar measure—new clause 19.
Although we welcome the Government’s approach to community sentencing, reoffending rates are demonstrably higher among those who are unemployed. In 2023, the reoffending rate for those who were unemployed six weeks after release from prison was 36.5%, compared with 20% for those who were employed at the same point. Amendment 44 therefore calls on the Government to publish a report assessing whether the driving prohibition in the Bill could impede an individual’s ability to attend work, education or rehabilitation programmes. Can the Minister inform the House what assessment the Government have made of that? Ensuring access to those pathways is vital if we are to reduce reoffending effectively.
We are also concerned that the Bill does not go far enough to support victims of violence against women and girls. I know that this is one of the Government’s key priorities this parliamentary term, yet without collecting the data, it is an empty promise that it will be hard for the Government to show they have actually achieved. New clause 36 would continue the important campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne to ensure that domestic abuse is treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing, while new clause 37 would require an assessment of the introduction of mandatory rehabilitation programmes focused on violence against women and girls for those convicted of assault, battery or actual bodily harm against a woman or girl, even if domestic abuse is not included as an aggravating factor. These measures are designed to ensure that victims of domestic abuse and related offences are placed at the centre of the justice system’s work, ensuring that such crimes are met with appropriate sentences and that rehabilitation is specifically targeted at those who commit these serious offences.
In line with that approach, new clause 38 calls for screening for traumatic brain injuries among prisoners at the start of their custodial sentences. A Brainkind study last year showed that 80% of women in the criminal justice system in Wales may be suffering with a brain injury, while Government data shows that more than half of female prisoners are victims of domestic abuse. These figures identify that a significant proportion of the female prison population may have undiagnosed brain injuries resulting from domestic abuse, leaving many without the treatment they need and undermining their rehabilitation—something that is certainly reflected in their ability to engage with probation services after leaving prison. Comprehensive screening across the prison population would enable a deeper understanding of the links between trauma, offending and reoffending.
New clause 31 calls on the Secretary of State to examine the proceeds generated from the proposed income reduction orders and to consider whether they could be ringfenced to create a dedicated fund for supporting victims.
New clause 39 would allow the courts to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged with certain driving offences pending the outcome of the trial as part of their bail conditions. Many hon. Members across the House have harrowing cases in their constituencies of lives lost at the hands of a drunk driver, drug driver or someone causing death by dangerous or reckless driving, and the court backlogs mean so often that those defendants are free to continue driving after the offence has occurred, sometimes waiting for months; in some cases, with drug tests taking up to six months to be received, the driver is free to continue to drive under the influence, which is just plain wrong. I know that is felt deeply across the House.
New clause 40 would address the ridiculous doom loop we find ourselves in with prisoners on remand arriving at their sentencing hearing, being sentenced and then being sent home because the court backlogs mean they have served their sentence while being on remand and have not had access to any rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy or other support. The new clause would make rehabilitative programmes accessible for those on remand.
We are also still concerned about a number of unaddressed measures in the Bill, such as the recall provisions, which allow those recalled to be released after 56 days with no involvement from the Parole Board, essentially providing a “get out of jail free” card for reoffending. This will not give the public confidence in the system. I would also be interested in the Minister’s argument as to the purpose of provisions in the Bill to allow the Probation Service to publish names and pictures of those taking part in unpaid work.
The Bill does contain some good ideas to address some of the issues in our justice system, but it could and should have gone further, especially if it had adequate resourcing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne stated on Second Reading, the Bill was full of hope, but falls short of both the Liberal Democrat ambition and the ambition that the Government claim to have. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to our questions, and encourage Members across the House to support our amendments and new clauses, including new clause 30.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I am going to make a short speech on new clause 27, tabled in my name and the name of other hon. Members.
After a short relationship, my constituent Sophie Hall has suffered and continues to suffer from a prolonged and relentless stalking campaign from her ex-partner, who was residing illegally in the UK. In November last year, he was arrested for these offences, but was never spoken to about them, as no interpreter could be found. No risk assessment was done, and he was placed in temporary accommodation on bail, which he continued to breach.
In February, Sophie’s ex-partner was convicted and sentenced under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and was subsequently deported to his home country of Brazil with a 10-year re-entry ban effective from March. He then made his way to Europe, travelling across several countries before ending up back in the UK. In May, he was arrested in Belfast boarding a flight to Inverness. His aim, as always, was to get to Sophie.
The Crown Prosecution Service then charged him with stalking and breaches of restraining order and immigration offences and he was remanded in custody. After review, the CPS stated that no charges could be filed for stalking under the current law because the stalking had happened outside the UK, the perpetrator is not a UK citizen or resident, and the existing law does not give the UK courts jurisdiction over stalking offences committed from abroad under these circumstances. This is the crux of new clause 27.
Graham Stuart
As we move to an ever more digital world, the capacity for people to stalk and perpetrate this kind of oppressive action on people will only grow. I just want to say how delighted I am that the hon. Lady has tabled this new clause, and I hope we will hear from the Minister that he will look at this matter carefully, because this will be a growing issue—although, as the hon. Lady has shown with Sophie, it is already horrific in its impact.
Emma Lewell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and support.
Simply put, I want no one else to go through what Sophie is going through. She has to live her life in constant fear and has been through absolute hell. I hope that the Minister will give my new clause proper consideration.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I wish to speak to my new clause 6, which calls for the implementation of a lifetime driving ban for those convicted of causing death by dangerous or careless driving.
Last year there were 380 convictions for causing death by dangerous or careless driving. Of those convictions, 202 were for causing death by dangerous driving, 150 were for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, 23 were for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, two were for causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured, and three were for causing death by driving while disqualified. Fewer than 1% of those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving were given a lifetime driving ban; the figure was just two.
Since 2017, there have been 1,348 convictions for causing death by dangerous driving, 1,314 convictions for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, 158 convictions for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, 17 convictions for causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured, and 11 convictions for causing death by driving while disqualified. There have been nearly 3,000 convictions for causing a death through negligence or recklessness of the driver. Those are thousands of lives lost—husbands and wives who have lost their partner, children who have lost a parent, and parents who have lost a child. Thousands more lives are impacted tragically, forever changed, shattered.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech with some shocking figures. Just last Friday in my constituency surgery, Sarah Imi came to talk to me about her husband Jason. Seven years ago, he and his colleague were killed after a work dinner by a 17-year-old driving well above the speed limit and high on cannabis. He was given a £120 fine and a few hours of community service. He has subsequently reoffended 27 times, including committing a dangerous driving offence. Sarah had three teenage children at the time. Does the hon. Member agree that the family deserve justice and that this man should never be able to drive again?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I wholeheartedly agree. There are so many tales just like that from all our constituencies, and they indicate just how lenient we have been towards those convicted of dangerous driving, particularly those who have caused a fatality. That is precisely why I tabled new clause 6. I believe that families like the one she mentions deserve justice and the closure of knowing that those people will not go on to reoffend.
Under section 163 of the sentencing code, any court may impose a driving disqualification for any offence committed after 1 January 1998. The minimum period of disqualification for causing death by careless driving is just 12 months. The sentencing guidelines for a driving disqualification following a conviction for causing death by driving illustrate the leniency that our judiciary applies to these cases. There is something badly wrong with our approach to justice when life is considered as cheap as it is in the current guidelines.
The minimum period of disqualification for causing death by dangerous driving is five years. Consider that the threshold for dangerous driving is high, as it covers excessive speeding, drink driving, and dangerous and erratic overtaking manoeuvres—the type of driving that leaves us horrified. Now consider a case in which the outcome of that driving is that someone is killed. The minimum disqualification period is five years—an inconvenience. It speaks to a narrative of, “Whoops, I killed somebody.”
The sentencing guidelines include the option for a lifetime disqualification, but reluctance to impose it is currently priced into the guidelines, which state:
“Lifetime disqualifications will be rare, in particular because of the increased risk of breach and the possibility of hindering rehabilitation prospects. Lifetime disqualifications will generally be inappropriate unless there is psychiatric evidence and/or evidence of many previous convictions indicating that the offender would be a danger to the public indefinitely if allowed to drive.”
Why are we so reticent to permanently remove killer drivers from the road? The guidelines refer to an “increased risk of breach”, but if someone is caught driving while disqualified, having been banned from driving for life after killing someone, perhaps we should send them to prison.
Those who know me will know that I am far from anti-motorist. I am no fan of low-traffic neighbourhoods, blanket 20 mph speed limits or terribly designed cycle lanes, but while I have been a car enthusiast for many years, I am also a cyclist, and these days very much a MAMIL—a middle-aged man in Lycra. I have been knocked off my bike twice by cars that “didn’t see” me. I have been doored, and close-passed at 60 mph. I ride with cameras on my bike so that there is evidence of me being knocked off, and some of the driving I could show would deter Jeremy Vine from ever riding a bike in London again—but I have been lucky.
Mike Gough was not lucky. Mike was known in Huntingdon for his passionate advocacy for road safety. He too was a keen cyclist, and he often cycled on the country roads around the town—the very same roads I was out on this past weekend. In March last year, as he headed back into Huntingdon along the Brampton Road towards George Street, he was struck by a Ford Transit van attempting to pass him. Paramedics attended the scene and attempted to give CPR, but Mike had been crushed and could not be revived. Mike was pronounced dead at the scene. Along the Brampton Road today, a white ghost bike now marks the site, as a tribute to Mike.
The driver received a 12-month sentence—suspended for two years—and a two-year driving ban. As it stands, he will be back on the roads before the next election. Mike’s relatives said that the sentence did not reflect
“the seriousness of what has happened or the catastrophic impact on our lives. Michael was the pinnacle of our family and a huge part of the local community. As a family we will never be the same again and our grief is immeasurable.”
It is with these events in mind that I have tabled new clause 6.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The hon. and gallant Member speaks very strongly about this issue. There may be reticence to support his new clause because of the implications for rehabilitation, but he has spoken about the huge impact on families when a life is taken in that way. Can he give some reassurance about the balance between rehabilitating through custodial sentences, for example, and the lifelong impact on families of incidents that happen in a moment?
Ben Obese-Jecty
The hon. Member makes a valid point. My amendment seeks to remove the chance that those people will reoffend further down the track. The custodial element remains unchanged, so there will still be the possibility of rehabilitation through the prison system to reduce the rate of recidivism. The issue here, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) also pointed out, is about giving families closure and the knowledge that those who are guilty of committing these crimes will not be able to go on to reoffend.
New clause 6 proposes a lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—those I covered at the beginning of my speech. Having spoken to Mike’s widow Hazel and his daughter Kim, I can say that it is sobering to listen to somebody recount the story of the day that they had to attend the scene where their husband or father had just been killed. Selfishly, it is sobering to think about how easily it could have been me. I ride the same roads as Mike did. It was not an error, or avoidable on his part. The driver alone was at fault; it was his casual negligence that caused Mike’s death.
Mike’s daughter Kim recounts:
“On 27 June 2025, the driver, Dennis Roberts, aged 74, pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. He was banned from driving with immediate effect, given a one-year sentence, suspended for two years, a two-year driving ban, 250 hours unpaid work and has to pay court charges of around £200. The sentence is within the guidelines of the law, but does the law fit the crime? He has lived his life like normal for 18 months, while we have lost our dad, husband, friend, grandad, and lived the last 18 months encompassed in a whirlwind of grief. Even after sentencing he continues to live his life, just with a small inconvenience of not being able to drive and giving up a few hours to work unpaid. How is that justice? In two years’ time he will be able to drive again. Would you give someone who used a gun carelessly and someone was killed their gun licence back after two years? I doubt it. They would most likely have a custodial sentence too.”
I would ask all Members in the Chamber to think how they might feel if they were to get a phone call today informing them that their partner, parent or child had been killed in a road traffic accident.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. Like him I am a cyclist and have been subject to dangerous driving, but I am also a driver, and I am sure that few of us would say that we had not driven carelessly at some point. Has he given thought to whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate in all circumstances, for anybody who has ever caused death through carelessness? I am not yet convinced.
Ben Obese-Jecty
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. I will talk later about whether it is too draconian. The issue here is one of finality. I am sure we have all had close shaves while driving a car, but the fact of the matter is that if a driver has killed somebody—no matter how unlucky that may have been—that is final. The grief of the families I have spoken to and the stories I have heard from other hon. Members show that we cannot overstate how much of an impact that has on not just the lives of the family but on friends and colleagues. There are opportunities that those people will never, ever have.
Beyond that unimaginable pain, think how a family might be left feeling if they find that, far from the accident having been unavoidable, the death was caused by the reckless action of somebody who was playing with their phone, speeding, driving like a boy-racer or drunk. Think of the feeling of injustice when the driver is sentenced and receives little more than a slap on the wrist.
The driver who killed Mike was given a two-year driving ban. Hazel will never get to see Mike again. They will never have the opportunity to live out the rest of their lives together. Kim said:
“The long-term impact on our family is huge. Although my mum has returned to her job at the hospital she is unable to fulfil her role on a rota and shift system and is unable to reduce her working hours. She has therefore been forced into taking early retirement from a job she has been at for nearly 42 years. We never want my dad to be a statistic, and to never be forgotten.”
I tabled new clause 6 because of Mike, because of conversations with Hazel and Kim, and because victims like him need justice, which, as things stand, they will not receive. How can we put such an incredibly low tariff on being directly responsible for someone’s death? The option to ban a driver for life is at the court’s disposal, yet it appears not to be the preference of judges. That leniency suggests that life is cheap and that, far from being a tragedy, a death at the hands of someone careless or dangerous elicits little more than a shrug of the shoulders. In the event that somebody with a licensed shotgun killed somebody because they were careless—or, worse still, because they were dangerous—would we allow them to regain their shotgun licence? Why do we so readily return people’s driving licences after they have taken a life?
There is an argument that a lifetime ban is too draconian, does not leave room for rehabilitation and will not work as a deterrent. The new clause is not supposed to be a deterrent; it is for the courts to decide whether a conviction should result in a custodial sentence and thus what degree of rehabilitation, and therefore recidivism, should occur thereafter. The new clause is not too draconian; it is robust. It would take drivers who have killed permanently off our roads and mean that those who have already proved themselves to be fatally unsafe behind the wheel would never again be in a position to take another life or destroy any further lives.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Huntington (Ben Obese-Jecty) for speaking to his new clause, although I do not support it because the minimum needed to cause death by careless driving is a momentary lapse of concentration. Of course, he was talking about a death, and I am not suggesting for a moment that that should go unpunished, but a full lifetime driving ban meaning that someone who had a momentary lapse of concentration at 19 still cannot drive at 55 does not feel proportionate. However, I agree that we should look much more closely at all driving-related offences, including all offences relating to dangerous driving, careless driving and, in particular, causing death by dangerous driving. Those are horrendous crimes.
I have met families who have been bereaved in that way, and those have been some of the most impactful conversations I have had in my life. The impact on those families simply cannot be overstated. We are expecting the road safety strategy imminently, and I hope that these matters will be taken forward on a cross-party basis and looked at sensibly, because it is a really important topic.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I totally understand what the hon. Lady is saying about a momentary lapse in concentration, but that lapse has cost somebody their life. Were that anybody sitting in this room, that would be a devastating consequence not just for them but for everyone here and everyone in their family. I recognise what she says about it not feeling proportionate, but there is nothing more final than losing one’s life. To that extent, I believe it is proportionate. Driving is a privilege and not driving is, realistically, only an inconvenience, whereas the repercussions of a family living their life without somebody are vast.
Sarah Russell
I broadly agree with the hon. Member on the overall topic: we should look at whether those offences are dealt with with sufficient severity. I also agree that the impact on people’s families cannot be overstated.
Sarah Russell
I will make some progress and speak to amendment 31 to clause 6. That clause is the one that I am most proud of. It was the result of cross-party work between the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and the Government Front Bench and it needs to be given the prominence it deserves.
For the first time, the clause will enable the recording and tracking of when domestic abuse is a factor in an offence. Amendment 31, which I support, discusses the ability to call for evidence as to whether there has been domestic abuse. I start from the fundamental position that we should believe women on domestic abuse—I add that victims are predominantly, though by no means exclusively, female. None the less, I also strongly believe in the rule of law and the importance of having evidence. That is why I have sponsored the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) will more thoroughly address new clauses 28 and 29, which are about gambling treatment being considered on a par with treatment for drugs and alcohol in the courts. Those on the Conservative Benches have suggested that Government Members are in some way anti-punishment. We are not. I absolutely believe that crime should be punished, but I also absolutely believe that rehabilitation services are critical to preventing the recurrence of crime. When 80% of criminal offending is reoffending, we have to look seriously at how we break those cycles of offending. I welcome and applaud the clauses put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. Gambling creates significant social problems in our society and when that extends to crime, we need solutions.
New clauses 15 and 24 both address the potential abolition of the Sentencing Council. The language with which they have been addressed by Opposition Members today has been a bit more circumspect than some of what we have heard them say previously about the Sentencing Council in this Chamber. Our judges in the UK are some of the best in the world. The independence of our judiciary is an absolutely fundamental premise of our democracy, and the way in which it has been talked about recently treats it with complete disdain. That terrifies me. It is one of the most important principles that our country stands upon.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said that the Conservatives still respect the independence of the rule of law, but I have heard Members on those Benches refer to lefty activist judges as if somehow the judiciary in Britain were populated by radical Marxists. That is not the case. I am a lawyer and I spent 13 years in practice. I have never met a judge who was anything but genuinely committed to the apolitical upholding of the law. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is incredibly important that we continue to recognise and promote those principles. I say that partly from a genuine ideological position and partly from experience.
Britain has exported £9.5 billion in legal services in the last year. One of the reasons for that level of success is that there is genuine belief in our judiciary—people in multiple jurisdictions across the world trust that our judges will hear disputes impartially. When we talk like Conservative Members have in a criminal or civil context, we damage not only our institutions but our economy. We have to understand the importance of the British rule of law and we need to promote and uphold it at all costs. Those who do not do so damage our country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Sarah Russell
I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Member refers, which makes it impossible for me to give an informed comment by return. None the less, I can genuinely say, speaking from 13 or 14 years’ experience practising as a solicitor before I came to this place, as well as a lot of time spent in the Labour party and meeting leftie people, that the two did not really overlap. They just did not.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the hon. Lady accept that, in a democracy, it is important to be able to hold everybody to account, including judges? Does she accept that we need to be able to check that they are making good decisions on behalf of everybody?
Sarah Russell
The hon. Member appears to be ignoring the entire recruitment process for the judiciary, which fundamentally, at its heart, emphasises the independence of those people from political interference, and also the fact that the application of the law should not be subject to political interference in this place. That is absolutely fundamental. Judges are not getting up every morning and just coming up with ludicrous leftie positions. The picture that is sometimes painted by those on the Opposition Benches is just fanciful. It bears no relationship to my experience of engaging with the actual judiciary on an ongoing basis.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Would the hon. Lady agree that it is outrageous that Members of this House should hold up a judge’s wig at a party conference, and that judges therefore have increased security risks?
Sarah Russell
The members of the judiciary that I have spoken to have very genuine concerns about their personal security, particularly immigration judges. They are genuinely frightened of doing their jobs, and that will be affecting judicial recruitment. We need immigration judges to be able to stand up and serve the judiciary. Many judges take a pay cut to become a judge, and they deserve our genuine respect. They work very hard in a system that has been grotesquely underfunded for 14 years.
Lastly, I would like to mention new clause 40, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I have referred to cross-party working elsewhere. I understand that it might not be in the exactly right format for the Government to it take forward today, but I hope that the Minister will consider how we will deal with the fact that people are not receiving training when they are on remand and are often released at the end of that time. It is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration.
I have asked previously in the Justice Committee about what work is done with people on remand, particularly in respect of domestic abuse offences. In my opinion, we are missing an opportunity for people, without accepting any sort of guilt, to engage in services that many would benefit from, considering their general behaviour, irrespective of whether their original offence was related to domestic abuse. In fact, all of us could benefit from those opportunities for reflection. People spend a lot of time in prison, and at the moment it is not being used as effectively as I and many others would like it to be. That brings me back to my original point. Government Members absolutely believe in punishment, but fundamentally we also believe in rehabilitation, and the emphasis on that in this Bill is very much to be welcomed.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I will speak to my new clauses: new clause 4 on probation capacity and new clause 17 on the devolution of probation to Wales. I also support new clauses 2 and 3, as well as new clauses 19 and 30, which relate to relate to IPP sentencing.
First, let me commend the diligent work of my constituent, Rhianon Bragg, and fellow activists who have helped place vital victim safeguarding measures on the face of the Bill, particularly in relation to the restriction zone conditions in clauses 16 and 24. I have questioned and subsequently written to the Secretary of State for further clarification on the details of those measures, and I look forward to his response, which will help provide those vital assurances to Rhianon and other victims and survivors. The measures entail putting the restriction conditions around the perpetrator rather than the victim, and that is a major step ahead in our approach to looking after victims.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I will speak to new clause 28, “Gambling treatment requirement” and new clause 29, “Gambling addiction: support for offenders”. I thank the Minister and the Ministry of Justice, the NHS, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health and Social Care for their sustained engagement and understanding on this topic. These are probing amendments, and I will withdraw them. However, I wish to highlight the real urgency with which we must treat gambling disorder with parity of esteem to drug and alcohol addiction in the criminal justice system.
Gambling can be a fun hobby which many of us enjoy—even I like a flutter on the lottery and have a soft spot for bingo. But what begins as the odd bet or game can quickly escalate, and some sadly spiral into problem gambling. Once an addiction takes hold, disordered gambling can break down families, cause people to lose their jobs and may trigger criminal behaviour. Those affected may turn to acquisitive crime to fund their addiction or pay their debts, and affected others may turn to crime to recoup their partner’s debts. Problem gambling is associated with not only acquisitive crimes, but street violence, domestic abuse and neglect. That, of course, leads to many harms for the person themselves, their families and the victims of their crimes.
Although the link between problem gambling and crime remains relatively under-researched, the available evidence illuminates several concerning trends. Problem gamblers are over four times more likely to be in prison. While there are examples of good support specific to problem gambling, there is currently no statutory requirement to provide treatment to people convicted of gambling-related offences. I have received reports of people with problem gambling only being given treatment designed for drug or alcohol dependency, general mental health support or no treatment at all. None of those options treats the very specific and complex issues related to problem gambling and crime. Without this, people risk entering a cycle of reoffending, with harms escalating each time and more and more victims.
I was given a case recently in which a woman who developed a gambling addiction after a traumatic life event received no support during her custodial sentence. She was instead directed to a drugs and alcohol course, which she found incredibly unhelpful. In another case, a man imprisoned was not offered any treatment in custody at all and experienced a rife culture of gambling while in prison. He left prison with no treatment and no path to recovery.
It must be acknowledged that in many cases, gambling disorder is one part of a wider network of vulnerabilities contributing to offending and reoffending. Problem gamblers often struggle with alcohol or drug misuse, mental health issues or underlying trauma.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case that I wholeheartedly support. She is outlining not only the real problems that gambling addiction causes but the trauma that often leads to it, which shows how important rehabilitation is. We have heard much from Opposition Members today about how everybody should be punished and how this Bill is a soft option. Does my hon. Friend agree that requiring people to drill down into the causes of their offending is far from an easy option? It is a very difficult thing to ask people to do, and it is essential that we give them the support they need to look at their life and turn it around.
Dr Gardner
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree. Prison should be rehabilitative. Any offender should have that support, to prevent reoffending. It is right for our society, it is right for potential victims, and it is right for offenders, who often resort to criminality due to very severe personal circumstances and trauma.
Gambling disorder is recognised as a mental health condition. Leading mental health assessment tools such as the DSM-5—the fifth edition of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”—and the World Health Organisation’s international classification of diseases classify gambling as an addiction with similar cognitive and psychological effects to those of substance use disorders. Research indicates that once an individual begins chasing their gambling losses with further gambling, their cognitive functioning becomes impaired. Changes can occur in brain chemistry and neurocognitive function, and the ability to make rational decisions—such as choosing whether to engage in criminal behaviour to manage debts or to continue gambling—becomes compromised. There is the link.
The criminal justice system recognises the psychological impact of drug and alcohol dependency. Drug and alcohol dependency are mitigating factors, with sentencing guidelines, treatment pathways and rehabilitation requirements, as set out in the Sentencing Act 2020.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument, drawing parallels between gambling addiction and drug and alcohol abuse. Earlier this year, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I questioned Government officials about the endemic use of drugs in prisons. The Carol Black report looked at this back in 2020—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. How long have you been in the Chamber? Have you just walked in?
Anna Dixon
No, I have not just walked in. This is the third speech I have listened to.
Anna Dixon
A lot of drug users are repeat offenders, as my hon. Friend was saying about those with a gambling addiction. Does she agree that a shift to community provision might enable people to get the rehabilitation they need for their addiction, whether it be drugs, alcohol or gambling?
Dr Gardner
I do. I reiterate that to break the cycle of reoffending or recidivism, rehabilitation must be at the heart of all sentencing and punishment, be it community or custodial.
Under the Sentencing Act 2020, an individual suffering from drug and alcohol addiction receives targeted support through the alcohol treatment and drug treatment requirements for community orders and suspended sentences, yet no such legislation ensures that individuals serving community orders or suspended sentences for gambling- related offences seek rehabilitative treatment. Pre-sentence reports can include problem gambling, and the court may decide that an offender is suitable for a mental health treatment requirement as part of a community order or suspended sentence. However, although problem gambling is associated with depression and a heightened risk of suicide, the mental health treatment requirement does not directly treat gambling disorder.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Today I speak in favour of the eight amendments tabled by Reform UK. Simply put, the Bill is motivated by the desire to free up prison spaces, and not by what is the best way to administer justice. Its primary function is not the protection of the public, or the protection of victims of crime or abuse—in fact, it is the opposite.
Clause 1 is about the presumption of suspension of a custodial sentence of 12 months or less. We proposed an amendment to remove clause 1, which effectively discourages the magistrates court from imposing a custodial sentence. There are circumstances when a custodial sentence of 12 months or less is entirely appropriate, and the clause is tying the hands of magistrates, who will be under pressure from the clerks not to impose a prison sentence. What does that mean for those found in possession of a bladed article, namely a knife—an offence that currently attracts a mandatory six-month prison sentence?
With this presumption of suspension clause, is the Minister now suggesting that offenders who are found guilty of carrying a knife will now have their sentence automatically suspended? If so, what does this mean for knife crime on our streets and the protection of the public? Community sentence options are often limited due to defendants claiming anxiety and depression, meaning that unpaid work is not an option and that tagging may be limited. In addition, fines are often meaningless because so many defendants are claiming universal credit.
Let me turn to clauses 18 and 19. We have tabled new clause 24, which would abolish the Sentencing Council all together. The Sentencing Council was introduced to give statutory guidance to the judiciary to avoid inconsistencies in sentencing decisions. However, we believe that its work has become prescriptive and politicised, as shown by clause 19. We live in an era of two-tier justice. Let us not forget that in March, the Sentencing Council proposed treating ethnic minority offenders more leniently than white offenders. The Justice Secretary had to step in and overrule the Sentencing Council in order to stop this madness. For these reasons, the Sentencing Council should be abolished and sentencing powers should lie solely at the discretion of judges.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. Earlier this year, we investigated the state of our prison system and all the sorts of things that one should describe as restorative justice. The facts are that our prisons are overflowing, they are not making anybody any better or turning people around, and they do not provide restorative justice. As I know to my own cost, it costs four times more to keep a prisoner in prison for a year than it does to send a boy to Eton.
Sarah Pochin
I thank the hon. Lady for the Eton example. I am sure that will resonate very well with my constituents in Runcorn.
Esther McVey
Does the hon. Lady agree that if there are not enough prison places, then we should build more of them, not let people out of prison? That is what we should be doing—[Interruption.] Remember, this is a Government who found untold amounts of money to house illegal immigrants. We need to do the same for prisoners.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
On a point of order, Ms Ghani. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) just swore at my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin).
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I can see that the hon. Gentleman in question is shaking his head, so I assume that no swearing has actually taken place. Can he confirm that?
Sarah Pochin
We proposed an amendment to remove clause 20 all together. The clause proposes to reduce the time served of a custodial sentence from a half to a third in order to free up prison capacity. This means that dangerous criminals who have been locked up for some of the worst possible offences, including paedophiles, could be let back into the community after serving only a third of their sentence behind bars. Only the most serious offenders, including those convicted of rape, will serve half their sentences in jail, reduced from two thirds. [Interruption.]
Dr Mullan
As the hon. Lady is laying out the reality, Government Members are chuntering and suggesting that what she is saying is not true, so may I point out that the Library briefing clearly says that those with sentences of over four years for a violent or sexual offence who are currently released at the two thirds point of sentence would be released at the halfway point under the new provisions? That is a fact.
Sarah Pochin
I thank shadow Minister for supporting me on that point.
I turn to clauses 24, 36 and 37 with respect to licences. These clauses all give powers to the Probation Service to reduce the length of a community order imposed by the judge or magistrate. The Probation Service is underfunded and overstretched already, and the real risk is that offenders will have their requirements reduced by probation officers in order to free up capacity in the service. The probation officer already has discretion on the number of days of rehabilitation required, and it is dangerous to give any more quasi-judicial power to the Probation Service.
Sarah Pochin
No, I will make some progress; I have given way a lot.
Let me move on and make a point of clarification with respect to clauses 26, 27 and 28, which are on recall. The current system allows for fixed-term recall of 14 days for custodial sentences of less than 12 months and 28 days for custodial sentences of one to four years. Standard recall offenders serve the rest of their sentence. Can the Minister confirm that this Bill introduces FTR and SR of 56 days for all custodial sentences of less than four years, with the exception of terrorists, such that offenders who have committed serious crimes including assault, robbery and possession of knives or other offensive weapons could be out again in two months? That is not protecting the public. However, I welcome the fact that the presumption of 56 days’ recall does not apply for domestic violence offenders who have breached their licence conditions and gone on to reoffend.
Clause 42 is about foreign criminals. I propose to replace the clause and to move new clause 25, which would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six-month community sentence. The Secretary of State wrote to Members of Parliament claiming that he had strengthened the ability of the Government to deport foreign criminals. He said in a letter that it will be the duty of the Home Secretary to deport foreign offenders who receive at least a 12-month custodial sentence, yet in the same letter he stated that
“this is subject to several exceptions, including where to do so would be a breach of a person’s ECHR rights or the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.”
In other words, nothing will change and no one will get deported.
Finally, new clause 26 would make an addition to the Bill referred to as
“Criminal Cases Review (Public Petition)”.
Under the new clause, if it appeared to any British citizen aged 18 or over that the sentencing of a person in the Crown court has been unduly lenient or harsh, that British citizen—the petitioner—may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for it to review the sentence. There would mean that there would be a platform for defendants like Rhys McDonald and Chris Taggart in my constituency, who received an average of 30 months for an ill-advised tweet, to have their sentence appealed.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Catherine Atkinson. [Interruption.] I call John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Thank you, Ms Ghani; it is nice to be a substitute.
Like others in the Chamber, I am a member of the justice unions parliamentary group, and I will speak very briefly to new clause 3. As many Members know, the justice unions group comprises the probation officers’ union, Napo, as well as the Prison Officers Association and the PCS. It acts as the voice of the frontline workers in Parliament from those particular unions. There is an overall welcoming of the Bill by the unions themselves, which is good, but a specific concern has been raised with us with regard to the development of unpaid work and community service, and how that is managed in the future.
Many Members will also know about the history of community service; in fact, in the past we have had a few Members in this House who did a bit of community service—but that is another issue all together. Historically, it has been a way in which people have been able to avoid prison sentences: by working in the community and making reparation for the damage that they have often caused in it. I think we can report that it has been relatively successful in most of our constituencies.
Unfortunately, though, there have been experiments with privatisation, including of the management of the service; and there has been debate about whether this could be unpaid labour for private companies. In London, in 2013, community service was privatised to Serco. It was an absolute disaster. There was a lack of supervision on site, a lack of workers, and a lack of tools being delivered. It was also exposed that offenders were sometimes being crammed into vehicles that were unsuitable and unsafe. As a result, that privatisation collapsed. The last Government then engaged in a wholesale privatisation of probation, under the title, “transformation of rehabilitation”. That included unpaid work and community service. Again, even the last Government had to accept that probation would have to be brought back in house because of a combination of incompetence and profiteering, alongside a failure to go for realistically effective rehabilitation.
Anna Dixon
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s clarification that charities would still be able to provide these placements. I have a fantastic charity in my constituency, upCYCLE, which teaches bike maintenance skills to help rehabilitate people. Currently, that is done in prisons, but when there are more community sentences, that sort of charity will want to give people skills and meaningful work in the community. I just want to clarify that this is not about excluding charities.
John McDonnell
That is exactly in the tradition of community service as it was founded and developed over the years, but the experiments with privatisation have been a disaster. There is an argument that once a system starts using the private sector, as in America, offenders become economic units for exploitation and profiteering. The Justice Unions Parliamentary Group warns that we should not venture down that path, both as a result of historical failures, and given what has happened in other countries when the private sector has been able to use offenders in that way. The new clause is about returning to the traditional community service approach in this country. It was relatively effective, but in this new Sentencing Bill, which we welcome, it will be expanded on a scale perhaps not envisaged in the past. It is as simple as that.
Dr Mullan
The right hon. Member is well known for his long-term support for the Prison Officers Association. While he is on his feet, will he commit to supporting our new clause 16, which would close the loophole relating to whole life orders for the murder of prison officers?
John McDonnell
I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. This is about the only time I have disagreed with it. I will not support that measure, although I understand where it is coming from, and I understand that there may well be a review of sentencing, and what is taken into account, when these actions tragically occur. To have a mandatory sentence like that would most probably not be appropriate, although the shadow Minister is right that the Prison Officers Association has argued strongly for the measure, and I respect that.
My final point relates not to new clause 3, but to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) on the naming and shaming of offenders and the idea that offenders’ photographs will be publicised locally. He suggests in his amendments that there should be much wider consultation on the issue, and probation officers are saying exactly the same thing. A lot of their role in rehabilitation is about ensuring that people have a connection with their families once again. They are concerned about the effect that naming and shaming has on the family, and in particular the children. Sometimes, the family serves the sentence alongside the offender, and we would not want any actions taken that increase the stigma for family members of offenders. If the Government are going down this path, there is a need for more detailed and widespread consultation and discussion.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Last week, I met one of my constituents, Tracey Hanson, in Parliament to honour the 10-year anniversary of the tragic loss of her son Josh, who was murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in Hillingdon, west London, in October 2015. We spoke about the tireless work that she has put into campaigning for victims’ rights, and I heard more about how the law that she wants to introduce—Josh’s law—would ensure that the rights of victims and their families to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme are clear and equal to the rights of offenders.
I will speak specifically to new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for the beautiful Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). After cruelly taking the life of Josh Hanson, Shane O’Brien absconded and evaded police for three and a half years before he was finally caught. Dubbed Britain’s most wanted man at the time, O’Brien was sentenced to at least 26 years in prison, just one year above the minimum sentence. After just missing the deadline to appeal the sentence as a result of unclear information about victims’ families’ rights under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, Tracey has spent years campaigning to ensure that no other victims face what her family did. Unfortunately, far too many victims and their families face the same problems, simply because they are not being made aware of their right to appeal sentences.
There are also concerning numbers of cases in which clerical errors—in one case I heard of, it was an email stuck in a barrister’s outbox—lead to the Attorney General running out of time and missing the deadline to appeal a sentence. While appeals from offenders will still be considered by the Attorney General outside the 28-day window in exceptional circumstances, appeals from victims or their families will not. Historically, victims were at the centre of the justice system. Victims were the driving force in bringing criminal cases, and played a central role throughout the process. It was not until the 19th century that there was a significant shift towards state-led prosecutions, with the victims, rather than criminal cases, significantly diminished. The focus only started to shift back towards the victim with the very recent introduction of the first victim’s charter in 1990. I believe that we must recapture more of the focus from the state, and divert it back to those who are most directly impacted by crime.
The lives of Tracey and her family will never be the same again. They should have been a central focus in the criminal case, and should have received the same rights, and information about their right to appeal against the sentencing decision, as the offender did. It is vital that victims and their families are clearly informed about their right to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. New clause 12 would require the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims, or their next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, providing details of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, the application process for the scheme and the deadlines, which would also be extended, giving victims a better chance of benefiting from the scheme.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is making a bold case on behalf of victims. I hope that he will agree that the more we agonise about the circumstances of the guilty, the more we displace consideration of the effects on the innocent. Over the whole of my lifetime, the focus on the circumstances of wicked people has had exactly that effect, and unfortunately it has permeated so much of the establishment, including the judiciary; sentences are sometimes inadequate for that very reason.
Blake Stephenson
I think that the justification for not changing that approach over many years has been an argument about finality of sentence, and giving the offenders that finality. I do not think that stacks up today; we need to afford victims more rights and more sensitivity within the system.
New clause 12 is total common sense, and should be supported by Members on both sides of the Committee. It puts victims at the heart of sentencing, and does not compromise the need for finality in sentencing. It pushes the date back, but it does not change the status of that finality.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I want to speak about new clause 5 and amendments 22 and 23 in my name.
The Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls was never just a pledge, never just a slogan; it has always been about action—about changing things for women, girls and victims everywhere for the better. We have seen that time and again under this Government. Indeed, just today, they announced that child sexual abuse offenders convicted of serious sex offences against any child will now automatically lose their parental responsibility after being sentenced, rather than victims having to be dragged through the tough and costly family court process.
This Bill moves us forward in our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse, I have always argued that we must focus on tackling perpetrators’ behaviour. Instead of asking, “Why doesn’t she leave?”, we must ask, “Why doesn’t he stop?” I therefore welcome the new restriction zones that the Bill will introduce, which will limit the movement of perpetrators, rather than victims, and the increased use of tagging. I am also pleased to see the new judicial finding of domestic abuse, which will revolutionise our understanding of sentencing for domestic abuse and ensure that we can exclude perpetrators from future measures that put victims at risk.
Jess Asato
No, I will make progress.
The expansion of specialist domestic abuse courts is also very exciting. I am concerned, however, by the provisions that allow for the automatic re-release of recalled perpetrators after 56 days, and fear that they may place some victims at serious risk of harm. Those who perpetrate crimes such as domestic abuse and stalking know everything about their victims—where they live, where they work, where their children go to school, their regular routines—and we know how fixated such abusers can be.
Although I welcome the exemptions of those managed under MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—categories 2 and 3, I must note that this will not capture the vast majority of domestic abusers. By the point a perpetrator is sentenced, it is likely that their victim has already been subject to abuse for years. SafeLives, a domestic abuse charity, has found that high-risk victims live with domestic abuse for 2.5 years. They will just be beginning to rebuild their life when their perpetrator is released from prison. If the perpetrator goes on to harass their victim, their probation officer may decide to recall them to prison, but after 56 days they will be released again, potentially to harass or abuse. They may again be recalled, and then released again 56 days later. I can see no provisions in the Bill to prevent this cycle, which could end in serious harm or the death of a victim.
Sir John Hayes
I had not intended to start this way but I will do so, following the last remarks by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) about acquired brain injury. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, and we recently held a session specifically on the relationship between acquired brain injury and the criminal justice system. She is quite right to emphasise that. I will say no more in detail about it, except to refer the Minister to the report that we published, which includes a section on criminal justice and acquired brain injury.
Beyond that, in talking about the fundamental consideration of this Bill, I want to speak about the facts, the reasons for them, their effects and the alternative, very much in the spirit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke in when moving her amendment. I recommend her amendments, almost without reservation. They are a bold attempt to rescue the Bill from the damage it might do. I do not claim that that damage is intentional, because I do not think that anyone in this House intends to do harm—we would not be here if we did. None the less, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said, harm, whether unintended or otherwise, will be the result of this legislation.
It is undeniable, I am afraid, that the Government present to the House a paradox. On one hand, they say that this Bill is necessary because of practicalities, including the inadequate number of prison places. That is a plausible argument, because the prison population has grown, as we heard earlier in the debate, and we simply do not have enough places to accommodate all those who might be sent to prison. On the other hand, they say that it is a matter of principle, and they tell us that short sentences do not work. In doing so, they are conceding to the rehabilitationist argument that has pervaded criminal justice thinking and criminology more generally for the whole of my lifetime. I remember that when I was studying criminology at university, there was exactly that narrative. Other academics challenged it: Philip Bean, the criminologist, wrote a definitive book called “Rehabilitation and Deviance”, in which he made the case for just retribution. The public certainly believe that the criminal justice system should be retributive.
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend is talking about a contradiction in the Government’s position, but is there not another one? Labour Members and Ministers in particular talk about the volume of people who are going to be released as a result of their measures, but whenever they are confronted with examples of actual offences committed by the sorts of offenders they will be letting go, they always say, “Well, it wouldn’t apply to them.” The Government cannot have it both ways: either a lot of people are getting out of prison, including some of these people, or they are not. They have to make up their mind.
Sir John Hayes
It is certainly true that a very significant proportion of criminals are repeat offenders, and there are people who choose to live a life of crime. This is not an illness to be treated; it is a malevolent choice to be dealt with through punishment, because we need to punish people for doing harm. That is not complicated—it is what all our constituents would take as read—yet, as I say, we seem to agonise about it perpetually.
Anna Dixon
Referring to my earlier comments, the data show that one in four prisoners are drug users and have a drug and alcohol problem, and they constitute many of the reoffenders. Given that data, does the right hon. Member not agree with me that we should be rehabilitating and medically treating those addictions, so that they are not caught up in the criminal justice system?
Sir John Hayes
It is certainly true that one perverse choice leads to other consequences, and when people become involved in drugs, it often leads to all kinds of horrors. The key thing is therefore to stop people getting involved in drugs, and successive Governments, including this one, have intended to do that. Through a series of measures, we try to deter people from involvement in drugs, to deal with drug dealers and to do all the other things that you will not allow me to speak about at length, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I would be deviating from the content of the amendments if I did—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. You should learn that one tempers oneself, Sir John.
Dr Mullan
This is very much still on topic. The challenge with the argument that Labour Members put forward on rehabilitation is that it presupposes that all we need to do is put someone on a drug rehabilitation course once, and they will stop offending and it is all fantastic. The evidence shows the complete opposite. Even the very best drug rehabilitation courses that money can buy at the Priory have a long-term success rate of about 50%. In reality, whatever we do, some of these offenders are going down a path from which they will not be turned for a significant length of time, and that is when we have to put them in prison.
Sir John Hayes
I do agree with my hon. Friend.
Just stepping back a moment, Ms Ghani, I am mindful that the only female Speaker we have ever had once famously declared, “Call me Madam”, so I will from now on call you Madam Chairman rather than anything else.
It is certainly true that we need a war against drugs, drug dealing and all the effects of drugs, but it would be quite wrong to separate that from the public desire to see people who do bad things dealt with appropriately. When those bad things are at their extreme, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton pointed out, we are speaking of extremes—acts of violence against women, minors and, let us face it, men—they need to be dealt with with severity. There is nothing wrong with saying that because it is what most people intuitively feel, and it is right that they do. Grotius, the jurist, once said that criminal justice was about
“the infliction of an ill suffered for an ill done”,
and that sense that the punishment must fit the crime rings true now, as it did when he made that observation.
The Minister needs to explain whether the Bill is about practicalities or principle. I have yet to determine which position the Government have taken.
Sally Jameson
I just want to highlight the fact that it is possible to believe that offenders need to be punished, as I do—when I was an officer, I was part of delivering that punishment—and simultaneously that rehabilitation should be a part of the prison system. While I agree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) that some offenders are not ready to begin the rehabilitation journey, that does not mean that we should not stand ready to provide it for those who are ready, as it ultimately drives down reoffending and reduces the number of victims, which should be at the heart of everything we do. Punishment and rehabilitation need to work hand in hand.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. While I attack the rehabilitationist dogma, I do of course believe that we should try to save souls, and the best way of doing that is to address people’s fundamental problems, as many Members across the Committee have said in the course of this debate. That might be about ensuring that people have adequate learning, or it might be about the acquisition of a particular skill. The hon. Lady will know from her rich experience in these matters that if someone can get a job when they leave prison, they are much less likely to reoffend. When someone in those circumstances is unable to get a job, it is usually a result of the fact that they do not have core skills, in terms of basic competencies, or specialist skills. Where those can be provided through learning in prison, that undoubtedly has beneficial results—I have seen that myself in prison, where I have met both the people who run such services and the people receiving them. The hon. Lady is therefore right.
However, I am really speaking about something more fundamental than that, which is a willingness to recognise —as the hon. Lady did, by the way, in her brief intervention —that punishment matters. The reticence or unwillingness to declare that as openly as I have, or the attempt to ignore or avoid it, is at odds with the instincts of the vast majority of our constituents. It is, perhaps, a product of a society that has lost its moral compass, where right and wrong have been eroded through a kind of moral relativism. Perhaps it is because of some quasi-Freudian need to explain crime in more complex terms than it may warrant—for it is simply a question of someone wanting something they cannot get and using force, violence or some other means to get it.
Anna Dixon
The right hon. Gentleman is making a passionate and principled speech about punishment, but we are dealing here with practicalities. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, has looked at the prison estate capacity. There was a pledge under the previous Government for 20,000 additional prison places; just 6,518 of those were actually built. If the right hon. Gentleman were to pursue this line of saying that everybody needs to have a punishment without rehabilitation, I do not understand where, in practical terms, he is going to put people.
Sir John Hayes
I agree with the hon. Lady, actually. I remember visiting the former Justice Secretary—the former Member for Cheltenham, Alex Chalk—with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), to tell him that we would not vote for it if that Government brought forward a measure to let people out early. My position on this matter has been entirely consistent; I would not have voted for a Conservative measure that let people out of prison early any more than I will vote for this measure tonight.
I suggested three things to the then Justice Secretary: first, that we deal more robustly with foreign national offenders; again, our constituents would be astounded and appalled if they realised just how many foreign national offenders are in our prisons. Secondly, I suggested taking emergency measures to provide prison places. After all, during covid, we built Nightingale hospitals; I suggested that we build Fry prisons, named after the Tory prison reformer Elizabeth Fry, which will not be lost on the historians here in the Chamber. I do not see why that could not be done.
Thirdly, we should certainly explore prisons that have been closed in recent times, under Conservative and Labour Governments, and see which could be used, either temporarily or on a permanent basis. There is a whole range of measures that we could take. It is not easy, and I say that knowing what it is like being a Government Minister. None of those things are easy, but they are all worthy of further exploration because of the effects that the legislation will have.
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend talks about the number of people who will be released from prison. I spoke earlier about the number of people who will not even be going to prison. All in all it will be tens of thousands of people not in prison. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the public find this out, they will want that Government gone?
Sir John Hayes
As my right hon. Friend says with her typical clarity and passion, it may be that the Government bow to public pressure—and there will undoubtedly be public pressure of a kind she describes. We are speaking about people who have done serious harm, including sex offenders of the most extreme kind and violent repeat offenders. These are not people who have committed minor indiscretions; they are very serious criminals. The public will resist their release and protest about it, and the Minister may well feel obliged, as I am sure he is a man of principle, to return to the House and amend the legislation when its effects are truly and fully seen.
My judgment would be that the facts speak for themselves: thousands of people will be let out of prison who certainly should not be. The reasons are as I described them; they are practical, but there is an underlying sentiment that I tried to articulate: it is a fear of punishment and an unwillingness to recognise the retributive nature of criminal justice. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) set out far more eloquently than I ever could, the effects are likely to be devastating for our constituents and communities across the country—and bear in mind that it will happen in every part of this country, every constituency will suffer as a result of the legislation. Each one of us will, as good constituency MPs, have to cope with some of these effects.
The alternative is, as I described when responding to an earlier intervention, to look at every possible means of accommodating people in prison who deserve to be incarcerated—
Sir John Hayes
I am coming to my exciting finale, but I will happy give way on the way to it.
Ben Maguire
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) that the Conservative Government’s record on prison building was shameful? The former “Minister for Common Sense”, the hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), has been nodding along when Members have said that we need to build more prisons. It certainly sounds like common sense, but why on earth did the Conservative Government not do that?
Sir John Hayes
On a purely technical point, I am right hon. and so are my right hon. Friends the Members for Tatton and for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), but let us put that to one side. It is a matter of public record that I almost never disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville. The truth is, she is right: we should have built more prisons much earlier. We could have anticipated these things—they can be modelled, after all. By the way, Governments are often surprisingly poor at modelling—I saw that throughout my time in government—but we should have modelled this, given the trend change in the prison population.
Esther McVey
It might be helpful to give some of the numbers. Three prisons were built, with 8,500 places—they were delayed because of lockdown—and another three prisons are on the way.
Sir John Hayes
I noted those figures earlier. My right hon. Friend is right—we also rarely disagree, and I did not disagree with a word she said earlier—that more prison places were added, but there are two things about that. What we did not really take necessary account of was the effect of sentencing policy. If more people are sentenced to incarceration, perfectly properly, that changes the trend. We certainly could have dealt more effectively with foreign national offenders than we did, which was another growing problem. Furthermore, over a long period of time, while we were adding places we took some prison places out. We need to think about the number of prisons that closed. She is therefore right. [Interruption.] It is not that we did nothing—far from it; we did many good things of the kind she described—but, unfortunately, not enough account was taken over a long enough period.
It is not largely about the immediate policy of the previous Government. It goes back much further than that to a series of Governments of both major parties over a long time indeed. The modelling that I described is decade-long modelling.
It is an extremely difficult business to get planning permission to build a prison. The last Government often struggled with resistance to having a prison built or expanded in a locality. It is usually local constituency MPs—we can imagine such people: Liberal Democrat types—who come here and say one thing—[Interruption.] Notice that I said “types” rather than just Liberal Democrats. They say one thing but go back to their constituencies and campaign against opening a prison.
Mr Kohler
I say to the right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members that the prison population is a supply-led industry. If we build more prisons, we will just get more prisoners. It does not address the issue. All history tells us that—look at America. We imprison more people in this country than is done in Europe, yet we have a higher rate of criminality. More people are imprisoned in America than here, yet America has a higher rate of criminality. Building prisons is a fool’s errand.
Sir John Hayes
The thing that I most admire about the hon. Gentleman is his sartorial style—I glanced across towards him earlier, and I was going to say to him as I left the Chamber, “I love your suit”—but I rarely agree with what he says. We come from very different perspectives. In a sense—I do not mean to be unkind—his view is part of the problem. The problem is the persistent idea that putting people in prison is cruel and nasty. Of course, it is pretty nasty, and most of our constituents think it should be—in fact, they probably think it should be nastier than it is. Our difference of opinion will never be reconciled in a few brief exchanges, but it is important to note that a range of sentences are available to the courts—not just prison—and the key thing, about which I am sure we agree, is that those sentences need to be fitting to the events, fitting to the effects of the crime and fitting to the interests of the victims, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said in moving his new clause.
Josh Babarinde
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his sartorial appreciation some time ago of my green suit, when he went on to ask whether I won it at a village fête.
Josh Babarinde
I did not, but maybe the right hon. Gentleman can agree on the point that I want to make. He spoke about the challenges that Governments have had when modelling prisoner numbers and the prison population. Does he therefore agree with David Gauke, who recommended in his report that there should be an independent body that does that modelling, and is he disappointed that there is not a feature of that in the Bill?
Sir John Hayes
No, I do not. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on using the word “appreciated” exactly as in its dictionary definition. I did appreciate his sartorial style, but that is not to say that I either admired or approved it. [Laughter.]
In respect of David Gauke, who is a former colleague and was commissioned to produce that report, I do not agree in essence with it. I am more inclined to agree with the analysis of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. There is a huge mistake in assuming that incarceration is not of itself beneficial—to deal with the simple issue of recidivism, people cannot do harm when they are locked up. By far the best and most straightforward way of dealing with recidivism is to take people out of harm’s way, and by that I mean taking them out of doing harm.
If someone has committed a very serious crime, such as rape, murder or very violent assault, locking them up means they will not do it again. Releasing them means, too often, that they will; the statistics speak for themselves. If the Government want to really deal with recidivism, they should do three things: increase the number of whole-life sentences, raise the minimum sentence for a whole range of crimes and raise maximum sentences. To do that, they have to build more prisons. The mission I give to the Government is that they jettison the Bill before it does harm, think about how they can devise and deliver alternatives to that and be bold in making a case for a retributive system of criminal justice in a way that so few people have for so long.
Warinder Juss
As a member of the Justice Committee, it is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill. I welcome the much-needed reform that it will bring to our courts and prisons system. I wish to speak in support of clause 1 and amendment 36, relating to sentences of 12 months or less, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox).
We are well aware in this House of the disastrous situation our prison system was left in by the previous Government and I am proud that this Government are now confronting the crisis head on. We are committed to not just short-term fixes, but long-term reform. The Bill will tackle the root causes of the issues that lead to the crisis in the first place and rebuild a justice system that delivers fairness, safety and accountability to all in society. Amendment 36 will do more than just reduce the pressure on our prison system; it will represent a vital cultural shift, placing rehabilitation and reintegration at the heart of our sentencing system.
Since becoming an MP, I have visited several prisons and one thing that has become clear is how easy it is to fall into the reoffending cycle, especially for those who are serving short sentences. A minor offence can lead to a short prison sentence that can affect a prisoner’s entire life. They leave prison and they have no home, no connections and no job. When they are released from prison, they have no option but to fall back into the same behaviours that put them in prison in the first place.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about amendment 36. It is imperative that when we look at improving the system as a whole, we understand the pressures that we are placing on our courts, including Snaresbrook criminal court in my constituency. Does he agree that it is imperative that this should be a facet of all the changes we hope to bring about?
Warinder Juss
I have visited Snaresbrook Crown court and I understand exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. He makes a valid point. The pressures on our courts system and our prison system are all interlinked.
It is important that victims get the justice they deserve, that the courts are able to deliver it and that offender rehabilitation does not come at the cost of victim confidence. However, we must recognise that short-term prison sentences all too often do not work and instead merely cause disruption to people’s lives and kick-start a cycle of reoffending. Where the courts believe that justice is better served through community rehabilitation, we must empower them to do put that in place. Amendment 36 would require judges also to consider whether a community sentence was better than a prison sentence or a suspended prison sentence.
I am proud to support this Bill because it centres on victims and allows them the protection and dignity that they deserve. The Bill and the amendment will also allow those on trial a proper consideration for rehabilitation and an opportunity to make amends and have a better life. I urge Members to support clause 1, to support amendment 36 and to support the Bill. It is a vital and crucial step forward for our courts, our prisons and our communities, and for a fair justice system that works for all.
Mr Kohler
Government new clause 1 seeks to strengthen the deportation framework by making it available to those given a suspended sentence. I urge the House to pause before we simply nod it through. It may be politically attractive to say that we are toughening deportation powers, but in practice the change risks blurring the distinction between the offenders who pose a genuine threat to the public and those who do not. A suspended sentence is imposed precisely where the court believes that immediate custody is not necessary for justice or public safety. To treat those individuals like those who have served time in prison lacks logic and may well invite legal challenge.
My concern is that we are legislating in haste, as seen in today’s Committee of the whole House, and layering new powers on a system that already fails to use effectively those that it already has. Instead of focusing on headline-grabbing amendments, we should be fixing the operational chaos in the Home Office that allows people to slip through the cracks in the first place, as we have seen in my constituency; the notorious Wimbledon prowler has recently been released but not deported, despite the Home Office vowing to deport him when he was sent down in 2019. What assessment have the Government made of the likely number of offenders who will be deported under the expanded definition, and how will the Home Office ensure that deportation decisions made under the broader power remain compliant with article 8 rights and do not clog up the courts with appeals that could delay the removal of genuinely dangerous offenders?
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am going to speak in favour of Government new clause 1, but I first want to take the opportunity to mention the Conservatives party’s record in government. A lot has been made during this debate about the prisons that were built during the last Government, so let us place it on record that, between 2010 and 2024, there was a net addition of 482 prison places. If that is a record that the Conservatives are proud to stand on, I will happily give it to them.
Secondly, a lot has been said about lefty lawyers. I would like to draw to the Chamber’s attention that, almost two years ago to the day, the then Conservative Lord Chancellor—presumably a well-known lefty lawyer—spoke about suspended sentences. Of reoffending rates, he said:
“The fact is that more than 50% of people who leave prison after serving less than 12 months go on to commit further crimes…However, the figure for those who are on suspended sentence orders with conditions is 22%.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 60.]
It is important that we understand what we are talking about when we are talking about suspended sentences. That point is relevant to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) as well.
Ms Minns
I think the hon. Gentleman is making a correction to the former Lord Chancellor, because those were his words. I am sorry that the Conservative party has moved so far in two years that you wish to disown the work of a Lord Chancellor who stood in this Chamber just two years ago.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Ms Minns, please—“you wish to disown”? I am not contributing to the debate.
Ms Minns
I really do apologise, Ms Ghani.
Moving on, I support new clause 1. It would strengthen our approach to the deportation of foreign criminals by amending the definition of “period of imprisonment” in two key pieces of legislation: the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The amendment is about ensuring that the law reflects the seriousness of the sentence handed down by the courts, whether it is immediate or suspended.
Currently, a suspended sentence of 12 months or more does not count towards the definition of a foreign criminal for deportation purposes. This creates a loophole that risks undermining confidence in our immigration and justice systems. I have met the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to discuss the deportation of foreign criminals with suspended sentences, and I very much welcome the closure of this loophole. It is not an abstract policy change; it is a necessary correction to a real and pressing issue.
New clause 1 ensures that suspended sentences of 12 months or more are treated with the gravity they deserve when considering deportation. It sends a clear message that serious criminal behaviour will not be overlooked simply because the sentence was suspended, and it strengthens our ability to protect communities, uphold justice and maintain public confidence in our immigration system.
Let us be clear: a suspended sentence is still a sentence of imprisonment. It is imposed by a judge who has determined that the offence is serious enough to warrant custody. The fact that the sentence is suspended does not diminish the gravity of the crime.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not accept that most victims of crime would say that a suspended sentence is very much not a custodial sentence?
Ms Minns
I am not going to pretend to be an expert in the judiciary or the actions of individual judges. Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise that a suspended sentence and a sentence that places an individual in prison are both sentences of punishment. We are talking, in our discussion on new clause 1, about how that relates to whether a foreign criminal should be removed from the country.
The new clause is a targeted, proportionate and principled amendment. It does not expand the scope of deportation arbitrarily. It simply ensures that those who commit serious crimes are not shielded from deportation by technicalities. I urge colleagues from across the House to support it.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Gauke review was a thorough exercise carried out in good faith. It was intended to fix some of the problems that persist in the justice system, and was particularly aimed at easing the burden on the prison estate. As a member of the Justice Committee, I had the opportunity to question the former Lord Chancellor and was struck by his thoughtfulness and expertise. Despite that, I do have reservations about parts of the Bill, particularly those around the early release of certain prisoners. Amendment 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), seeks to add an extra protection to the Bill to combat this. It would ensure that the most violent and dangerous offenders—those guilty of crimes like rape, grievous bodily harm, child sex abuse and causing death by dangerous driving—do not benefit from automatic sentence reductions.
We all agree that rehabilitation has a place in our justice system, but that is not its only purpose. The public expect criminals to be punished for their wrongdoing and to be protected from those criminals causing future harm. I fear that Labour Members do not know the consequences of the Bill, which are that violent and sexual offenders will be released from prison early and will then go on to commit further criminal offences. We will have to deal with those consequences in the years to come if the Bill is passed unamended. Those who commit the most serious crimes should serve the full sentence handed down by our courts. Early release should never be a reward for those who have shattered lives beyond repair.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I would like to speak in favour of my new clause 2, as well as new clauses 18 and 22. Fourteen years of Tory austerity have left prisons in crisis. They are severely overcrowded and understaffed. There are significant challenges on the prison estate, including staffing shortages. HMP Liverpool expects to see a massive reduction in staffing due to the impact of the skilled worker visa scheme. Prisons were forced to take emergency release measures to prevent a complete system breakdown.
There is much to appreciate in this Bill, and more to wait for from the Law Commission’s sentencing review, but I echo the concerns raised: without sufficient resourcing and transparent, clear guidance, the ambitions of the Bill risk failing. We know that over half of those serving a sentence of less than 12 months reoffend, and women prisoners disproportionately receive shorter sentences. The link between short sentences and reoffending contributes greatly to the pressures on prison capacity. Mental health treatment, alcohol and drug misuse treatment and other rehabilitative services bring wider social benefits and protect the public far better than the current system by tackling the causes of crime. The organisation JUSTICE has stated that without proper resourcing, staffing and funding, rehabilitative services will remain too overstretched to be effective. In August 2025, a shortfall of 10,000 Probation Service staff was recorded. The Bill’s impact assessment estimates the need for an additional 500 probation staff each year. Will the Minister reassure Members that he understands the scale of the task ahead, and outline his commitment to allocating adequate resources to ensure that our frontline services can deliver the provisions and vision of the Bill?
New clause 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), seeks to provide leave to appeal where there has been change in the law that is material to the conviction, and where the application is served before the conviction is spent. A version of the new clause was first moved by the former MP for Huddersfield, my predecessor as chair of the all-party group for miscarriages of justice. It was written by Charlotte Henry, a formidable campaigner for Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association. I have long campaigned against the abuses of joint enterprise legal doctrine, and I take this opportunity to recognise the fantastic work undertaken by JENGbA over the past 15 years. The Justice Secretary previously provided commitments to JENGbA, and I hope that he will support new clause 22 today.
My new clause 2 seeks to provide oversight mechanisms for electronic monitoring, which the Bill proposes increasing hugely. The plan is to create a prison outside a prison, but although that has potential to ease the overcrowding crisis on the estate, it could give rise to significant risks, without proper oversight and accountability. Tagging plays an important part in our criminal justice system, and if used correctly and ethically, it can help reduce crime and protect the public, while giving victims confidence that justice is being served. However, there are numerous problems, and those must be addressed before any further expansion, particularly the massive profits made by private sector companies.
We must analyse the purposes of tagging, from public protection to being a punishment in itself. The Bill expands powers to ban offenders from specific places or certain activities, even when those have no connection with the offence. That is one glaring example of where tagging technologies risk leading to greater unchecked restrictions on our liberties. Failing private-sector contracts are at the heart of the problem, particularly those with Serco and G4S, now acquired by Allied Universal, which has a murky and well documented history of over-charging and under-delivering, and which has been fined tens of millions of pounds as a result. I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place, which last year said it was “remarkable” that Serco and G4S had been reappointed to provide tagging services after they had
“been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and subject to fines for misconduct and a deferred prosecution agreement”.
The issue is not only money; we are giving those companies more and more control of sensitive and clearly transformational criminal justice technology. Instead, we should use this decisive moment to bring tagging firmly into the public sector Probation Service, as is common in the rest of Europe, and out of the hands of failing and fraudulent privateers.
The Government have promised the biggest insourcing in a generation, and if they fail to insource these services, they should consider demands by the unions to make the companies that make and provide the tags also fit the tags, pre-release. That is in my new clause 2(2)(c). I remind Members of the appalling case of Gaie Delap, a Just Stop Oil activist in her late 70s, who spent extra weeks in prison because Serco could not find a tag to fit her. The companies making millions from these contracts should be sanctioned, so that they deliver services correctly. They should not be allowed to rely on overstretched prison staff to pick up their work. Will the Minister assure the House on that point? The fragmented privatised system creates huge delays and inefficiencies, and provides financial challenges for the people whom it supervises, who, for example, have to charge tags without having access to electricity, or money to pay for it.
I support new clause 18, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), which calls for an annual report detailing the use of tagging, and including information on the number of tags fitted, the number of malfunctioning devices, the rate of compliance and the cost of administrating the system. That important data must be freely available if the public and unions are to have any confidence in electronic monitoring.
Justice unions and the frontline workers whom they represent are calling for greater oversight, accountability and transparency in monitoring performance, and for any failures to be addressed immediately, not covered up by profit-hungry corporations. I join them in calling on the Government to commit to a full review of the feasibility of all tagging being managed by the Probation Service in the future, in a system run for public good, not private profit. In keeping with our promise to oversee the greatest wave of insourcing for a generation, now is the time for this Labour Government to bring this increasingly vital public service fully into the public sector, where it belongs, so I ask hon. Members to support my amendments.
Luke Taylor
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) on his clear and comprehensive explanation of the flaws of short sentences. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place, gave us some insight into why we have ended up in such a mess: Government modelling was not able to reconcile the removal of prison places with rules for increased sentences. The result was more demand for prison places. The net figure of 482 prison places gained since 2010, given by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), shows the utterly damning mistakes that were made during the Conservatives’ time in government.
I will speak in favour of new clauses 6 and 39. In Christmas 2021, Lillie Clack’s family were woken by police, informing them that Lillie had been involved in a traffic accident on Christmas morning. It was caused by a driver under the influence, who was speeding at up to 100 mph, and who failed to stop for the police. Following the accident, heroic local residents rushed to the scene with fire extinguishers, but sadly Lillie died in hospital three days later. Lillie’s family have campaigned tirelessly since then for Lillie’s law, which would result in licences being suspended immediately upon a charge, and a lifetime ban from driving when drivers are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving.
I speak in favour of new clause 6, tabled by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would apply the lifetime ban, and in favour of new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), on the suspension of a person’s driving licence while they are on bail for a driving-related offence. Together, those new clauses would deliver the objectives of Lillie’s law and provide both punishment and deterrent for those who step into a car under the influence, or who do not take the care that is required when driving, which is a privilege, and not a right.
I will speak briefly in favour of new clause 30. I encourage hon. Members from across the House to support the long-overdue resentencing of all prisoners currently held under a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. At the end of 2024, more than 2,000 people were held under an IPP, which is an ongoing scandal and a tragedy for those individuals. The Government claim that the jail terms are a grave injustice, but they are failing to move quickly enough. This new clause would force them to act. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) so clearly explained, there is a need for action, so I hope his colleagues can be persuaded to support new clause 30, in the absence of another measure to address the issue, which is badly required.
Finally, I will mention new clause 40, on the provision of training during the period when an individual is on remand. We must enable rehabilitation wherever possible. Even if the new clause is not taken forward today, I join colleagues and the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) in encouraging the Government to look at the current situation.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Justice must be capable of learning from its mistakes. When the law evolves, it must reach back for those left behind. That is the principle behind new clauses 22 and 23, which I tabled.
The new clauses would create a fair route for people still serving sentences under laws that have since been abolished or where the legal basis has materially changed. They would allow courts to review such cases so that punishment reflects the law as it stands today, not as it stood decades ago. At present, there is no clear mechanism for that to happen. Even when Parliament or the courts have recognised that a law was wrong, those affected have no way to benefit. Our system can acknowledge injustice, but it cannot yet fix it. We see that most clearly in the case of Alex Henry, whose sister is my constituent. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and she and Alex’s mum are in the Gallery today.
Some 11 years ago, Alex was convicted of murder after a 40-second altercation. He did not wield the weapon; he threw a phone and one punch, then ran. He was convicted under the now discredited doctrine of joint enterprise, which allowed juries to convict if a defendant merely foresaw what someone else might do. Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that that interpretation had been wrong for more than 30 years. Foresight is not enough for guilt—intent must be present—yet Alex remains in prison, serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 19 years for a crime that he would not have been convicted of under today’s law.
Monica Harding
Alex’s mother, Sally, is a constituent of mine in Esher and Walton. She shared Alex’s story in one of my surgeries, so I am very pleased that his story is being considered today in Parliament. The new clauses put forward by my hon. Friend will help to ensure that people such as Alex have a route to justice. Sally is battling on behalf of her son against a law that is obsolete. All of us can only imagine how heartbreaking and frustrating that is and the unfairness of what my hon. Friend has described. I urge Members across the Committee to support the new clauses so that there is a course to justice.
Zöe Franklin
This is indeed a highly significant issue, which is why I have put forward the new clauses.
Since his conviction, Alex has been diagnosed with autism, a condition that fundamentally affects how he perceives and reacts to social situations. That diagnosis raises serious questions about whether it was even fair to suggest that he could have foreseen a friend’s violent act, let alone intended it. Alex’s story is not unique. Many others—overwhelmingly young men, disproportionately from minority ethnic backgrounds—remain imprisoned under a doctrine that our highest court has disowned.
I recognise today Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association—JENGbA—whose members have worked tirelessly for more than a decade to support families and campaign for reform. Many of them, and the families of those affected, are also here in the Gallery. I place on record my gratitude for their courage and persistence in seeking justice. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for her support this afternoon.
New clause 22 would allow people still serving sentences under laws that have materially changed to apply for a review. It would give courts discretion to resentence in line with the law as it now stands or to make any other order necessary in the interests of justice. This is not about reopening every case or granting automatic releases; it is about restoring fairness. New clause 23 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State for Justice to review and report to Parliament on how changes in criminal law affect existing convictions and sentences. It would ensure that when the law evolves, we look back and ask what the changes mean for the people already affected. This is not just a moral necessity, but a practical one.
We face a severe crisis in our prisons, which are overcrowded, understaffed and at breaking point. It makes no sense to fill cells with people serving sentences under laws that no longer reflect justice, while those who genuinely threaten public safety wait for space. We need prison places for those who are truly dangerous, not for those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong law. The Secretary of State for Justice has long recognised the injustice of joint enterprise. In 2021, he called it “shoddy law”, “outdated” and “backward”, and pledged to change it. Families across the country, including many in the Gallery, remember that promise; today’s Bill gives the Secretary of State and the Government the chance to make good on it.
The new clauses provide a practical, proportionate and fair way to ensure that our justice system can correct itself when the law gets it wrong. As such, my ask today is for the Secretary of State and the Government to champion these clauses from the Government Benches. Work with me and campaigners to refine the detail if needed, but do not let the principle fall away, because the strength of our justice system lies not in its perfection, but in its capacity to put right its own mistakes. For Alex Henry, for the families in the Gallery today, and for everyone who is still serving a sentence under a law that our courts have already rejected, I urge all Members on both sides of the Committee and the Government to support new clauses 22 and 23.
Jake Richards
I begin by thanking all those who have contributed to this important debate about sentencing policy and the future of our criminal justice system. Before I turn to the specifics of various amendments, there are two overarching principles that inform this piece of legislation and the Government’s position today. The first is the legacy that this Government inherited from the Conservative party, with prisons at breaking point, the risk that the most serious offenders would avoid arrest or custody altogether, and the need for emergency action to release offenders early to avoid the prison system collapsing. That was the conclusion of 14 years of Tory failure. Alongside the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era, this Sentencing Bill fixes that mess—under this Government, never again.
Secondly, while we stabilise the system that was so shamefully vandalised by the previous Tory Government, we can build a better justice system—one that protects the public and reduces reoffending. This Government will prioritise punishment, but punishment that works, not the broken system we have today. That is why we are introducing important measures on short custodial sentences, which robust evidence shows will reduce offending, save the taxpayer money and assist with the prison capacity crisis. Fixing the mess we inherited and building a more robust and effective justice system are at the heart of today’s Bill.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition and the shadow Justice team. I am simply aghast at the chutzpah of the Conservative party on justice issues. The piece of legislation we are considering is only before the Committee today because of the mess that the Tories left behind. Whereas they turned their backs on the mounting crisis, this Government will not shrink from the challenges we face, however difficult they may be.
Amendment 24 would undermine a central purpose of the legislation, which is to solve the Tory prisons capacity crisis. Let me be absolutely clear: what victims of crime and our communities fear the most is the situation the Tories left behind, in which criminals—murderers, rapists and child abusers—might not face prison at all because the Tories left our system teetering on the brink, without the capacity to lock up even the most serious offenders. We will not apologise for the measures in this Bill that clear up their mess.
The inspiration for the changes that the Tories oppose is the earned progression model from Texas, where crime has been slashed by improving rehabilitation and cutting reoffending. Tackling reoffending and boosting efforts to rehabilitate offenders used to be Conservative policies; indeed, the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who is not in his normal place, used to believe in rehabilitation and initiatives to cut reoffending. Eight years ago, when I think he was still a one-nation Cameroon, he argued that
“the statutory definition of the purpose of a prison”
should
“include rehabilitation and reform”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 850.]
Now he opposes every single measure in this Bill that furthers that cause. He was a moderate; now, he is a pound-shop populist. One wonders whether he believes in anything other than his campaign to become Leader of the Opposition—simply not serious, Madam Chair.
Dr Mullan
The Minister has described what is in the Bill as an earned progression model. I have read out to the Committee the independent Library briefing note, which says that progression will not be earned; it will be automatic. On what basis is the Minister continuing to describe it as an earned model?
Jake Richards
Within the Sentencing Bill and primary legislation are specific punishments for offenders who do not play by the rules while they are in prison. That will affect the earned progression model. Further details about exactly how one can gain credit will be delivered in due course.
The Opposition and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) have tabled amendments to the provisions on the Sentencing Council with the aim of abolishing the council, and the Tory amendment would transfer its functions to the Secretary of State for Justice. That would amount to constitutional vandalism—it is an attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary. The Sentencing Council holds a pivotal role as a bridge between Parliament and the judiciary. The council is widely acknowledged to have brought greater consistency to the sentencing process. Even before the council’s creation, it was not for the Justice Secretary or Lord Chancellor to fulfil the function of creating these guidelines. It is right that the council is held to account by Parliament, but it would be offensive to the principle of the separation of powers to dissolve the council entirely. This is a classic case of the populists going too far and not reaffirming the sovereignty of this place, as clauses 18 and 19 successfully achieve, but trashing constitutional norms for media headlines. I urge the Committee to reject such performative politics.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), tabled new clause 12 on the unduly lenient sentence scheme, on which the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made a powerful speech. While the Government understand that the 28-day time limit can be difficult for victims and their families, it is important that there is finality in sentencing and that we avoid ongoing uncertainty about the sentence to be served. The Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal appeals and held a public consultation inviting views on a range of reforms to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, including extending the time limit. We will wait for the Law Commission’s response before responding. I have heard the points that Members have made about communication, and over the coming weeks I will look at changes we can make to processes and functions within the Ministry of Justice to improve the system.
I shall move on to short sentences and the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I want to be clear about this, because her speech simply did not accept the reality. Clause 1 does not ban short custodial sentences. At the end of this Parliament there will be more offenders in jail than there have ever been before. That is not being soft on crime. There is an important exemption in the legislation for cases where there is a significant risk of harm to a particular individual, whether psychological or physical. It will always be up to the courts to decide how to apply the presumption in any given case. The right hon. Lady’s amendments to widen the scope of the exemption or to eat away at the 12-month definition of a short sentence would render the provision meaningless. It is not the right direction.
The provision also includes an exemption for a breach of a court order. We have strengthened that further with Government amendments 2 and 4, which clarify that it includes repeat offenders who commit a further offence while on a suspended sentence. Government amendments 3 and 5 further expand the scope of the exemption so that it applies where an offence has been committed in circumstances that are closely connected to the breach of a court order, even where the breach is not in and of itself a criminal offence. Together, those amendments ensure that repeat offenders will not benefit from the presumption when they are already subject to a court order.
Where we can do so safely, we should be moving away from short-term sentences. Putting people in prison for a few weeks costs the taxpayer huge amounts and leads to further reoffending. We know that reoffending rates among those serving short-term sentences are scandalously high. Rigorous research shows that equivalent sentences in the community will tackle reoffending, preventing thousands of crimes each year. Indeed, the rigorous research, which the shadow Minister cited, showing that these measures will cut crime was commissioned by the last Conservative Government. They even put this precise provision—copied and pasted—in legislation that they introduced prior to the election, but it never came before Parliament. The Conservatives know it is the right thing to do, but now they oppose it for opposition’s sake. It is a good example of how far they have fallen. They are simply not serious.
I will not be able to speak to all the various amendments tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), as I am sure he will appreciate. I met him earlier this week, and I will no doubt meet him and members of the Committee in the weeks ahead. I am grateful to him and his Committee for their work. New clause 19 addresses the important issue of the imprisonment for public protection sentence. It is right that the IPP sentence was abolished, and the Government are determined to support those in prison to progress towards a safe and sustainable release, but not in a way that undermines public protection. Changes we have implemented through the IPP action plan have contributed to a fall of around 14% in the number of unreleased IPP prisoners between June 2024 and June 2025.
I recognise the Chair’s desire to see the previous Justice Committee’s recommendation on resentencing implemented, but despite its detailed consideration of the issue, the Committee, like various other organisations, was unable to identify an approach to resentencing that would not involve releasing offenders whom the Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public. The Chair of the Committee has put forward other amendments to the IPP scheme relating to the review of licence conditions. The Government will look into that over the coming days and weeks and no doubt have conversations with him.
Let me say a little about new clause 18, which deals with tagging, an issue that was also raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). The Government agree that it is important to report on key metrics relating to electronic monitoring, which is why the Ministry of Justice publishes statistical reports on the use of electronic monitoring in England and Wales both quarterly and annually. Our next annual report, which we expect to be published next summer, will include details on key performance indicators that the Department uses to hold the electronic monitoring provider to account. As the hon. Gentleman will know, owing to commercial sensitivities I am unable to specify the fines that have been enforced on those private companies relating to the tagging systems, but we will continue to hold their feet to the fire, which I hope will reassure him.
Josh Babarinde
It has been great to work with Ministers at the Ministry of Justice and to help drive that identifier forward. Will the Minister join me in celebrating the incredible bravery of ITV’s “Loose Women”, many of whom, through their “Facing It Together” campaign, have spoken out about their experiences of domestic abuse, and will he, or a fellow Minister from the MOJ, come and meet them next Wednesday from 12.30 pm onwards, in the Attlee Suite, where I shall be hosting them and we will be bringing the “Facing It Together” campaign to Parliament?
Jake Richards
I am always happy to pay tribute to the brilliant “Loose Women”, and, diary permitting, I will be there at 12.30 pm with the hon. Gentleman. Their campaign has been serious and has had a real effect, and we are very grateful to them.
Offenders who pose a greater risk are already excluded from the measures in the Bill, including those recalled on account of being charged with a further offence—such as, importantly, an offence relating to a breach of a civil domestic violence protection order—and those subject to multi-agency supervision levels 2 and 3, which apply to many sexual violence and domestic abuse offenders. These offenders can only receive a standard recall.
New clause 36, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), builds on the work of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. It would require the courts to treat any offence involving domestic abuse as aggravated. Again, I recognise and sympathise with the intent behind the new clause, but domestic abuse is already treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing through the guidelines that make it clear that judges should consider domestic abuse as increasing the seriousness of an offence, allowing for tougher sentences where appropriate. We believe that any change might complicate the sentencing framework unnecessarily, without any real practical benefit.
Let me now deal with the issue of driving offences. We have heard many powerful speeches, including one from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who also made a powerful speech on Second Reading. He is not currently in the Chamber—oh, he is here, but he has changed, and is looking very dapper. I have had a brief conversation with him about some of his proposals. While we do not support the mandatory ban for careless and dangerous driving that results in death, I am determined to look at it, along with my colleagues at the Department for Transport. I was shocked by some of the statistics that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) produced on Second Reading, and in meetings that I have had with them since then. I want to get into the details, but there is certainly more that we can do, and I know that other Members have raised important cases in this connection. I will be looking at measures that we can take to strengthen driving bans, on an interim and permanent basis, for the most reckless offenders. Again, I praise all the Members who have made such powerful speeches today, some of them on behalf of constituents who have suffered significant tragedies.
New clauses 28 and 29 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I have met her twice to discuss the new clauses and the policy aims that sit behind them. I commend her for tabling them, raising the importance of tackling the hidden harms of problematic gambling, and for her ongoing collaboration on this topic. Let me briefly explain the ways in which we already identify and support those with gambling issues, and how we are seeking to increase the support that we provide.
Pre-sentencing reports help the courts to identify underlying issues such as harmful gambling, mental health problems and addiction, which may influence offending behaviour. Mental health conditions and addictions can be taken into account at sentencing, and courts are encouraged to take an individualised approach, particularly when the condition contributes to the offending. Where individuals demonstrate a commitment to address those issues, courts may consider community sentence treatment requirements, and in particular mental health treatment requirements, as part of a community or suspended sentence order. This can be undertaken only with the consent of the individual, and new clause 28 as drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South provides for the treatment to be mandatory, which is an issue. As I have discussed with her, there is the issue of the scale of demand and the current lack of any reliable data on how this would look in the criminal justice system. That is why I have already committed to work with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care—indeed, I have been in correspondence with them just this week—to ensure that the Ministry of Justice is involved in the developing work on gambling addiction treatment and use of the statutory levy that is led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
I will briefly deal with new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Clacton, who did not bother to turn up for any of the debate. His new clause would introduce automatic deportation for foreign nationals who are given sentences of at least six months. Although the state would be forced to seek the deportation of an individual in such circumstances, that individual would clearly have cause for challenge—not just on ECHR grounds but, in particular, on the grounds of judicial review and proportionality, which has been a long-held principle of common law in this country for hundreds of years.
Let me be clear: this Government are urgently removing foreign national offenders, with removals up by 14% since we came into office. Through Government new clause 1, we are extending the Home Secretary’s duty to deport under the UK Borders Act 2007 to foreign nationals who are given a suspended sentence of at least 12 months. Upholding our values and keeping our nation safe is a priority, and new clause 1 sends a clear message. Regardless of whether a court chooses to impose an immediate custodial sentence or pass a suspended sentence, if the sentence is for a period of at least 12 months, it is sufficiently serious to merit automatic deportation. New clause 25, tabled by Reform, would make a mockery of our efforts more generally, putting scant resource into needless litigation and often unnecessary deportations—another Reform policy that crashes and burns on contact with reality.
I will briefly speak about new clause 27 and the powerful story told by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about her constituent Sophie. It is an issue that first came across my desk as part of preparations for Committee. Although the Government are absolutely determined to deport foreign offenders for serious offences, the risk assessment in her new clause may inhibit the Government’s efforts in that regard. This is something that I will look at very closely in the coming weeks, and I hope that I can have a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss the details and how we can make it work.
I want to raise briefly the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on tool theft, which has been such an important part of the reforms to the sentencing and criminal justice policy. Her efforts have been successful.
Today’s debate, which has lasted nearly four hours, shows that the dividing line in British politics is increasingly clear: it is between those who recognise the tough choices facing our country and are willing to make them in order to clean up the mess left behind by the last Tory Government, and the unserious, populist Opposition carping from the sidelines.
Dr Mullan
I am sure the Minister will hope that Back Benchers have listened closely to what he has said, but more important is what he has not said. The Government have been briefing journalists that what we were saying about rapists and paedophiles getting out earlier was not true, and they have told the same to a number of Labour Back Benchers. To be clear, can the Minister put on the record whether any rapists or paedophiles serving standard determinate sentences will be released earlier as a result of this Bill—yes or no?
Jake Richards
As the hon. Gentleman knows, sentencing decisions are for the judiciary. Every single offence in his amendment 24 can be given an extended determinate sentence. As I have said before—I will say it again—what victims of crime fear the most is the situation that this Government inherited, in which we were running out of prison places and the most serious offenders might not have faced prison at all. Bizarrely, the shadow Justice Minister said earlier in the debate, “If I had been Prime Minister or Chancellor, this wouldn’t have happened.” Well, you were not, I am afraid. A lot of you lot had a go at being Chancellor or Prime Minister, and none of you did a good job.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. “You lot” and “you” were addressed to me.
Jake Richards
Madam Chair, I do not think that you were Prime Minister or Chancellor. I do apologise.
The Tory legacy in our prisons was lawless disorder, with not enough prison places to arrest or lock up even the most serious offenders. The Conservatives’ howling opposition today rings hollow in the context of their disastrous legacy. This Government have taken action to fix the mess by delivering 2,500 prison places in the first year, compared with 500 over 14 years of Conservative misrule. But we cannot simply build our way out of this crisis; it requires long-term reform for a more sustainable system. This Bill ensures that we will never again face the impossible situation that we faced last summer, but it goes further: it means we will cut reoffending rates, and we will build prisons that produce better citizens, not better criminals. This Bill will help keep our streets and communities safe. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate.
Esther McVey
I am deeply dismayed by what the Minister had to say. This Bill will make the streets of our country less safe. It will both let thousands of criminals out of prison and stop thousands of criminals going to prison. It will have a devastating impact on society. If the Minister is honest and is being truthful about this being an emergency—[Interruption.] I apologise —not “truthful”. If he is being accurate, and the reason really is that there is an emergency because of a lack of prison places, why has he not accepted my new clause 62? That sunset clause would allow two years for three further prisons, initiated by the Conservative Government, to come on line. He has not done so because, as I think we have revealed or exposed, this Government are soft on crime, and they are on the side of the criminal, not the victim.
Esther McVey
“Shocking” actually is the word for this Bill.
As the Minister did not offer any way forward and has not agreed to a sunset clause, I will push my amendment 46 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sentencing Bill
Wednesday 29th October 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberSentencing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 October 2025 - large print - (29 Oct 2025)
17:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 170 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:21 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 321 / Noes: 103 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).
(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.
(4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence.
(5) But the court may not impose a sentence that is a heavier penalty than the sentence that was imposed for the original offence.
(6) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (4)—
(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under the Sentencing Code (see section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020);
(b) the Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).
(7) In this section—
‘IPP sentence’ means a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act (including such a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of section 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);
‘original offence’ means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.
(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.
New clause 3—Use of funds raised through income reduction orders—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits and costs of directing the funds raised from income reduction orders into a fund that provides support for victims.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of using the monies raised through income reduction orders to fund support for victims.
New clause 4—Probation caseloads—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations to commence the provisions in this Act, establish maximum caseload limits for probation officers supervising individuals subject to—
(a) licence conditions;
(b) community orders; or
(c) any other form of court-imposed supervision by the probation service.
(2) The Secretary of State must, each year, lay before Parliament a report on compliance with the caseload limits set under this section.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set maximum caseloads for probation before implementation of the Act, and to report annually on compliance.
New clause 5—Access to rehabilitation and support services—
“(1) The probation service must ensure all individuals subject to licence conditions, community orders, or other court-imposed supervision have access to—
(a) NHS mental health and substance misuse services,
(b) education, training and employment support, and
(c) approved behaviour change or offender behaviour programmes.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on the availability and use of the services provided under subsection (1).”
This new clause would require the probation service to ensure people under its supervision can access mental health and substance misuse services; education, training and support; and approved behaviour change or offender management programmes, and to report annually on the availability and uptake of those services.
New clause 6—Digital systems for tracking offender progress—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the benefits and costs of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals who are subject to supervision by the probation service.
(2) The assessment must consider the following potential functions of a sentence management system—
(a) tracking offender progress,
(b) providing for the sharing of information between the courts, probation service, and other relevant agencies, subject to the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018,
(c) monitoring compliance with rehabilitation programmes, and
(d) any other functions that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals subject to supervision by the probation service.
New clause 7—Specialist teams for high-risk or complex offenders—
“(1) The probation service must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise—
(a) high-risk offenders,
(b) offenders with complex mental health needs,
(c) offenders with substance misuse needs, and
(d) young offenders who are transitioning to adult supervision.
(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits of specialist probation teams having lower average caseloads per probation officer.
(3) The assessment must consider the potential arrangements for specialist probation teams accessing support from other relevant agencies.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the probation service to assess the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise offenders who are high-risk; have complex mental health or substance misuse needs; and young offenders transitioning to adult supervision.
New clause 8—Domestic abuse aggravated offences—
“(1) A court must treat an offence committed in England and Wales as domestic abuse aggravated, if—
(a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other; and
(b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse.
(2) In this section—
‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and
‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”
This new clause would require a court to treat a domestic abuse offence as aggravated.
New clause 9—Rehabilitative programmes for offences relating to violence against women and girls—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for—
(a) assault;
(b) battery; or
(c) actual bodily harm
when the victim is a woman or girl.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for certain offences.
New clause 10—Screening for traumatic brain injuries—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of screening all prisoners for traumatic brain injuries at the start of their custodial sentence.
(2) The assessment should consider—
(a) how screening for traumatic brain injuries could inform the management of a prisoner’s sentence,
(b) the health services and rehabilitation programmes available for prisoners with traumatic brain injuries, and
(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment made under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of introducing standardised screening for traumatic brain injuries for prisoners starting a custodial sentence.
New clause 11—Suspension of driving licences during bail for driving related offences—
“(1) This section applies where an individual has been granted bail in respect of one of the following offences—
(a) dangerous or careless driving;
(b) drink driving; or
(c) drug driving.
(2) The court may suspend the driving licence of the individual, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings.”
This new clause would allow the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged for certain driving offences, pending the outcome of the trial.
New clause 12—Access to rehabilitation programmes and education for individuals held on remand—
“(1) Where an individual is held in custodial remand pending sentencing, the probation service must provide access to the same rehabilitative programmes that are available to prisoners after sentencing.
(2) Where an individual is held in custodial demand pending trial, the probation service must provide access to the same—
(a) education;
(b) therapy; and
(c) any other support that the probation service deems appropriate,
that is available to prisoners after sentencing.”
This new clause would allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence.
New clause 14—Under-18 anonymity for cases involving serious crime—
“(1) This section applies where a person (‘P’) aged under 18—
(a) has been convicted of an offence; and
(b) will receive a custodial sentence of four or more years.
(2) Where this section applies, prior to delivering sentencing remarks, the court must lift any reporting restrictions identifying P.
(3) This section applies notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter IV of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.”
This new clause would require reporting restrictions to be lifted at the point of sentencing for young offenders who have received a sentence of four or more years.
New clause 15—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—
“(1) All transcripts of sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.
(2) All published sentencing remarks must be made freely available, including online.”
This new clause would require all sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court to be published and made available to all.
New clause 16—Sexual offences: Offender Personality Disorder Pathway—
“(1) The Prison Rules 1999 are amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 20 (Health services), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1A) Provision under subsection (1) must include access, for all eligible prisoners serving custodial sentences for sexual offences, to services provided under the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway.’”
This new clause would require the Government to provide access to the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway to all eligible prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences.
New clause 17—Sexual offences: chemical suppression—
“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on how most effectively to introduce mandatory chemical suppression for certain individuals serving sentences for sexual offences, with appropriate legal and clinical safeguards.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on mandatory chemical suppression for certain sex offenders.
New clause 18—Sentencing Council: abolition—
“(1) The Sentencing Council (established under section 118 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) is abolished.
(2) The Secretary of State may prepare—
(a) sentencing guidelines which may be general in nature or limited to a particular offence, particular category of offence or particular category of offender;
(b) sentencing guidelines about the discharge of a court's duty under section 73 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentences for guilty pleas); and
(c) sentencing guidelines about the application of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences.
(3) The Secretary of State may prepare sentencing guidelines about any other matter.
(4) When developing sentencing guidelines, the Secretary of State must—
(a) promote understanding of, and public confidence in, the sentencing and criminal justice system;
(b) consult Parliament on all draft guidelines; and
(c) publish the reasons for proposing any guidelines that could result in an offender receiving a shorter sentence than that set out in an Act of Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State may report, from time to time, on the impact of sentencing guidelines on sentencing practice.
(6) The Secretary of State must monitor—
(a) the application of the sentencing guidelines; and
(b) the impact on victims of sentencing decisions.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”
This new clause would abolish the Sentencing Council, give the Secretary of State the power to publish Sentencing guidelines, and impose various requirements linked to consultation and monitoring.
New clause 19—Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after ‘duty,’, insert ‘or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,’”
This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim’s current or former duties.
New clause 20—Child cruelty offences: notification and offender management requirements—
“(1) A person (‘relevant offender’) is subject to the notification requirements of subsections (2) and (3) for the period set out in subsection (4) if the relevant offender is convicted of an offence listed in subsection (6).
(2) A relevant offender must notify to the police within the three days of the time of their conviction or their release from custody, and annually thereafter, providing—
(a) the relevant offender’s date of birth;
(b) their national insurance number;
(c) their name on the notification date and, where using one or more other names on that date, each of those names;
(d) their place of residence on the date of notification;
(e) the address of any other premises in the United Kingdom at which, at the time the notification is given, they regularly reside or stay; and
(f) any information that may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.
(3) A relevant offender must notify to the police, within the period of three days beginning with the event occurring, about—
(a) their use of a name which has not been notified to the police under subsection (2);
(b) a change to their place or residence; and
(c) any other prescribed change of circumstances as defined in regulations made under this section.
(4) The dates of discharge from notification requirements under this section are the same as those set out in Section 88B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
(5) The information required by subsections (2) and (3), once received, must be—
(a) monitored regularly by the police and probation service; and
(b) retained for the purposes of offender management.
(6) The relevant offences are—
(a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004);
(b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933);
(c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938);
(d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);
(e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16;
(f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—
(i) female genital mutilation (section 1);
(ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2);
(iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia (section 3); and
(g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).”
This new clause would create notification requirements for people convicted of child cruelty, analogous to the Sex Offenders Register. Their information and personal details would be kept on record by the police for the purposes of offender management, with the aim of reducing the risk to children from future offences.
New clause 21—Lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous driving—
“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under section 1 the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for life.”
This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous driving would be banned from driving for life.
New clause 22—Review of sentence following a change in law—
“(1) Where a person is serving or subject to a sentence imposed for an offence, and—
(a) the offence has been abolished, or
(b) there has been a change in the law which materially alters the sentence that would be imposed for the same offence following that change in the law,
that person may apply to the sentencing court, or to such other court as may be prescribed, for a review of the sentence.
(2) On such an application, the court may—
(a) quash the sentence and resentence the person in accordance with the existing law; or
(b) make such other order as necessary in the interests of justice.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedure and eligibility criteria for applications under this section.”
This new clause would allow a person still serving a sentence under a law that has changed to seek review or resentencing in line with the existing law.
New clause 23—Review of the impact of a change in the law on unspent convictions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—
(a) the effect of changes in the criminal law, whether legislative or judicial, on those serving sentences for offences that would attract a different sentence following the subsequent changes to the criminal law; and
(b) the adequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing any perceived injustice arising from such changes.
(2) The Secretary of State must thereafter lay a further report under subsection (1) every three years.
(3) A report made under this section must include—
(a) recommendations for legislative or administrative steps to prevent any instances of injustice arising from changes in the law; and
(b) data on the number of persons serving sentences in the scenario set out in subsection (1)(a) and, of those, the number who remain imprisoned.”
This new clause would create a statutory duty for the Government to review, on a recurring basis, how changes to the law affect those already convicted or sentenced.
New clause 24—Deportation of foreign criminals: European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—
“(1) Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) At the start of subsection (5), insert ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7A of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and Article 2 of the Windsor Framework,’.”
This new clause would seek to disapply section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended under the Windsor Framework) to the deportation of foreign criminals, with the aim of preventing the courts from disapplying those provisions to Northern Ireland if they are deemed incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
New clause 25—Electronic monitoring: oversight—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In Part 14 of Schedule 9, in paragraph 31 (Electronic monitoring: person responsible for monitoring), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
‘(3) Regulations under this section must ensure that—
(a) electronic monitoring is overseen by the Probation Service;
(b) the fitting of necessary apparatus for the purposes of electronic monitoring may only be undertaken by those in the employment of an organisation with responsibility for delivering electronic monitoring; and
(c) the fitting of necessary apparatus may not be undertaken by an employee of HM Prison and Probation Service unless the responsibility for the delivery of electronic monitoring is held solely by HM Prison and Probation Service.’”
This new clause would ensure that the probation service oversees electronic monitoring, and that prison officers would not be responsible for fitting tags unless tagging contracts are brought into the public sector.
New clause 26—Unpaid work requirements: community work—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 9 (Restriction on imposing unpaid work requirement), after sub-paragraph (1)(b) insert—
‘(c) that the unpaid work is work undertaken for a non-profit organisation, social enterprise, voluntary organisation or local authority.’”
This new clause would prohibit private sector involvement in unpaid work as part of a community sentence.
New clause 27—Probation capacity: independent report—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, a report must be published and laid before Parliament by HM Inspectorate of Probation (‘the Inspectorate’) determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service to meet provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service.
(2) If the report under subsection (1) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service may not come into force until a further report determines that the Probation Service has adequate capacity.
(3) Following a report under subsection (1), the Inspectorate must publish and lay before Parliament a further report, no less than once every twelve months, determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service.
(4) If a report under subsections (1) or (3) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, the Inspectorate may direct that a prioritisation framework must be issued to the areas in which the capacity concerns apply, in order to provide local services with guidance about which activities to deprioritise.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within two weeks of the laying of a report under subsections (1) or (3) with a finding of inadequate capacity, make a statement to Parliament setting out how probation capacity will be increased to an adequate level.”
This new clause would ensure that the provisions of this Bill likely to increase demand on the Probation Service cannot be implemented until HM Inspectorate of Probation determines that there is adequate capacity to address those demands, and would enable the Inspectorate to trigger the issuing of a prioritisation framework to help local areas to identify which activities to deprioritise.
New clause 28—Management of offenders: devolution to Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In Paragraph 175 (Prisons and offender management)—
(a) omit sub-paragraph (2); and
(b) in sub-paragraph (3), omit ‘probation’
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”
This new clause seeks to devolve probation services and offender management to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
New clause 29—Foreign criminals: risk assessments prior to deportation—
“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—
‘32A Deportation following stalking offences: risk assessments
(1) This section applies where a foreign criminal—
(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and
(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.
(2) Where this section applies, prior to deportation, a risk assessment must be prepared to assess the likelihood after deportation of the foreign criminal—
(a) committing an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or
(b) contacting or seeking to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.
(3) A risk assessment prepared under this section must be shared, subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, with the relevant authorities in the country to which the foreign criminal will be deported.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’”
This new clause would require the preparation of a risk assessment for any foreign criminal being deported after a stalking conviction, and for the assessment to be shared with the authorities in the country to which the offender is returning.
New clause 30—Foreign criminals: potential stalking offences following deportation—
“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—
‘32A Potential stalking offences following deportation
(1) This section applies where the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) apply.
(2) Condition 1 is that a foreign criminal—
(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and
(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.
(3) Condition 2 is that they have—
(a) committed an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or
(b) they have contacted or sought to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to the relevant authorities, setting out—
(a) a police point of contact in the country to which the offender is returning;
(b) steps to protect and safeguard the victim in the UK; and
(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.’”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance in dealing with foreign criminals who have been deported after a stalking conviction, and who seek to continue to stalk the victim.
New clause 31—Exclusion from automatic release following fixed-term recall for specified serious offences—
“(1) An offender shall not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed-term recall where they have been convicted of any of the following offences—
(a) rape;
(b) assault by penetration;
(c) rape of a child under 13;
(d) assault of a child under 13 by penetration;
(e) inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity;
(f) paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13;
(g) kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence;
(h) creating or possessing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children;
(i) grievous bodily harm (under section 18 or section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);
(j) grooming (under section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003);
(k) stalking (under section 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997);
(l) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult (under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004); or
(m) causing death by dangerous driving (under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988).
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person shall also be ineligible for release following a fixed-term recall if they have been convicted of an attempt, conspiracy, or incitement to commit any of the offences listed in subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations add or remove offences from the list in subsection (1).”
This new clause would mean offenders who had committed certain serious offences would not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed term recall.
New clause 32—Powers of the probation service to impose and vary conditions of supervision—
“(1) Where an offender is—
(a) subject to a community order, a suspended sentence order, or a period of probation supervision; and
(b) required to reside at a specified address as a condition of that order or supervision,
the Probation Service may, in accordance with this section, direct that the offender reside at an alternative address.
(2) A direction under subsection (1) may be given where—
(a) it is necessary to protect another person (including a partner, former partner, or family member) from risk of harm;
(b) it is necessary for the effective management or rehabilitation of the offender; or
(c) it is otherwise in the interests of justice.
(3) Where the probation service has made a direction under subsection (1), it may recommend or determine other terms of supervision, including—
(a) restrictions on contact or association with specified individuals;
(b) requirements relating to participation in programmes addressing offending behaviour; or
(c) curfew or exclusion requirements, subject to approval by the sentencing court.
(4) Where a direction or variation made under this section materially alters the conditions imposed by the sentencing court, the probation service must—
(a) notify the court and the offender as soon as possible; and
(b) seek confirmation by the sentencing court of the varied terms within 14 days.
(5) Any direction or variation made under this section shall have effect as if imposed by the sentencing court, until it has been confirmed, revoked, or amended by the court.
(6) In this section, “the probation service” includes any person or body authorised to supervise offenders under the Offender Management Act 2007.”
This new clause would give the probation service the power to change the residence requirement of an individual subject to supervision in certain circumstances, and to make other changes to the terms of supervision, subject to confirmation by the sentencing court.
New clause 33—Mandatory dependent support orders upon sentencing—
“(1) Where an offender is known to have dependents who rely on them for financial or other material support, the court shall, at the time of sentencing, inquire into the circumstances and reasonable needs of those dependents.
(2) In addition to any sentence imposed, the court must make an order requiring the offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents (‘dependent support order’), unless the court determines that such an order would be manifestly unjust or impracticable.
(3) The amount, frequency, and method of payment made under subsection (2) shall be determined by the court having regard to—
(a) the offender’s financial means, earning capacity, and assets;
(b) the reasonable living costs and needs of the dependents; and
(c) any other relevant circumstances.
(4) The court may direct that payments be made—
(a) through a designated collection authority; or
(b) directly to the dependent’s guardian, caregiver, or other appointed representative.
(5) An order made under this section shall remain in effect—
(a) for such time as specified by the court; or
(b) until it is varied or discharged by the court on application by any interested party.
(6) A failure to comply with an order made under this section shall constitute a breach of the sentence.”
This new clause would create a power for a sentencing court to require an offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents.
New clause 34—10-year driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—
“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under sections 1, 2B, 3ZB, 3ZC or 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for 10 years.”
This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous or careless driving (or related offences) would be banned from driving for ten years.
New clause 35—Causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving: statutory aggravating factor—
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3A, insert—
‘3B Causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless of inconsiderate driving: aggravating factor for sentencing
In considering the seriousness of any offence committed under sections 1, 1A, 2B, 2C, 3ZB, 3ZC, 3ZS or 3A for the purposes of sentencing, the court must treat failure to—
(a) stop at the scene of the accident;
(b) call the emergency services; or
(c) administer first aid, where it is possible to do so;
as an aggravating factor, and state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.’”
This new clause would create statutory aggravating factors, for the purposes of sentencing, of failure to stop, call the emergency services, or administer first aid where it is possible to do so, in cases of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless of inconsiderate driving.
New clause 36—Earned progression for prisoner release—
“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 244, after subsection (4), insert—
‘(5) The duty to release under subsection (1) is subject to the prisoner demonstrating compliance with the earned progression scheme during the course of their custodial sentence.
(6) The Secretary of State must issue regulations, under section 267 (alteration by order of the relevant proportion of sentence) setting a higher requisite custodial period for prisoners who have not demonstrated compliance with the earned progression scheme during their sentence.
(7) In this section, ‘the earned progression scheme’ must include—
(a) compliance with prison rules;
(b) engagement in purposeful activity;
(c) attendance at any required work, education, treatment or training obligations, where these are available; and
(d) any other factors that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further guidance to prisons on the operation of the earned progression scheme.’”
This new clause seeks to implement the recommendation of the independent review on sentencing for the release of prisoners at the one third point of their sentence to be subject to their compliance with an earned progression scheme.
New clause 38—Sentencing Council—
“(1) The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.”
New clause 39—Deportation of foreign criminals—
“(1) A foreign criminal who has been sentenced to—
(a) a custodial sentence of at least 6 months; or
(b) a community sentence of at least 6 months,
must be the subject of an immediate deportation order, subject to subsection (2) below.
(2) The Secretary of State may determine, in exceptional cases, that a deportation order under subsection (1) does not apply.
(3) In this section, ‘foreign criminal’ means a person who—
(a) is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen, and
(b) is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence.”
This new clause would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six month community sentence.
New clause 40—Criminal cases review—
“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), insert—
‘Part IVB
CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (PUBLIC PETITION)
36A Scope of this Part
(1) A case to which this Part applies may be referred to the Court of Appeal under section 2 below.
(2) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under section 36B shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this Part shall be construed as references to that division.
(3) This Part applies to any case—
(a) of a description specified in an order under this section; or
(b) in which sentence is passed on a person—
(i) for an offence triable only on indictment; or
(ii) for an offence of a description specified in an order under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that this section shall apply to any case of a description specified in the order or to any case in which sentence is passed on a person for an offence triable either way of a description specified in the order.
(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) In this Part, ‘sentence’ has the same meaning as in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, except that it does not include an interim hospital order under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983, and ‘sentencing’ shall be construed accordingly.
(7) In its application to Northern Ireland, this section shall have effect subject to the modifications set out in subsections (8) to (11).
(8) Subsection (2) shall not apply to Northern Ireland.
(9) In this section—
‘offence triable only on indictment’ means an offence punishable only on conviction on indictment;
‘offence triable either way’ means an offence punishable on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction; and
any reference in subsection (4) to the Secretary of State must be construed as a reference to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
(10) For subsection (5), in Northern Ireland an order under subsection (4) shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (and not a statutory instrument), and any such order shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).
(11) References in subsection (6) to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall be respectively construed as references to Part I of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 and Part III of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
36B Criminal cases review (public petition)
(1) If it appears to any adult British citizen aged 18 or over—
(a) that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the Crown Court (‘the person sentenced’) has been unduly lenient or unduly harsh; and
(b) that the case is one to which section 36A applies,
that British citizen (‘the petitioner’) may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (‘the Commission’) for it to review the sentencing of the person sentenced, in accordance with section 36C below, and if the Commission refers the case to the Court of Appeal, upon such a reference the Court of Appeal may—
(a) quash any sentence passed on the person sentenced; and
(b) in place of it pass such sentence as they think appropriate for the case and as the lower court had power to pass when dealing with the person sentenced,
provided that the petitioner has filed the reference with the Commission in writing, signed by at least 500 signatures (‘the co-petitioners’) including his own.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations stipulate the information and form that the petitioner must provide when filing the reference.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the condition specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection may be satisfied whether or not it appears that the judge—
(a) erred in law as to his powers of sentencing; or
(b) failed to comply with a mandatory sentence requirement under section 399(b) or (c) of the Sentencing Code.
(4) For the purposes of this Part, any two or more sentences are to be treated as passed in the same proceeding if they would be so treated for the purposes of section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
(5) Where a reference under this section relates to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code, the Court of Appeal shall not, in deciding what order under that section is appropriate for the case, make any allowance for the fact that the person to whom it relates is being sentenced for a second time.
(6) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of, or shall determine any application in proceedings incidental or preliminary to, a reference under this section of a sentence passed by himself.
(7) Where the Court of Appeal has concluded its review of a case referred to it under this section, and given its judgment thereon, the Court of Appeal, the petitioner or the person sentenced may refer a point of law involved in any sentence passed on the person sentenced to the Supreme Court for its opinion, and the Supreme Court shall consider the point and give its opinion on it accordingly, and either remit the case to the Court of Appeal to be dealt with or itself deal with the case.
(8) A reference under subsection (6) shall be made only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal that the point of law is of general public importance and it appears to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (as the case may be) that the point is one which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.
(9) For the purpose of dealing with a case under this section, the Supreme Court may exercise any powers of the Court of Appeal.
(10) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—
(a) subsection (2)(b) shall read as if for the words after ‘failed to’ there were substituted ‘impose a sentence required by—
(i) Article 70(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004,
(ii) paragraph 2(4) or (5) of Schedule 2 to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006,
(iii) Article 13 or 14 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, or
(iv) section 7(2) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015’.
(b) the references to sections 11 and 35(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall be read as references to sections 10(2) and 33(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, respectively; and
(c) the reference in subsection (3A) to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code shall be read as a reference to an order under Article 5(1) of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.
36C The Commission
(1) The Commission under section 36B is the same body as that established under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the provisions of section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to the role of the Commission under this Part.
(2) Sections 9, 10, and 12A to 25 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to this Part.
(3) The Commission must review all cases referred to it within 8 weeks of receiving any such referral and must, within that time, make its decision.
(4) If the Commission decides that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal by reason of an unduly harsh sentence then, immediately upon receipt of the referral, the Court of Appeal must make an order that the person sentenced be released on temporary licence (‘ROTL’) until further order of the court, and the Court of Appeal must also determine suitable bail conditions, if any and the person sentenced must remain ROTL until the Court of Appeal has determined the referral.’”
This new clause would allow any British citizen to refer a sentence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, for the Commission to review the sentence and consider whether to refer it to the Court of Appeal.
New clause 41—Sentencing statistics: duty to publish—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, direct His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) to record and retain, in relation to all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court or Magistrates’ courts, the offender’s—
(a) country of birth
(b) nationality,
(c) ethnicity,
(d) immigration status, and
(e) the offence(s) for which they were sentenced.
(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the data recorded under subsection (1) to be published and laid before Parliament—
(a) within twelve months of the passing of this Act, and
(b) annually thereafter.”
This new clause would require the Government to record and publish statistics on convicted offenders’ birthplace, nationality, ethnicity and immigration status.
New clause 42—Crown Court sitting days for the delivery of sentencing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sittings day in the Crown Court in so far as it applies to sentencing hearings.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment made under subsection (1) before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sittings days in the Crown Court in so far as it applies to sentencing hearings.
New clause 43—Expiry—
“This Act expires at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”
This new clause is a sunset clause, meaning the Act would cease to have effect after two years.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.
Amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “months” insert
“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.
Amendment 35, page 1, line 17, after “order” insert
“with the maximum operational period”.
This amendment would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.
Amendment 33, page 3, line 9, after “individual” insert “or the public”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put the public (as well as an individual) at significant risk of harm.
Amendment 34, page 3, line 9, leave out “significant”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the risk of harm applies, removing the requirement for the harm to be significant.
Amendment 14, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a court has passed a suspended sentence under this section, it must also require the offender to be subject to an electronic monitoring requirement for the duration of the sentence.”
This amendment would require offenders (under the age of 21) given suspended sentences to be subject to electronic monitoring.
Amendment 15, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”
Amendment 16, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender—
(a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the ‘current offence’);
(b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence;
(c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions;
(d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence;
(e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence;
(f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence;
(g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer;
(h) at the time of the current offence, was—
(i) subject to a supervision order; or
(ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).
(i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or
(j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.”
This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances.
Amendment 17, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence—
(a) under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996; or
(b) aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”
Amendment 18, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving a firearm or ammunition, including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”
Amendment 19, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a burglary offence.”
Amendment 20, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon,”
Amendment 21, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a terrorism offence.”
Amendment 22, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”
Amendment 36, page 4, line 4, after “months” insert
“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.
Amendment 39, page 4, line 7, after “order” insert
“with the maximum operational period”.
This amendment would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.
Amendment 37, page 5, line 20, after “individual” insert “or the public”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put the public (as well as an individual) at significant risk of harm.
Amendment 38, page 5, line 20, leave out “significant”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the risk of harm applies, removing the requirement for the harm to be significant.
Amendment 23, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a court has passed a suspended sentence under this section, it must also require the offender to be subject to an electronic monitoring requirement for the duration of the sentence.”
This amendment would require offenders (aged 21 or over) given suspended sentences to be subject to electronic monitoring.
Amendment 24, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”
Amendment 25, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender—
(a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the ‘current offence’);
(b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence;
(c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions;
(d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence;
(e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence;
(f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence;
(g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer;
(h) at the time of the current offence, was—
(i) subject to a supervision order; or
(ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).
(i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or
(j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.”
This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances.
Amendment 26, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence—
(c) under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996; or
(d) aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”
Amendment 27, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving a firearm or ammunition, including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”
Amendment 28, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a burglary offence.”
Amendment 29, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon,”.
Amendment 30, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a terrorism offence.”
Amendment 31, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”
Amendment 6, page 6, line 28, leave out clause 2.
Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 14, line 10, after “(including victims of crime” insert
“, ensuring their protection from further physical or psychological harm”.
This amendment would amend the statutory purposes of sentencing to incorporate safeguarding victims from further physical or psychological harm.
Amendment 9, page 36, line 9, leave out clauses 18 and 19.
Amendment 7, page 37, line 9, leave out clause 20.
Amendment 11, page 47, leave out lines 16 to 19.
This amendment would leave out the Bill's provision to give probation officers more discretion in relation to licence conditions
Amendment 2, in clause 24, page 49, line 14, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (4) of this section, undertake an assessment of the potential effects of a driving prohibition condition on a person’s ability to attend—
(a) employment,
(b) education, or
(c) a rehabilitation programme.
(11) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the assessment carried out under subsection (10) including recommendations on—
(a) offender rehabilitation,
(b) offender reintegration, and
(c) any other matters that the Secretary deems appropriate.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before commencing the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill, to publish a report on their potential effects on the ability of ex-offenders to attend employment, education and rehabilitation providers.
Amendment 3, page 49, line 14, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (7) of this section, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on a person’s ability to attend—
(a) employment,
(b) education, or
(c) a rehabilitation programme.
(11) The court may provide for exemptions in a restriction zone condition to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.
(12) A probation officer may vary a restriction zone condition imposed by the court to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.
(13) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on—
(a) the number of people subject to a restriction zone condition,
(b) the number of cases where a restriction zone condition has included an exemption or modification to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme, and
(c) evidence on the effects of restriction zone conditions on reoffending and rehabilitation.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before implementing the relevant provisions, to assess the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on an ex-offender’s ability to attend education, employment or a rehabilitation programme. It would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, and require an annual report on their use and effectiveness.
Amendment 12, page 66, line 34, leave out clause 36.
Amendment 13, page 68, line 8, leave out clause 37.
Amendment 4, page 68, line 24, leave out clause 38.
Mr Bedford
In September 2024, my constituents and, indeed, the country were left shocked by the senseless killing of Braunstone Town resident Bhim Kohli. Mr Kohli, a well-respected and decent man, was just walking through Franklin park as he usually did, accompanied by his dog Rocky, when he was targeted and assaulted to death by a 14-year-old boy, egged on by a 12-year-old girl.
Since this horrific event, I have been working with Mr Kohli’s daughter Susan, and I pay tribute to the Kohli family for the dignified manner in which they have dealt with the emotional and tragic aftermath of such a horrific incident. Susan is not looking for retribution; she is simply looking to promote justice for the families of victims, who at the moment do not feel that the justice system works for them. I pay tribute to Susan, who I know is sitting at home, alongside Rocky, watching today’s debate.
I have tabled new clauses 1 and 14 in memory of Mr Kohli, and I would like hon. Members across the House to support them. They would place greater responsibility on child offenders and the parents of child offenders. New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness and use of parental orders throughout the justice system. For hon. Members who do not know, parental orders are measures that either require parents of child offenders to pay for their children’s crimes, or force them to attend parenting classes. Yet, despite those powers being on the statute book, they are rarely used. In fact, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that their use has decreased from over 1,000 in 2010 to just 27 in recent years. That is woefully inadequate.
These measures are designed not to punish, but to support; to help families restore discipline and stability; and to prevent the next crime before it happens. Susan put it to me that if the parents of the two individuals in this case were placed under parental orders, they would perhaps appreciate the damage and impact that their negligent behaviour has caused. The fact that one of the parents recently asked for their child’s tag to be removed so that they could go on a family holiday is shameful.
New clause 14 would bring an end to anonymity protections for young offenders who commit the most heinous and serious crimes. I believe in deterrence, and I believe that when an individual commits an act so vile and abhorrent, the full weight of justice must be felt, including being named publicly. The boy—15 years old by the time of the trial—should not be shielded. Our judicial system should not protect those who have shown such disregard for human life; they should be named, just as Axel Rudakubana was following a court order, and as Mohammed Umar Khan was last week.
New clause 14 is simple: if an individual under the age of 18 commits a serious crime, they will be named—no ifs, no buts. In my eyes, if someone is old enough to commit such an appalling crime, they are old enough to face the full consequences of their actions.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and passionate speech. Does he agree that the Government should consider supporting new clause 14 and removing anonymity for young people who commit such serious crimes, because they are looking to reduce the voting age to 16? We should talk about when people in this country become adults. They should not be protected if they commit such serious crimes.
Mr Bedford
I could not agree more. My hon. Friend mentions the rumours that the Government are planning to lower the voting age, and it would seem contradictory to have two ages of responsibility.
I will turn now to new clause 18, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). It is shocking that the girl who was with the 14-year-old boy, and who egged him on to commit the assault—quite literally to kill a man—did not receive a custodial sentence. Sentencing guidelines make it nearly impossible for individuals of that age to receive a custodial sentence. But what can we in this House do about that? The answer is “very little” because we have an unelected and unaccountable quango determining sentencing guidelines, rather than democratically elected Members in this place. That is wrong and must change.
We must abolish the Sentencing Council and restore democratic accountability to our judicial system to promote equality before the law and ensure that serious crimes are treated with the tough punishment that they deserve, irrespective of a defendant’s sob story. Crime is crime. That is why I also support new clauses 17 and 19, which would ensure tough sentences for those who commit sexual abuse or murder.
I also support new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would deliver a powerful message: someone who takes a life through dangerous or reckless driving should forfeit the privilege of driving. It would prioritise public safety and provide justice for families who have lost loved ones, like my constituent Emma Johnson who lost her parents to the actions of a careless driver.
I sincerely hope that the Government support the amendments. We in this place must ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Does the Chair of the Justice Committee wish to make a speech?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I have only a couple of sentences, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To remind the Minister, in last week’s Committee, my new clause—which is effectively new clause 26 today—represented the views of a number of organisations, including the National Association of Probation Officers, recalling the problems that we faced with privatisation, particularly in relation to community service and unpaid work. In London in 2013, the supervision of unpaid work was privatised to Serco, and it was a catastrophic failure in providing both effective work and security for the community overall. It left a stain on the old process of managing community work. That was reflected when the previous Government totally privatised probation, which then had to be brought back in-house.
New clause 26 simply asks for an assurance from the Government that, although we will want to engage with voluntary organisations, charities and non-profit bodies, we will not seek the privatisation of community service and unpaid work, in particular the placement of former prisoners in work in which they could be exploited.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will join me in supporting my new clauses 27 and 28, and new clause 25 in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). My new clauses relate to probation capacity and the devolution of probation services to Wales, but in Committee we had no feedback whatsoever from the Minister at the close of the day. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those four new clauses, including his own, warrant a response from the Minister?
John McDonnell
That is why I tabled my new clause in Committee. I did not want to be a pain in the neck; I just wanted the Minister to acknowledge our understanding of the implications of the measures and the Probation Service’s overall concerns about these matters. I have re-tabled the new clause simply to get the Minister’s view and to hear the Government’s attitude on those issues. A range of amendments have come from the justice unions parliamentary group, which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) chairs.
Let me be absolutely clear: community service has always been state-supervised work with charities and non-profit organisations. At no stage do we want to allow private sector organisations to profiteer in that area of service. No matter what attitude the Minister takes, I hope that he can give us an assurance on that. If there is a need for further discussion and dialogue, I am sure that the justice unions parliamentary group will be willing to meet him to go through those issues in more detail.
Andy Slaughter
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Although commercial organisations may well be able to run community schemes, it is clear that the ambition of voluntary organisations is rehabilitation and the prevention of reoffending, and that really must be the goal of community sentencing, which is at the heart of the Bill.
John McDonnell
I can only draw on the experience that my hon. Friend and I had when Serco was in charge, which was about profiteering and reducing costs, largely through a reduction in staff. He might recall that on occasion we had reports that community service volunteers were turning up, and the tools were not available for them to do their work. There was a lack of supervision, and in a few instances we discovered that some of the vehicles that they used had been forced into and were unsafe.
We do not want to go back to that profiteering. That is why an assurance that this provision will be managed and orientated by the state, using non-profit-making voluntary organisations and charities, would reassure those professionals who have unfortunately experienced the privatisation that has taken place in the past, to the detriment of us all.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 19, and other new clauses tabled in my name and those of Opposition Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for opening the debate. He has drawn attention to an important issue, and something I often ponder. I am aware that many powers are available to tackle the involvement of parents in offending, but I never get the sense that they are working as well as we would want them to. My hon. Friend’s new clause would help us to get to the bottom of that.
It is a privilege to take part in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and to have a further opportunity to do what I can to make clear to Labour Members the enormous negative impact on victims that the Bill will have. The Bill will fundamentally change how we deliver justice for victims of serious violent and sexual crimes in this country. The official Opposition tabled amendments and new clauses in Committee, but we did not get to undertake line-by-line scrutiny in a proper Bill Committee. I suspect that that is because the Government know that the reality of the Bill is so damning that they fear an outright rebellion of their MPs if they cannot continue the pretence about what it does and does not do. Nevertheless, we attempted to provide a limited and more acceptable reform of the early release measures to exclude sexual and serious violence offenders. Labour MPs rejected that, and we are now left only with a new clause to remove those measures entirely.
Why do we persist? Because the consequences if we do not are dire. The Government have said time and again that no person who has committed what they describe as the “most serious” offences would be released earlier, but we know that to be completely false. The change in automatic release rules applies to all standard determinate sentences, and to every person who is on one.
I reiterate that the independent Library briefing note confirms that these releases will be automatic. More than 60% of offenders sentenced to prison for rape receive standard determinate sentences, as do more than 90% of those convicted of child grooming offences. Around half of individuals imprisoned for attempted murder are also given standard determinate sentences. Each year, hundreds of people convicted of child rape or sexual assault, including offences involving victims aged under 13, serve those types of sentences. In total, more than 6,000 offenders are sent to prison annually for serious violent sexual offences, and they will get out of prison earlier under the Bill.
I do not know in how many ways I can explain that to Members to overcome the briefing that it is not true, which is happening outside the Chamber. I have no choice but to take Members through the numbers. I have in front of me the sentencing data for those convicted of the rape of a female aged 16 or over. In total, 590 men on average are sent to prison for that offence every year. One hundred and ninety-seven of them would be excluded from the early release measures because they were given extended determinate sentences or life sentences, but 393 would not. That is 393 rapists—the vast majority—being sent to prison every year who will be let out of prison earlier. That is without including those guilty of the rape of children, many of whom will also be let out of prison earlier.
Many Members have spoken about terrible cases of causing death by dangerous driving. Glenn and Becky Youens from Justice for Victims campaign in memory of their daughter, Violet-Grace, who was killed at four years old by a drug dealer going at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The drug dealer fled the scene then returned, stepping over her as she lay injured on the pavement, to get to their drugs. Are we seriously going to tell people such as Glenn and Becky that those perpetrators can get out of prison earlier in future? Because that is what will happen. Every year, 169 offenders on average are sent to prison for causing death by dangerous driving. Some 163 of them are given a standard determinate sentence and will get out of jail earlier as a result of the Bill, and some of them will serve only a third of their sentence.
I have pages of examples. Out of 228 offenders sent to prison every year for sexual grooming, 211 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 196 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 475 people sent to prison every year for stalking, 458 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 427 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 576 offenders sent to prison every year for the offence of sexual activity involving a child under 16, 502 will get out of prison earlier because of the Bill, and 269 of them will serve only a third of their sentence.
This morning, the Home Secretary said that she was glad that the “vile child sex offender”, as she described him, Hadush Kebatu, is off our streets. She is right to welcome that. Kebatu was convicted of sexual assault offences against women and girls. What do the measures proposed by the former Justice Secretary, who is now Home Secretary, mean in relation to other vile child sex offenders who have been sent to prison for the same offences? I can tell the House that under the Bill, two thirds of the offenders sent to prison for similar sexual assault offences will have to serve only a third of their sentence. The Government celebrate removing those offenders from the streets, while at the same time legislating to put them back on the streets.
It is shameful that Labour Members, with their majority, voted against our amendments and new clauses to remove the early release measures in specific circumstances. Our new clause to remove the measures entirely remains before the House, even if we will not get the opportunity to vote on it today.
New clause 19 seeks to address a clear gap in the law that I believe the majority of Members across the House would agree must be closed. At present, our sentencing framework requires that a whole life order be imposed on anyone convicted of murdering a police or prison officer while that officer is carrying out their duties. That provision acts as both a deterrent and a guarantee of justice for those who risk their lives in confronting dangerous offenders, yet a recent court case has created a precedent that that measure will not be applied if the prison or police officer is not actively on duty at the time of their murder.
I want to describe to the House the disturbing events surrounding the murder of former prison officer Lenny Scott, who was killed by a violent offender he had once supervised. Mr Scott was working as a prison officer at HMP Altcourse in Liverpool. In 2020, Elias Morgan offered him a bribe to keep it to himself that a phone had been found in Morgan’s cell. The vast majority of prison officers do an excellent job and follow the rules, but the House will be aware of examples of corruption in our prison service. Mr Scott could have taken that bribe—he almost certainly knew that Morgan was capable of violent offences and was involved in organised crime—and forgotten his duties and responsibilities, but he did not. He refused the bribe. He was then subjected to death threats by Morgan.
It is a matter of public record that Mr Scott’s time as a prison officer was not unblemished, but when it comes to the question of courage, sheer guts and bravery, refusing to be cowed by a violent thug, and refusing to take the easy way out, Mr Scott was an exemplar, not just to prison officers but to all of us. But Morgan made good on his threats, waiting for years, until 2024, to murder Mr Scott in cold blood. It was a carefully planned murder. Lancashire police found evidence that the month before the murder, Morgan was scoping out locations linked to Mr Scott. He drove close to Mr Scott’s home in Prescot in Merseyside, a gym in the Speke area of Liverpool where Mr Scott sometimes trained, and a gym on Peel Road in Skelmersdale, where the shooting would later take place. Morgan gunned down Mr Scott as he was leaving the gym, shooting him six times. Mr Scott did not stand a chance.
In 2013, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May—the former Prime Minister and right hon. Member for Maidenhead—announced that we would change the law so that the murder of a police officer or a prison officer would result in a whole life order. Speaking at the time in relation to police officers, she said:
“We ask police officers to keep us safe by confronting and stopping violent criminals for us. We ask you to take the risks so that we don’t have to…We are clear: life should mean life for anyone convicted of murdering a police officer.”
As prison officers carry out similar duties, the measures rightly included them.
However, the sentencing for Mr Scott’s murder has made it clear that the courts have not understood the will of Parliament, because Morgan was not given a whole life order. He was given a life sentence with a minimum tariff. It is true to say that his sentenceis longer than most, at 45 years, but Morgan was 35 when he was convicted, so it is not inconceivable that he could get out one day. I do not believe that Parliament intended for criminals like him to ever get out. I was shocked at that outcome; it had not occurred to me that the measure would not apply. I was very familiar with the measure in relation to police officers, following my own time as a volunteer police officer, so my initial reaction was to believe that it must not have been applied to prison officers, and I raised that in the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
indicated assent.
Dr Mullan
I note that the Minister is nodding.
We can ensure that criminals know that the fullest possible consequences of the law will follow if they murder a police or prison officer simply because they were doing their job.
New clause 20 seeks to establish notification and offender management requirements for those convicted of child cruelty offences, in effect creating a system similar to the sex offenders register for individuals who have abused and neglected children. I want to be clear why this matters. Every one of us in this House knows that behind the legal language of child cruelty or abuse lie some of the most distressing and life-altering crimes imaginable—crimes in which a child, utterly dependent and vulnerable, gets the worst instead of the best, often from those who are supposed to love and care for them.
This measure will not fix everything—sadly, that is not the world we live in—but before us there is a clear and proven step we can take towards improving how we protect our children. At present, if somebody is convicted of a sexual offence against a child, they are rightly placed on the sex offenders register. They are required to keep the police informed of their whereabouts, their identity and any change to their circumstances, including whether they live with children.
The requirement sits separately from probation requirements. If a person is convicted of an offence to which the requirements apply and receives a prison sentence of 13 months or more, the notification requirements are indefinite. That allows the police service, along with other agencies, better to assess and manage risk and ultimately to protect children and others from harm. If a person is convicted of horrific physical abuse, of neglect, or of causing a child’s death through sustained cruelty, there is no equivalent requirement. Once their sentence and probation is over, they can disappear into the community with no requirement to report where they live, no oversight by those who might need to protect other children, and no legal mechanism for ongoing management. That is a clear gap in our child protection system, and new clause 20 would correct it.
A person convicted of any of the listed child cruelty or violence offences, including causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, child cruelty or neglect, infanticide, exposing children whereby life is endangered, and female genital mutilation, would be required to notify the police of their details within three days of conviction or release. They would have to confirm where they live, any other addresses they use and any names that they go by. They would have to keep that information up to date and confirm it annually, just as child sex offenders already do.
Importantly, that information could be shared between the police and other agencies that work to safeguard children. That would give local law enforcement the information it needs to identify the risk that individuals could pose to the local community and to intervene with any precautionary measures early to protect children before harm could come. It would offer greater protection to the public by ensuring that those who have committed abuse and cruelty to children are treated in the same manner as those who have committed sexual abuse.
Let me say a few words about the reason why we are considering this measure and about an extraordinary lady called Paula Hudgell. Paula Hudgell’s name has been spoken before in this House. She is the adoptive mother of 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, who had both legs amputated after abuse by his birth parents. She has previously campaigned successfully for tougher sentences to be available for child abuse offences, for which she was awarded an OBE. When Paula adopted Tony, the criminals responsible for what happened to him—his birth parents—were not even going to be prosecuted. Paula told me that if anyone had done to her birth children what they had done to Tony, she would have done everything that she could to pursue justice, and that Tony was no different, even though he was adopted. That is exactly what she did for him, and in the end his birth parents were convicted. The maximum sentence they received appalled Paula, and her first campaign began, to change that maximum to a life sentence.
However, during the course of her campaigning and from getting to see the parole system and what it can do to monitor people after they have served their sentence, Paula got an incredible insight into the system’s flaws and what needed to change. Discussing it with a police officer, Becki Taft—I also pay tribute to her—who Paula got to know during the course of the prosecution, they both recognised the glaring omission that we are seeking to remedy today, so Paula acted. She is continuing to act despite facing enormous challenges in her personal circumstances, as she is undergoing treatment for cancer that can no longer be cured. Paula said:
“I’ve been battling cancer, but as long as I have fire in my belly, I’ll keep fighting to protect children by pushing for this register. That’s what keeps me going—knowing that Tony’s legacy can help save other young lives.”
She is an incredible woman who I am honoured to have gotten to know, and her MP, the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), has done so much to help Paula turn her campaign into words on a page—into legislation we can pass. She is someone I am pleased to be able to call a friend.
I sincerely thank the Justice Secretary for taking a direct interest in this issue, and I am sure that the Minister will also want to closely consider it. I want to ensure that the strength of feeling among Conservative Members and others is reflected in the Lobby tonight. It may be that the Government are not ready to support this measure this evening. Labour MPs may feel that that is reasonable at this stage, but I would welcome a commitment from the Dispatch Box that will enable me to conclude that we can agree to work cross-party in the other place to get this done.
I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to considering amendments tabled by other Members. I hope I have been able to clearly explain our proposals, which relate to prison and police officer whole life orders and the child cruelty register. However, whatever else this Bill achieves and whatever else we might reasonably disagree on, at the heart of the Bill is the biggest step backwards in securing justice for the victims of serious crime in a generation. For it to pass unamended would represent a betrayal of victims. I do not believe that Labour Members want that, and it is not too late. I am confident that the Lords will not let this Bill pass unamended, so at some point, Labour MPs will again be able to decide to say no to the Prime Minister and his plan.
MPs always have choices, and this Government spend £1 trillion a year on various services. Whatever the positive and honourable intentions Labour Members have when it comes to securing justice for victims, and whatever positive measures they suggest, they will be disastrously undone if they do not work collaboratively to make clear that they will not support measures that will let thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
My new clause 36 seeks to implement a key recommendation of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, on which the measures in this Bill are based. The new clause proposes that release at one third of a sentence should be conditional on positive actions and purposeful activity, such as attending education classes, engaging in voluntary work and participating in drug rehabilitation.
My amendment seeks to address the prison capacity crisis by embedding an emphasis on rehabilitation into the earned progression model from its very first stage. Incentivising purposeful activity will do two things. First, it will actively reward better behaviour within prison, leading to fewer instances of additional adjudication days being added.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that offering clear incentives for earned release is a key way of offering certain offenders clear chances to change, thereby reducing the risk of reoffending and enhancing public protection?
Linsey Farnsworth
I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend will have seen—she sits alongside me on the Justice Committee—there is clear evidence to back that up. Secondly, starting the process of rehabilitation through positive requirements earlier will reduce reoffending rates on release, thereby cutting crime and consequently easing pressure on prison capacity in the longer term.
To develop my first point, inquiries by the Justice Select Committee have found worryingly high rates of drug and alcohol abuse, self-harm, and violence against inmates and staff. Evidence submitted by Collective Voice shows that prisoners are more likely to develop substance misuse issues while in custody if they lack meaningful activity. The Prisoners’ Education Trust has described how participating in education has rehabilitative benefits, helping people in prison to occupy their time positively and learn new skills.
His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that the prisons best able to tackle substance abuse combined clear boundaries, high expectations and, importantly, meaningful incentives. Prisons such as HMP Oakwood and HMP Rye Hill, which offer rich, purposeful activity, see significantly lower rates of drug use and better behaviour. By incentivising engagement in well-resourced, purposeful activity, new clause 36 would reduce the likelihood of prisoners turning to substances or violence. In turn, fewer prisoners would incur additional days on their sentence, which would ease overcrowding and the strain on prison staff.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As she said, the chief inspector of prisons has found that rehabilitation in prisons is not working. This Bill presents an opportunity for a sea change in how that works, as well as in reoffending when people leave prison. As a member of the Select Committee, she will know that we will soon produce a major report on rehabilitation. It is essential that purposeful activity becomes the norm in prisons, and not the exception.
Linsey Farnsworth
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I greatly trust and rely on his opinion. It is essential that rehabilitative work is available to all in prisons, as I will go on to talk about in a little more detail.
On my second point, structured rehabilitation during custody prepares individuals for life after release. As the earned progression model stands, the emphasis on rehabilitation begins largely during the intensive supervision stage. While I welcome the focus and measures in the Bill to tackle the root causes of crime, we should not wait until release from custody to begin that important work. Too often, individuals return upon release to the same environments, the same pressures and the same risks that contributed to their offending in the first place. Why wait, when we can intervene when they are most reachable? We literally have a captive audience. If people leave custody having already engaged in structured rehabilitation, they are more likely to respond positively to supervision and less likely to reoffend. That in turn reduces pressure on the Probation Service, which is also already under immense strain.
To summarise, the model proposed by new clause 36 is fair and proportionate, actively rewarding good behaviour while existing provisions in the Bill punish bad behaviour. Those who engage constructively while in custody through an earned progression scheme may be released as early as a third in. Those who break the rules will serve more days. Meanwhile, those who neither engage positively nor breach rules will see no change in their release date. That ensures that rehabilitation, positive behaviour, purposeful activity and steps towards reintegration are actively incentivised and baked in to the earned progression model from the start.
Having said that, I understand that practicalities have to be considered in implementing this positive requirements scheme, if it is to be successful. Years of neglect by the previous Government have left our prison system overstretched and under-resourced. On 4 February, the Justice Committee heard evidence from Clinks, the Prison Reform Trust, Women in Prison, and Nacro. We were told during that session that only 50% of prisoners are engaged in education or work, which is often part-time and not rehabilitative. That is due to staffing shortages, overcrowding and limited resources and facilities. In essence, we have inherited prisons that cannot offer the programmes people need and access to purposeful activity is highly inconsistent.
I recognise the immense scale of the challenge in getting the prison system to a place where the proposals in my new clause can be implemented fairly, effectively and with the necessary resources across the country. While I do not expect the Government to accept my new clause today, I strongly urge the Minister to commit to incorporating positive requirements on purposeful activity in the earned progression model as soon as conditions allow. This incremental approach is in line with the position that David Gauke outlined in his review.
He said:
“This Review holds the view that, as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding.”
Only by doing this will we truly future-proof our prisons, help people to turn their backs on crime, and ensure, unlike the last Government, that we always have places in our prisons for the most dangerous offenders.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
As the House has heard repeatedly in recent weeks, our justice system is crumbling under the strain in our courts, prisons and probation services, bulging at the seams, stretched to the limit and ultimately failing all who come into contact with it. It is not adequately punishing criminals, not rehabilitating them, and not protecting victims and survivors. Confidence has been slowly eroded and undermined. This has to end. The Bill provided ample opportunity for us to address these issues, with scope to consider how we tackle the looming projection of a prison population of over 100,000 in just three years’ time. I am disappointed that such a large Bill, which makes fundamental changes to sentencing, was not given the line-by-line scrutiny that a Bill Committee, rather than a Committee of the whole House, could have afforded it.
The Liberal Democrats are supportive of many of the steps taken in the Bill, and, in the spirit of working collaboratively on a crisis that affects us all, we have tabled a number of amendments that seek to improve and strengthen it. For example, we welcome clause 3, which would give courts the power to order offenders to make monthly payments from their income, and we have tabled new clause 3 to ask the Government to assess whether income reduction orders could be used to fund victim support. On the topic of financial penalties, new clause 33 would create a power for sentencing courts to require offenders to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependants, ensuring that their responsibility to provide support is not automatically void during a custodial sentence.
Creating a presumption of a suspended sentence for terms of under 12 months is a measure for which the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned. It is a necessary step to reduce prison overcrowding, but it also plays a vital role in reducing reoffending, with rehabilitation offered in the community. Sixty-two per cent of those serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months go on to reoffend, but only 24% reoffend if they are given a suspended sentence or a community order. We do not need to send offenders to prison to become better criminals; we need to support them to become better citizens. Creating a rehabilitative system will, in the long term, reduce costs, protect victims and ease the pressure on our public services. The work of our justice system should be centred on that goal, for the good of all.
To that end, new clause 12 would allow and facilitate access to rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support for prisoners held on remand before their sentencing hearings. As of June this year, 20% of the prison population are on remand and yet to have their sentencing hearings. With court backlogs at an all-time high, we see offenders arriving at their sentencing hearings, receiving their sentences, and then heading straight home because of the length of time that they have served on remand. Remand prisons are often overcrowded, and typically suffer from understaffing and inadequate facilities. These prisoners should be offered the same level of support as sentenced prisoners if we are to reduce the levels of reoffending.
We are, of course, supportive of the identifier that was included in the Bill following the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), in collaboration with the Government. I commend his hard work and determination to make tangible changes for those who have experienced domestic abuse, providing greater confidence that their abusers will be dealt with suitably in the system, and I thank the Government for their constructive engagement with him on this issue. However, our campaign does not end there. New clause 8 would ensure that domestic abuse was treated as an aggravated offence, reflecting the severity and the long-term impact of such crimes on victims. New clause 9 asks the Government
“to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes”
to tackle violence against women and girls, for individuals sentenced to offences such as assault, battery and actual bodily harm when the victim was female.
We have also tabled a number of amendments relating to the Probation Service, because none of this means anything if probation is not properly resourced. I know that the Government will refer to the £700 million of additional funding, but it is not yet being felt on the frontline of probation, where the situation remains as described by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation earlier this year. According to the inspectorate, the service
“has too few staff, with too little experience and training, managing too many cases.”
Without maximum caseloads, we open ourselves up to a higher risk of human error and also a more cautious approach to recalling, because staff simply do not have the capacity to manage people in the community effectively.
Probation officers believe fundamentally in rehabilitation and in supporting offenders to reintegrate into society, but I must raise some serious concerns around the removal of the existing short-term and standard recalls in favour of a 56-day blanket recall for all offenders except those identified through a multi-agency public protection arrangement.
For example, under the current guidance, somebody who might be engaging with mental health services in the community but not attending their probation appointment—somebody who is therefore non-compliant with their agreement—would be recalled for 28 days under a fixed-term recall. That means that, if they are in temporary accommodation, as we know a lot of people coming out of prison are, the likelihood is that the accommodation will still be there when they have served their fixed term, and they can re-engage with the programmes in the community that they were already on.
Under the new arrangements, though, in the same circumstances, somebody recalled for 56 days would be coming out and, in effect, starting again, having lost their accommodation arrangements and their place on the community programme with which they were engaging, as places are typically only held for up to four weeks. The likelihood of them then going on to reoffend—in a cycle—will increase, and we will see the same people being recalled.
At the other end of the spectrum, if a serious offender breached their licence by intimidating, harassing or stalking their victim, instead of receiving a standard recall, which would last until the end of their sentence, they would be returned to serve just 56 days. Those who in probation are classified as medium-risk offenders—that covers the majority of offences related to violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers—would not come under the Government’s proposed exclusions relating to MAPPA levels 2 and 3.
On Monday in this Chamber, we spoke at length and there was consensus across the House that we needed to do more to support victims, but the recall measures in the Bill directly contradict that desire. There is a serious omission, which we are extremely concerned will lead to the release of dangerous criminals on to our streets, who will then continue to reoffend. New clause 31 would ensure that offenders who have committed certain serious offences would not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed-term recall, and I implore the Minister to go away and look at that proposal.
This Bill provided a great chance to address some key issues in our justice system, and it showed signs of life, taking an innovative approach to some issues, but it ultimately lacks vision and, expectedly, funding. I thank Members for their engagement, and encourage them to support new clause 12.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I am pleased to support this vital Sentencing Bill, which represents a significant step towards protecting victims and delivering justice.
I would like to draw Members’ attention to new clauses 8 and 31 and amendment 1. The Conservatives claimed to be champions of law and order, yet their record was of lawless disorder. After 14 years in power, they increased sentence lengths without planning the prison places to uphold them, delivering just a few hundred spaces while violence, drugs and chaos spiralled across our prison estates. They left our justice system on the brink, and forced the early release of more than 10,000 offenders in secret, shattering public confidence.
This Government are taking a different path. We are delivering the largest prison expansion since Victorian times; 2,500 new places are already open and we are on track for 14,000 by 2031. We will ensure that we will never again run out of prison capacity. We must also make prisons work. That means punishment that cuts crime through earned release, tougher community sentences, intensive supervision and proper rehabilitation that turns offenders away from crime for good.
Central to making sentencing work is protecting victims, not just at the point of conviction but every day thereafter. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for highlighting the important issue of domestic abuse in new clauses 8 and 31. The Bill introduces a powerful new mechanism under clause 6, “Finding of domestic abuse”, by ensuring that, once the court is satisfied that an offence involves domestic abuse, it must declare that is the case in an open court, permanently recognising the heightened harm to victims. This activates stronger protections, which can include electronic tagging and exclusion zones, ensuring that offenders can be tracked in real time and kept away from victims’ homes and workplaces.
The “Loose Women” Facing It Together campaign has powerfully shown the real human impact of domestic abuse and the urgent need for continuous protection. The measures in the Bill meet that need, ensuring that abusers cannot return to intimidate or control and that victims are safeguarded, with the full force of the law behind them. These landmark reforms will end the crisis that we inherited, and restore faith in a justice system that protects the public and puts victims first.
Since my election, I have been campaigning tirelessly on the issue of tool theft, a crime that devastates the livelihoods of tradespeople across our country. There are too many to list in this House today, but I expect that we all know someone who has been a victim of this crime. The rate of suicide among construction workers is the highest of any profession—four times higher than that for any other occupation. In December 2024, I laid a ten-minute rule Bill before the House that called for tool theft to be recognised as a significant additional harm and for courts to consider the total financial loss to victims. That would mean considering not just the value of the tools themselves, but the cost of repairs and the loss of work, and the ripple effect on businesses and families.
Having worked closely with Justice Ministers over the past year, I am pleased to see that the Bill recognises the additional protections needed for victims, for which the sector has been calling. This Bill, with its provisions requiring courts to consider the full impact of theft on victims, its new restriction zones that can ban prolific thieves from construction sites and tool retailers, and its tougher community sentences, delivers transformative protections for tradespeople. Although the Government do not support amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), I thank him for enabling a discussion on the wider impact of crime.
I am pleased to note that the Bill requires courts to consider the full impact of crime, including psychological harm. It recognises what victims of tool theft and, indeed, all crimes have been telling us all along: harm does not stop when tools are stolen or a crime is committed. The psychological harm of losing one’s livelihood, the anxiety about future thefts and the mental health impact of not being able to work are real harms that must be considered when sentencing offenders, and the Bill delivers in this regard.
These reforms will protect the public through tougher sentencing and tighter monitoring, cut crime by stopping reoffending before it happens, support victims by recognising harm and preventing future abuse, and build a safer society with less crime and, ultimately, fewer victims.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I wish to speak to new clause 20, regarding the introduction of a child cruelty register. Tony and Paula Hudgell are my constituents, and I have had the honour of getting to know both of them—especially Paula, Tony’s adoptive mum—extremely well. One special aspect of our job as MPs is getting to meet incredible people doing incredible things, often behind the public gaze, but in a decade and a half as a Member—I am showing my age now—I have personally never come across such a courageous, driven and united mother-and-son team. That is what they are: a team, especially given Tony’s young age of 11.
New clause 20 would introduce a child cruelty register, described so eloquently and passionately by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), who is also a great champion of victims. It underlines what our job is really about: changing and improving the lives of our constituents, keeping them safe and protecting the most vulnerable.
When Tony was just a little baby—41 days old—his birth parents, Jody Simpson and Anthony Smith, abused him so badly that he had to have both his legs amputated. Tony will have to live with the consequences of his injuries for the rest of his life. Smith and Simpson were sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by a judge at Maidstone Crown court—at the time, the maximum that the judge could give. They served eight years, and were released quite recently. They will be managed and monitored by police and probation for the remaining two years of their sentences, but after that, there is nothing—zero. There will be no management, no monitoring, and no reporting requirements if they change their names, start a new family, move county or have more children, and their case details will be archived, leaving a terrible and dangerous gap in our child protection system.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I want to speak in support of new clause 36, which would require offenders to comply with an earned progression scheme before being subject to release. I think that is an important opportunity to enhance the Government’s ambitions for this Bill, because shoplifting, antisocial behaviour and car break-ins continue to plague my constituents in Accrington town centre.
Increases in levels of town centre crime and break-ins are often caused by offenders released early who have failed to receive the rehabilitation they require. They often have drug or alcohol addictions, and they are back on the streets trying to feed those addictions, and stuck in a cycle of lose, lose, lose—for my residents, for the police and for the taxpayer. Although we must be tough on crime, we must also tackle the root causes of crime and ensure that the system delivers for victims and stops the revolving door of our prisons that serves none of us.
The reforms to the community order requirements will lead to less crime and safer streets for my constituents in a number of areas. The Bill will provide a more tailored and effective approach to punishment and rehabilitation, because courts will have expanded tools to tailor community and suspended sentence orders to better fit the individual offender, the offence and the risk posed. The Bill adds new community requirements to the list of options attached to a community or suspended sentence order, such as prohibitions on driving or attending pubs, bars, clubs or public events, and being restricted to geographic zones. That enhanced flexibility means that sentences in the community can be more meaningful and effective—not just a series of generic tasks, but specifically calibrated to the offender’s behaviour, the harm caused and the need to protect the public and victims. It ensures that community-based sentences are not perceived as light or ineffective, but carry real conditions and consequences.
The Bill also strengthens public protection and victim confidence; in fact, bolstering protection for victims and communities is one of the key aims of the reforms. By allowing restriction zones, bans on attending premises that sell alcohol or public events, and driving prohibitions, the Bill enables courts to impose orders that explicitly guard against certain behaviours or contexts associated with risk. Those measures reassure victims that offenders remain under meaningful restrictions and that community sentences carry real weight and oversight, rather than being a passive “watch and wait” approach. In turn, that helps to maintain public confidence in our justice system and supports the principle that people who offend should face real consequences.
Furthermore, the Bill supports rehabilitation while reducing the unnecessary use of custody, which must be for the most violent and serious offenders. It complements the broader move to ensure that custody is used appropriately—not as a default for lower-level offenders, but reserved for cases where it is necessary for public protection. By strengthening community orders and equipping the courts with more tailored requirements, the Bill supports the case that many offenders can be managed in the community through conditions that deter, restrict and rehabilitate. For far too long, the evidence has shown that it is those changes that will tackle the ongoing problems that the courts and prisons are facing, as well as the ongoing issues with that low-level but incredibly damaging crime happening time and again in our communities.
Such approaches help to reduce prison overcrowding, better align our resources, and focus custodial capacity on those who most require it. At the same time, the reforms encourage compliance—for example, by introducing a community sentence progression scheme, under which offenders who fully comply with the requirements and complete their sentence may have their community order terminated early.
There are practical benefits for communities, offenders and the Probation Service. For communities, community orders become more visible and meaningful. The added conditions reflect the reality that punishment and supervision in the community should be not lesser than custody, but different. For offenders, the structured environment of a community sentence with tailored requirements offers the possibility of real change through supervision, conditional freedom and accountability, rather than automatic imprisonment, which can increase harm and reoffending. For the Probation Service, the Bill’s provisions also include strengthened investment in community supervision, better tools for monitoring and enforcement, and clearer mechanisms for rewarding compliance.
In conclusion, the Bill represents a significant advance in our justice framework, offering modernised, flexible and robust community sentencing options that strengthen public protection, shore up victim confidence, support rehabilitation and make more effective and efficient use of our resources. The new community order requirements and community requirements are central to that: by giving courts more precise, meaningful powers, they ensure that justice is done in the community as well as through custody. I am confident that they will make a real difference to my constituents in Hyndburn, who are rightfully frustrated that they see the same people causing the same problems, and no real solutions to the crimes that those people are committing.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
As we return to consideration of this dreadful Bill, we debate amendments and new clauses that are designed to mitigate its worst effects, in particular new clauses 43, 21, 18, 19 and 20, which I have signed, and new clause 1.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
On new clause 1, will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Hayes
It is early in my speech, but such is my regard for my right hon. Friend that I will.
Edward Argar
I am very grateful. As a former sentencing Minister, I can see no logical reason why the Government would oppose new clause 1—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my fellow Leicestershire MP—which simply asks for an assessment and recommendations to be made and for them to be reported back to this House. Can my right hon. Friend, who is himself a former senior Home Office Minister, see any reason why the Government could not simply do the right thing and accept new clause 1?
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks about my experience in government, which are far too flattering. I agree that new clause 1 is precisely the kind of amendment that the Government could accept. He will know from his time in government, as I do, that no Act is the Bill as it began, for Bills metamorphose during their consideration. Wise Governments listen to arguments that are made during scrutiny, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and the best Ministers allow the Bill that they introduced to change over time. That is the purpose of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) has done a service to this House in tabling this new clause, thereby allowing the Minister to improve the Bill in the way he suggests.
As we have debated this Bill over time, a distinct difference has emerged between practicalities and principles. The question remains: is this a Bill built on expediency—a necessary response to the unbearable tension between prison supply and the demand for prison places—or a Bill born of a distaste for incarceration as a means of delivering justice? The first is inexcusable; the second indefensible; but neither is inexorable.
In practice, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, if remand were treated in a different way—and that, essentially, is about more court sittings and more court time for faster access to justice—fewer prisoners would be kept on remand. If we do not believe that, we would have to assume that every person brought to trial would be found guilty or imprisoned, which cannot be true.
If we dealt with the huge number of foreign national offenders more swiftly—[Interruption.] I know the Government are making those attempts, but it is not enough, any more than what the previous Government did. If we dealt with that issue more swiftly, we would alter the demand for places, for too much of the debate focuses on the supply of prison places and not on the demand-side drivers that absorb places, which could be eased.
When we last debated the Bill, we talked about my ideas for supply-side change. I will not repeat myself, for you would not allow me to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the amendments and new clauses before us today. However, the Minister needs to think more laterally and creatively. I imagine that he is a bright man—or bright-ish, at least. If he did so, he could look at those demand-side drivers and deal with the practicalities.
As for principles, it is time to end the liberal orthodoxy that has perpetuated the pervasive myth that crime is an illness to be treated, and not a destructive, deviant decision that warrants punishment. In the previous debate we heard many times the argument that everyone deserves a second chance, which I have no doubt underpins much of the resistance to the amendments proposed today.
As I listened to the powerful case my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) made, I asked myself this: can anyone in this place with a heart believe that those who terrorise and torture children persistently and who maim and murder innocent babes—sometimes their own—deserve a second chance? Can anyone with a heart really believe that those who killed two people dedicated to the service of others—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, Members of this House—deserve a second chance? Does that awful self-deluded Islamist fanatic who plotted and planned and executed little girls at a pop concert deserve a second chance? The only second chance they all deserve is when they stand before their maker and beg for forgiveness. For us to forgive such extreme acts is to play God. Forgiveness at that level and to that degree is beyond any Member in this Chamber, for it is beyond any human being. That is what I think about second chances.
Linsey Farnsworth
Does the right hon. Member realise that the Sentencing Council does not just pluck out of the air its sentencing recommendations? It consults widely with a variety of organisations, people working in the criminal justice system and the public before coming to its conclusions about the right sentences for offences. I would submit that there should be recognition of the work that it does.
Sir John Hayes
I simply say to the hon. Lady that when we delegate that kind of authority to those who are unelected and unaccountable, we are no longer doing our job. Her view, which has prevailed for a very long time, is not entirely the fault of Labour; it is a problem with the whole political class. We have created every kind of body imaginable in every aspect of government to do things that should be done by this House and by Ministers of the Crown.
The Sentencing Council is just another of those bodies. Who knows who is on the Sentencing Council? Certainly most of the hon. Lady’s constituents and most of mine would not have a clue, and they certainly would not know how to influence them in any way. Of course, it is working people who are most disadvantaged by that, not the privileged few who occupy the social circles that the Sentencing Council no doubt occupies. It is the hard-working, patriotic and law-abiding majority in my constituency and hers who are frustrated by a criminal justice system that persistently excuses the worst kinds of crimes rather than punishing them as they deserve to be punished.
There is a new future emerging in the post-liberal age as we build a new order. That order will be inspired by time-honoured truths, rooted in the will of the people and powered by a ceaseless determination to recapture our country for our people. Burke said:
“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”
The tyranny of the cruelty of crime and disorder will haunt places and people across our country as the vile and vicious are let loose. I urge the House to accept the variety of amendments that I have mentioned and the many others on the amendment paper that are attempts to rescue the Bill from that horror.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I rise to speak to the amendments that I have tabled. I am delighted to have another attempt to stop the Government doing something that defies justice as well as common sense and that will make our streets less safe. As I said in Committee, my amendments would mean that some serious offenders would not be given the “get out of jail free” card proposed by the Government.
Since Committee, we have had the ludicrous situation involving Hadush Kebatu, who was released from prison after being jailed for sex offences. Quite rightly, there was a public outcry and widespread condemnation from politicians. The massive irony is that if the Bill had already been passed, he would have qualified for the presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence and would not have been in prison in the first place.
Under my amendments 15, 16, 24 and 25, foreign offenders and sex offenders would not be included in the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence when an immediate prison sentence was deemed to be the right outcome by the courts, so someone like Kebatu would still be sent to prison. I hope that Labour Members agree with those amendments, especially given that the Health Secretary said:
“This man was behind bars because of serious sex offences…So the idea that he’s loose on the streets is incredibly serious.”
Perhaps the Health Secretary will back my amendments, and perhaps he will have a word with the Justice Secretary to get him to back my amendments as well.
Following the Kebatu debacle, people have blamed the incompetence of prison staff in releasing him, yet if the Government do not accept my amendments we will not need to be concerned about the incompetence or otherwise of our Prison Service, because such offenders will not even go to prison. However, we can be sure of the incompetence of the Government in allowing these sentencing changes to happen and in not sending offenders like Kebatu to prison. Even the Secretary of State for Justice said:
“Let’s be clear, Kebatu committed a nasty sexual assault involving a young child and a woman, and for those reasons this of course is very serious.”
On Monday, he said to the House:
“Mr Kebatu’s victims are rightly outraged about what has happened. I am livid on their behalf, and on behalf of the public.”
He also said:
“He is back where he belongs: behind bars.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 43.]
If it is so serious, and the Justice Secretary really means that Kebatu belongs behind bars, why on his watch will the Bill ensure that the next Kebatu will not be behind bars, and will not be sent to prison in the first place? These are serious questions that need to be answered. It is not too late for the Government to stop this dangerous aspect of the Bill and prove to everyone outside this Chamber that they are not hypocrites, by accepting my amendments.
While they are at it, the Government need to seriously consider accepting my amendments 20 and 29, which would prevent those who commit knife crimes from being eligible for suspended sentences. The Government should hang their head in shame for proposing a non-prison sentence for the offence of carrying a knife on our streets, and even for those who commit the offence more than once. I am sure that many Members will know of cases where someone has been injured or killed by a knife. Everyone who votes for the Bill without amendment will be voting to enable someone who carries a knife or threatens people with a knife, even repeatedly, to avoid prison.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
While I do not doubt for a second the right hon. Lady’s impassioned belief in the need to keep dangerous offenders off our streets, does she agree that it was actually the Conservative Government that cut funding to our prisons? There was a 24% real-terms cut from 2010 to 2015, resulting in 30% cuts in staffing. That has clearly had an impact on the ability of any Government to send individuals to prison, and it happened under the last Government.
Esther McVey
I shall remind the hon. Member what happened. The last Labour Government collapsed the economy, and the coalition was brought into power to get the books back on track. Unfortunately, as always happens after a Labour Government, spending had to be cut because they had bankrupted the country. When there was more money in the bank, we did need to invest more, and that is why the last Conservative Government put £4 billion into building more prisons. Three have now been completed and there are a further three left to be completed.
Do Members really want it on their conscience that they are changing the laws for people with knives or who threaten with knives? I think not. Labour has always talked tough on this matter, but now that it is in a position to do something about it, it fails. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) stated:
“Under a Labour Government, there will be tough consequences for carrying a knife. A Labour Government will end the empty words and apology letters for knife possession, and will guarantee sanctions and serious interventions for young people who carry knives.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 750, c. 332WH.]
Those were the words of the Labour party, but sadly, Labour will not do that. Time and again, Labour is proving to be a party of empty words and broken promises, and this will be yet another example. There will be plenty of people ready and willing to remind Labour Members of this, especially an outraged public. There will be no words of comfort for the family of a needless victim of this type of crime.
Members should also think twice about the fact that those who assault emergency workers will be included in this prison avoidance Bill. I know that many Labour MPs very much supported the introduction of the offence of assaulting an emergency worker, with its increased sentence for those who are convicted, yet all of that will have been for nothing if the Bill is passed in its current form, because people who assault emergency workers and receive sentences of 12 months or less will be likely to avoid prison altogether. Having worked hard to increase the sentence to 12 months in prison for assaulting an emergency worker, Labour will now effectively be agreeing to zero months in prison in many cases. The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, did so to ensure that those assaulting emergency workers felt
“the full force of the law”.—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1159.]
The right hon. Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves) supported the legislation and said that it was “long overdue”. The trade unions supported it. The GMB national officer said at the time:
“It’s welcome to see arrests taking place, but we also need to see an increase in prosecutions and tougher sentences handed down for these unacceptable assaults.”
My amendments 17 and 26 would exclude the offence from the Bill and show support for those who risk their lives to keep us all safe. What a kick in the teeth it will be for emergency workers to know that this Government do not have their backs at all. It seems the Government would rather be on the side of many of those who assault our emergency workers or to keep them from being sent to prison—as they should be. The amendments would also exclude assaults on those generally providing a public service.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I welcome the Minister, my former Home Affairs Committee colleague, to his place. I urge all Members to support the excellent amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), particularly new clause 11 on the suspension of driving licences during bail on driving-related offences, which is a common-sense proposal. I echo her praise of our hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his excellent, passionate and successful campaign on tagging for domestic abuse crimes—a policy that the Government have adopted. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester in urging the Government to go further than that by supporting new clause 8, which would make those aggravated crimes.
I tabled new clause 35, which has already received support from across the House, on behalf of the of the Saltern family from my North Cornwall constituency. Their campaign—known as Ryan’s law—was launched a few years ago by Helen and Mark Saltern after their son Ryan was tragically hit and killed by a car after leaving the village carnival in St Teath. The driver did not stop to check on Ryan, administer first aid or even phone the police or other emergency services. Instead, Ryan—a father of one—was left in the road to die. The driver drove into work the next day as if nothing had happened. What punishment was the offender given for that fatal hit and run? He avoided prison entirely and was handed just a four-month suspended sentence by the magistrates court.
The family of course acknowledge that accidents happen, but the driver left a young man dying in the road, did not even give it a second thought as he sped off—too cowardly to do the right thing—and did not spend a single day in prison for his crimes. I cannot imagine the pain that the family must feel. In response to that enormous injustice, they launched their “Ryan’s law” campaign and a petition that received overwhelming national support, reaching 167,000 signatures. Countless other families have been affected by similar cases right across this country.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I would like to draw attention to two cases in my constituency, one of which I have spoken about before in this place, in which a lady called Lorraine lost her life. It involved somebody who was driving, possibly while looking at their mobile phone, and again, that person did not go to prison. It is tragic that my hon. Friend’s new clause has to set out things that to most of us would seem absolutely natural. Someone should not have to be told to stop, to report, and to phone the police—to do all those things. I think this new clause is necessary, but it is a terrible shame that we live in a world where people do not think that is the right way to behave.
Ben Maguire
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a horrible indictment on our society and our country that we have to table such a new clause. Sadly, however, because of the hundreds, if not thousands, of cases such as the one she rightly points out, unfortunately it is necessary.
Mark and Helen Saltern, and their daughter Leanne, have campaigned tirelessly for years on this issue. The family have set up RysHaven, a safe, dedicated space where grieving families of hit-and-run victims can escape to Cornwall to take a moment to breathe, process, and recover from their heartbreaking traumas. New clause 35, would introduce three new aggravating factors to the Bill. It would mean that offenders such as the man who hit and killed Ryan Saltern would have the failure to stop, the failure to administer first aid, and the failure to alert emergency services about the hit and run added as “aggravating factors”, specifically when it comes to sentencing those guilty of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving.
I also support new clause 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). Death by dangerous driving should, of course, result in a lifetime driving ban—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) said earlier, that just seems common sense. I urge colleagues from across this House to support my new clause. This is not just for Ryan and his family; the new clause is for the hundreds of hit-and-run victims across this country. I urge Ministers to hear me, and the thousands of loved ones who are left to suffer such injustice. Please right this gross wrong. If the Government will not accept the new clause tonight, I sincerely hope that they will give it serious consideration.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Bill illustrates a wider theme that we see across a number of debates in the House, which is the gap between the Government’s words and how they vote. Indeed, that is illustrated by a number of the new clauses that colleagues on the Opposition Benches have already spoken to.
New clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), highlights the inconsistency within the Labour manifesto that sets out a commitment to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, but then says that even if they commit an offence so serious that it warrants a custodial sentence of four or more years, that person is too young to be named. I asked the House of Commons Library to clarify that. A custodial sentence of four or more years is not given out lightly by the courts, particularly not to those of that age, and it said that this would involve serious sexual offences, murder, or armed robbery. We see tweets from Members of Parliament when a boy or girl is stabbed to death, but Labour Members are not willing to vote to name those who commit such offences. It is wrong to deny victims transparency when such serious offences have taken place, but it is bizarre to do so when also saying that those same people are old enough to vote at that age.
Such inconsistency is not limited to new clause 14, so let me take a second example of new clause 18, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). Many people now look at the Labour manifesto and say, “Well, what it said on energy bills isn’t what they have done; what it said on council tax isn’t what they have done; and what it said to farmers is certainly not what they have done.” With the Budget coming soon, I think that we will shortly see that what Labour said on tax is not what this Government are about to do. And yet the front page of that Labour manifesto had a single word on it: “Change.” I do not think that most voters realised that what Labour meant was change from the manifesto itself, as opposed to change in terms of policy—
Steve Barclay
Indeed, change for the worse.
It is bizarre that when serious offences take place, quite often it is the judiciary who get the blame. Perhaps I have an unfashionable view in that I think that we have a very high-quality judiciary, but it is easy for people to look at sentences and then quickly leap to criticise the judiciary, saying that it is their fault that sentencing is wrong. Indeed, there are such cases—the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has highlighted some concerning conflicts of interest of some within the judiciary—but it is far more common that issues arise because the judiciary are operating within the tramlines imposed by sentencing guidelines.
I remember a constituency case where someone was killed by dangerous driving. It highlighted the fact that while this House had increased the sentencing for such crimes, the sentencing guidelines set so many obstacles to getting a maximum sentence that, in practice, hardly anyone ever reached the tariff that the House had intended. Key decisions on issues of public policy should not be outsourced to quangos, meaning—as my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), highlighted—the public often do not have any idea who is making the decisions.
I come back to the Labour manifesto. It promised change, but when it comes to the sentencing guidelines, it will be the same people, applying the same approach; that is anything but change. If the manifesto is to deliver change, it is right that democratic oversight is imposed and that this House and Ministers take more responsibility.
Steve Barclay
Indeed.
The new clauses under debate highlight a wider principle that is driving much of the public frustration with the democratic process: the sense of people voting and then seeing decisions that they do not feel were on the ballot paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right that this is not just an issue with this Government; the Government in which I served were guilty of this. Too many decisions were outsourced to quangos. There are lessons to be learned from that, as today’s debate has highlighted well.
Let me turn to two new clauses on which the House will divide. New clause 19 applies to something that unites the House: the horror at the murder of a police officer or prison officer. This is particularly pertinent to me, as I have the privilege of representing a constituency that contains a maximum security prison, HMP Whitemoor, where the safety of prison officers is paramount. The new clause is also important because we all benefit from the safeguarding provided by the police—in my case, Cambridgeshire police. What message do Ministers think is being sent not just to police and prison officers, but to their families, if they decide to vote against new clause 19? It is not enough just to tweet after events to say how sorry they are. The Government have an opportunity to vote to do something, and we will see in the Lobby how they vote.
Finally, I turn new clause 20. I do not think that I was alone in being deeply moved by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant). It is most effective when Members across the House, regardless of which party they are in, speak from their own deep professional expertise about issues that transcend party politics. Anyone hearing about Tony’s case cannot help but feel revulsion, horror and shame about the offence committed, and my hon. Friend spoke with such passion to highlight it.
As a former Minister who has sat where the Minister now sits, let me say that I hope he reflects on the case put forward in new clause 20. I do not believe that any Members want to see loopholes exploited—to see people move around the country to evade accountability and the tracking of any future offences. When someone speaks with the sort of professional expertise with which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling spoke, to raise very practical concerns, it is important that Ministers take those concerns on board.
The concern raised through new clause 20 is shared across the House. There is a defective element in this Bill, and Members have an opportunity to address it. The expectation is that there will be a vote on new clause 20. It is not about people’s words, but how they vote, that will determine the response. I hope that Members across the House will respond to new clause 20, bearing in mind the case of Tony, which was highlighted to the House, and that they will do the right thing.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I speak today to new clause 42, which is in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sitting days in the Crown court and to lay a report before Parliament.
I am pleased to bring this issue before the House. Our criminal courts are crippled under the weight of their caseloads. A system once respected for its fairness and efficiency is now struggling to deliver timely justice. One major cause is the limit imposed on the number of sitting days available to judges. In effect, we are deliberately rationing justice.
Successive Governments have chosen to restrict Crown court sitting days. The previous Conservative Administration cut them drastically up to 2020, and then reintroduced a cap in 2021. The current Labour Government, disappointingly, have continued that practice, fixing the number of sitting days for 2024-25 at 108,500. That figure, announced only in December, was thousands below what the courts had planned for, and nearly 5,000 days short of the 113,000 days that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service advised were needed to meet basic operational capacity. Even 113,000 sitting days would not open every courtroom; as Sir Brian Leveson’s review made clear, we would need at least 130,000 sitting days to bring all courtrooms fully into use. Anything less is a conscious choice to leave some courtrooms dark, some judges idle and thousands of victims waiting.
Meanwhile, the backlog grows. The Crown court caseload has reached historic highs, with more than 73,000 outstanding cases, and it is only growing. In the first quarter of 2025, 2,000 more cases were received than were disposed of. One in four open cases has been waiting for over a year, and in some instances trials are not being listed until 2029.
I saw the impact at first hand when I visited my local Kingston upon Thames Crown court. It is one of many courts across the London region that suffer as the region sees its backlog increase by 25%. Staff spoke of the frustration of empty courtrooms, which could be hearing trials but are instead shuttered by bureaucracy. For my constituents in Esher and Walton, that means longer waits for justice for victims of assault, of burglary and of sexual violence, who are left to relive their trauma every time that their trial is postponed. Witnesses lose faith, memories fade, and confidence in justice evaporates.
Caps on Crown court sitting days are not a matter of efficiency, but a false economy. We are paying for court buildings, for security, for staff and for judges, yet we prevent them from working to full capacity, and the consequences are severe. Victims and witnesses wait months or even years for closure, and defendants on bail remain in limbo, their futures in the balance. Some guilty defendants plead not guilty in the hope that delay will work in their favour.
In the process, public faith in the criminal justice system and politics deteriorates. Justice delayed is justice denied. Each time a case is adjourned or pushed back, a victim’s faith in justice dies a little more. Communities lose confidence that the system will protect them, and that loss of trust is corrosive—it undermines everything from police co-operation to jury participation. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have not attached a money motion to this Bill, meaning that Parliament cannot directly remove the cap today. However, new clause 42 offers a constructive step forward. It would require the Government to confront the evidence and to assess, transparently and publicly, whether the cap serves justice or undermines it.
We cannot continue to ignore a crisis that every practitioner, every victim and every judge can see unfolding before their eyes. Removing the cap would not solve every problem in our courts, but it would allow them to function at their full capacity; it would mean fewer empty rooms, more trials heard, and faster justice for those who need it most. New clause 42 is a vital amendment that shines a light on the cost of capping justice and would begin the work of restoring confidence in our criminal courts. Justice delayed is justice denied, and it is time to stop denying justice to the people we serve.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Much of this Bill does not apply to my constituents, because in the main it does not apply to Northern Ireland. However, there is a key component of the Bill that is supposed to apply to Northern Ireland, because the extent clause says that part 4 applies—that is the part of the Bill that deals with the very important issue of deporting foreign criminals. My question to this House tonight is whether it will, in fact, apply to Northern Ireland.
Yes, this is said to be the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is therefore said that when this Parliament decides something, it is decided; when it applies a law to citizens of the United Kingdom, that is the end of the story. Sadly, though, I know—and this House needs to know, and needs to act upon that knowledge—that three times, this House has passed Bills that it said applied to the whole United Kingdom, and three times, the courts in this land overruled Parliament and disapplied parts of those Bills from applying to my constituents and my part of the United Kingdom. Those were the Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and the soon-to-be-defunct legacy Act.
How can it be that this sovereign Parliament decides that it is legislating on issues affecting constituents across this United Kingdom and passing laws that it says applies to them all, but it turns out that they do not? The answer, sadly, is article 2 of the Windsor framework, because article 2 purports to trump this sovereign Parliament. In respect of Northern Ireland, it says that where there are EU laws—laws not made by this House, but in a foreign jurisdiction; laws that we do not make and cannot change—that bestow on citizens or those in Northern Ireland rights that are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom, those rights will trump this sovereign Parliament. That is a frightening reality that this House has been running away from ever since it agreed to the withdrawal agreement and the protocol that is now called the Windsor framework. It comprises a fundamental assault upon not just the sovereignty of this House, but the legitimate expectations of my constituents that they will be subject to the equal citizenship that is supposed to come from being a part of this United Kingdom. Paragraph 1 of article 2 of the Windsor framework states that protections
“enshrined in the provisions of Union law”—
that is European Union law—are “listed in Annex 1”. Many of those provisions are about rights.
Jake Richards
I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. This Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that gives us the chance to put an end to the prison capacity crisis and build a better justice system. Let me be clear at the outset: this Government believe that prison can work, which is why we are undertaking the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era. Many offenders must be sent to prison, some for a very long time and some for the rest of their lives. The Government have already opened 2,500 places since coming to office, and we have made a commitment to build 14,000 more. Despite what has been said by Opposition Members, by the end of this Parliament, under a Labour Government, there will be more criminals in our prisons than ever before.
However, we cannot only build our way out of this crisis; we must reform sentencing to ensure that our criminal justice system is sustainable. The changes in this Bill will ensure that we never face the situation that the Conservatives left behind: the very real prospect that the most serious offenders would not face prison at all. In a competitive field, the state that the last Government left our prisons in was perhaps the most appalling aspect of the Tory legacy. It was so appalling that, when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), became aware of the scale of the crisis, he gave up and called an election. It was the last shameful act of a vandalising, incompetent Government. This Bill represents the work of a Government pulling up their sleeves and getting on with the job, however difficult that may be.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I really welcome this Sentencing Bill, because I think my constituents want not only criminals being punished for their crimes, but the prevention of future crime. It should be about not just punishment—which is rightly owed to a lot of people—but making sure that our communities are safe in the future. Could the Minister lay out how the intensive supervision courts in the Bill will help to do that?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this Bill will not only stabilise the prison system, but go further and tackle reoffending. She mentioned the intensive supervision courts, but there are also our reforms to short-term sentences, which will cut reoffending. We know it will do that because of evidence that the last Conservative Government commissioned. That was why the exact provision on short-term sentencing, which the Tories are all howling with outrage at now, was in the legislation that the last Government put forward—completely hypocritical. My hon. Friend is completely right; this Bill represents a Government who step up to the challenge, rather than putting their head in the sand.
I want to turn to some of the amendments and the specific points of debate that we have heard today, starting with new clause 20, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). However, I will begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who has put her name to that amendment and with whom I have had the pleasure of speaking on numerous occasions this week in the build-up to the debate. The hon. Lady spoke incredibly powerfully about her own experience in the family courts, and I share that experience. Before coming to this place, I was a barrister who spent a lot of time on legal aid cases, representing local authorities, family members or guardians in exactly the types of cases that she mentioned. I share her concerns.
I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s constituent, Paula Hudgell, who has been campaigning for a child abuse register with such eloquence and passion for some time. Paula’s work, life and dedication to Tony and others deserves enormous gratitude from across the House. On the Government’s behalf, I thank her for all that she and her family have done and continue to do. I welcome the constructive comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, on this issue. I can be clear that Paula has identified a problem in the system, and we are determined to fix it.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s comments on new clause 20 and a possible child protection register. My constituents Gemma Chappell and Rachael Walls have been campaigning for stronger child protection measures after their great-niece, Maya, was murdered by her mother’s abusive partner. Does the Minister agree that measures such as a child protection register and Maya’s law can only help to protect our children—children like Maya, Tony and others? And what steps will he be taking to follow this up?
Jake Richards
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer is yes. A problem in the system has been identified, and we are determined to fix it. It simply cannot be right that some horrific child abusers can have access to children—to live with children or work with children—at the end of their sentences without any system of monitoring or notification after those sentences. The Government cannot support the change today because work needs to be done to understand the demand that different options would place upon different public services. It would be wrong to legislate now without a fuller—or even basic—understanding of whether we have the capacity to safely deliver the register proposed in new clause 20. There are numerous options before us, and it is right that any new system is tailored, in terms of who holds that information and the duties placed upon them, to ensure that particular risks are adequately and proportionately managed.
James Cartlidge
The position that the Minister seems to be articulating is literally bizarre. He has said that he fully agrees about the problem and with the remedy set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). The Government have had 14 years in Opposition and more than a year in Government, and have introduced the Bill at this time. But the Minister is saying that, notwithstanding the fact they have brought forward this Bill after more than a year in office and agree on the problem and the diagnosis, he is still going to vote tonight—and ask his Back Benchers to vote tonight—against fixing the issue.
Jake Richards
We have identified a problem, but it would be wholly irresponsible to legislate when we have not had the opportunity to ensure that public services can complete the task. The hon. Member criticises us for not taking action on this issue now, but what about the last 14 years? What about the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which reported in November 2022? The last Government did absolutely nothing on those recommendations.
Helen Grant
I hear what the Minister has to say. Will he bring forward a Government amendment to introduce a child cruelty register when the Bill moves to the House of Lords?
Jake Richards
We will speak to Home Office colleagues and others to look at the possibility of doing that, absolutely. The hon. Lady has my word—as does her constituent, who is no doubt watching this debate carefully—that I will work at speed on this issue, but I do not want to make promises that the Government cannot keep, so it is vital that we do the work. We understand the burden that it will place on the services that will need to do the work to make sure that this is done, but I want to be clear that this is a problem. We accept that it is a problem, and we are going to take action to solve it. I will continue to have conversations with the hon. Lady as part of that process, and I welcome the offer of cross-party talks. I am speaking to colleagues in the Department for Education and the Home Office, and I would be eager, if it is appropriate and possible, to speak to Paula herself to ensure that we get this right. But as I said, we want to do that quickly.
I have asked officials in my Department to look at what can be done within the criminal justice system, which sits within the Ministry of Justice, to track child abuse offenders and offences involving child cruelty. I again thank the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling for her work on this issue. I look forward to working with her, and with other hon. Members who have shown an interest in this issue, to achieve an important change in safeguarding that is absolutely necessary.
I turn to new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), which seeks to allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence. She and I had a brief discussion outside the Chamber about this, and it is important to note that remand prisoners can already access such programmes where prisons run them. The Government accept that there is a lack of such provision in our prisons—something that we absolutely have to improve and work on—but we must remember that remand prisoners have not been convicted of an offence. They cannot be required to undertake any of these services, but it is an issue that I am very much aware of. I will continue to have conversations with her and other colleagues about that over the coming weeks and months as we look to improve those services within prisons.
Andy Slaughter
I congratulate the Minister on his Bill, which can undo the damage done to the prison system over the past 14 years of neglect and mismanagement, but while he is clearly in listening mode, let me say that it is capable of improvement. I tabled a number of amendments that were designed to improve the Bill in Committee last week. I will write to him to remind him what they are, but will he look at those proposals, which were made in good faith, to see whether changes can be made in the other place?
Jake Richards
As always, I welcome the contributions of the Chair of the Justice Committee. I am very aware of the array of amendments that he and I discussed before Committee stage last week. I have not returned to them in the last seven days, but we will no doubt do so in the coming weeks as the Bill progresses.
I will briefly touch on the issue of probation. A number of amendments have been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and spoken to by other hon. Members. The Government accept that the Bill places an extra responsibility on the Probation Service. That is why we are investing £750 million in probation—a 45% increase, and the biggest upgrade to investment in probation for a generation. We are investing £8 million to improve technology, so that probation officers can undertake probation work rather than be stifled by the burden of paperwork. We recruited 1,000 probation officers in our first year and 1,300 this year. However, there is undoubtedly more work to be done, and we will undertake that work in the coming weeks and months.
This Government have been very clear that work must be at the heart of our prisons. Ensuring that offenders work will mean that they can be rehabilitated and, when they leave prison, can enter society with the prospect of employment. Clearly, some of the details of how that work provision is provided and the role of the private sector have to be worked out carefully. I am very happy to meet the justice unions parliamentary group to discuss that, but I will never apologise for ensuring that there is work provision in our prisons, because it is absolutely vital. Labour is the party of work. We believe in the inherent value of work, and work in our prisons plays a vital role in rehabilitation.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response on work in prison. I completely agree that it makes a huge difference in enabling prisoners to stop their reoffending behaviour. When 80% of offending is reoffending, costing over £18 billion a year, it is clear that we need to enable people to turn their lives around. Does he agree that our communities will be safer when we are able to tackle reoffending rates?
Jake Richards
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She raised this important issue in a recent Adjournment debate. We are taking steps to provide further work provision in our prisons, working with the private sector, the third sector and others, but we certainly accept that there is more to do.
I will briefly respond to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on new clause 24. He asked me a direct question, and simply put, we do not agree. The Government do not think that this new clause is necessary. Our view is very clear on the legal analysis of the proposed change. The deportation of foreign national offenders will not be prohibited by the provisions of the Windsor framework. If he disagrees with that analysis, I am very happy to meet him to discuss it and look into it. He is absolutely right that it would be wrong if, in the scenario he painted towards the end of his speech, different parts of the country had different provisions for the deportation of foreign national offenders. I want to give him that reassurance at the Dispatch Box.
Jim Allister
Will the Minister give us an assurance that, if there turns out to be a distinction in that foreign nationals cannot be deported from Northern Ireland because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, he will undertake to override that legislatively so that we do have equality right across the United Kingdom?
Jake Richards
As I have said, we do not accept that there is a problem, but if there is, we will look to fix it, because that would not be right. The scenario the hon. and learned Member painted, which we do not accept will happen as a result of this legislation, is not right.
Amendments 15 and 39 on short sentences are among several tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). They aim to widen the scope of the exemption or to eat away at the 12-month definition of short sentences. That is the wrong direction, and I will set out why. First, we need to clear up some myths that have been shared by the Opposition on this issue. Either they are being wilfully ignorant or they simply do not understand the Bill. We are not abolishing short sentences, as the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), wrongly stated in the House on Monday. He was briefly a corporate solicitor, and I would hope he knows better and that he had read the Bill before commenting on it.
Judges will always have discretion to send offenders to prison, and short sentences have an important function, especially in certain cases of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. The Bill makes it clear that the presumption does not apply where the offender poses a significant risk of physical and psychological harm to a particular individual, where they breach a court order or in exceptional circumstances. In Committee, the Government went further by strengthening this provision to ensure that breaches of all civil court orders, such as the domestic violence protection order, were covered.
Catherine Atkinson
Domestic abuse remains the deepest scar on our society, and it demands our collective action to eradicate it. Please can the Minister outline the measures in the Bill that will help tackle this invidious form of violence and enable improved support for victims during the process?
Jake Richards
In that regard, the most important part of the Bill is the domestic abuse identifier. It has been worked on, on a cross-party basis, with outside organisations that are campaigning for it. It is an innovative and important step to ensure that these cases—it is a broadbrush so that different offences can all be covered by the one term—can be tracked through the criminal justice system and out to safeguarding agencies to ensure that women are kept safe from their abusers.
Dr Mullan
I note the interest of the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) in domestic abuse and other offences. Will the Minister confirm for her that the vast majority of offenders convicted of offences related to domestic abuse will get out of prison much earlier as a result of this Bill?
Jake Richards
Again, as the shadow Minister knows, for each offence the judge will have full discretion over the sentence. When I have spoken to victims of domestic abuse—I have worked with and represented victims of domestic abuse in court—what they feared most was that, when the prison system was on the verge of collapse, some of the most serious offenders would never face prison at all.
Jake Richards
I will finish this point before I give way, because I am dealing with the right hon. Member’s amendments.
More broadly, we know that suspended sentences and community sentences can be more effective at reducing reoffending. The level of reoffending among those who serve short sentences is staggeringly high. As I have said already, research commissioned by the last Conservative Government—shadow Justice Ministers continue to cite it—shows that short sentences lead to more reoffending, meaning that tens of thousands more criminal offences are committed each year.
If the Opposition vote to drop this provision from the legislation—legislation that the last Conservative Government put forward—they will be voting for more crimes blighting our communities. They know that the measure is common sense because, as I have said, they proposed it; it was a Conservative proposal towards the end of the last Parliament, and they are now opposing it for opposition’s sake. This provision on short-term sentences will begin to break the cycle of reoffending that does such damage to communities across the country, so we reject the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton.
Esther McVey
I thank the Minister for allowing me to speak now. Members on both sides of the House were concerned about attacks on emergency workers, and such offenders who are sentenced to 12 months or less will now get suspended sentences. Can he state on the record that that will not be the case—that those offenders will still go to prison, as Members on both sides of the House want? Will he protect emergency workers or will he let them down?
Jake Richards
The judge on any given case, where there has been an awful offence such as that, will have the power under this legislation to send that person to prison. That is absolutely right and that has not changed at all.
I will turn to new clause 19, with which I have huge sympathy. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle gave me the opportunity to meet Lenny Scott’s mother, and I will take him up on that. I am happy to do so and I look forward to it. As he knows, the Law Commission is undertaking a review of homicide law, and it would be wrong to pre-empt that, although I am sympathetic to the motivation behind the new clause. As he noted, that awful offender was convicted to life imprisonment with a minimum of 45 years. I understand the mischief that the hon. Member is trying to tackle with the new clause, but we will await the Law Commission’s review of homicide law.
Jake Richards
As I say, I am not going to pre-empt the Law Commission’s review of homicide law, but I am sympathetic to the new clause. I look forward to meeting the victim’s family and we will be taking steps in due course.
I will turn to the earned progression model and new clause 36, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and spoken to passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith). I met my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and understand the motivation behind the new clause. There is appetite within Government to go further and to offer positive functionality to the earned progression model, but primary legislation is probably not the appropriate mechanism for delivering a stronger system of incentivising rehabilitation in prisons.
I will briefly explain the current framework as set out in legislation. Bad behaviour, such as acts of violence or possession of a mobile phone, can mean more time in custody. We are making that tougher. To ensure that there is more bite and discipline within our prisons, we are doubling the maximum punishment from 42 days to 84 days per incident by secondary legislation. There will be no automatic release for badly behaved offenders. I accept that I and Lord Timpson should look at the current incentives policy framework to see how we can further incentivise engagement with self-improvement services, whether in work or education.
We expect prisoners to work in prison and, where they have educational needs, to engage in classes that support reading, literacy, maths and vocational skills. That is why we are building partnerships with employers and looking to increase the amount of time that prisoners work in industry to increase employment skills. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in our meeting, I look forward to working with her and others to look at how we can expand and improve that framework to ensure that the earned progression model is as effective as possible.
Dr Mullan
Does the Minister accept that he is legislating to let those people out automatically? He expects Labour Members to accept the promise that later, at some point, he might introduce legislation so that some of those people—a small proportion—do not get out, but whatever he says at the Dispatch Box, he is legislating to let them out automatically. That is the consequence of this legislation.
Jake Richards
I am getting increasingly confused by these interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I outlined before, the Government are setting out very clear measures to improve discipline in our prisons. That is part of the progression model, learned from the Texas model, which has seen crime reduce by 33%, with 16 prisons closed at the same time. I think we should learn from good examples abroad. The Opposition have no idea what their position is any more.
I will turn to new clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). The most serious offences are already dealt with in the Crown court, even those involving offenders aged under 18, and whether an offender’s identity is reported on is at the discretion of the judge. There is always a balancing act in the judge’s consideration between the principles of open justice and the welfare of the child, and it is right that discretion remains with the judge. I also gently say to the hon. Member that the scope of the Bill was the adult estate. There is work to be done in the youth justice system; we will be taking steps to look at it in due course, and we may come back to this as part of that provision. However, the focus in this Bill is much more on the adult estate.
The same point also applies to new clause 1, again tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. I want to go into some detail on this new clause because it is an important issue. On parenting orders, it is right that those responsible for a child’s care will be involved in their rehabilitation where possible. To that end, courts have the power to issue a parenting order where a child has been convicted of an offence. Parenting orders require the parents or guardian to comply with certain requirements for up to 12 months, and non-compliance can lead to breach proceedings in court.
While parenting orders can be a good option for some children, youth offending teams that I have spoken to often decide that it is more effective to engage and build relationships with parents on a voluntary basis wherever possible, without resorting to a parenting order. Many parents will engage readily and take part in specific parenting support activities and programmes.
On financial orders, children are naturally limited in their access to the funds necessary to meet the conditions of a financial order. To that end, where the child is under 16, any financial order must be met by the parent or guardian. For children aged 16 or 17, the fine may be imposed on either the parent or child. Whether they are used in each particular case is best determined by the court with professional advice from the youth offending team. It is right that the court, which has access to information on a child’s individual circumstances, retains the discretion to determine whether such interventions are well placed to support their rehabilitation.
I undertake to the House today that I will look at this matter as part of our continued review of the youth justice system. We do not think that primary legislation is necessary for a dedicated assessment, which is vague in the form of the new clause. We therefore urge the House to reject this new clause, too.
I turn now to driving. There are an array of measures before the House that relate to driving offences, and there is an understandable sense from the House about the need to go further and to strengthen or tighten our use of driving bans for criminal offences. New clauses have been put down by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), among others, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), who has raised this issue in the House.
It should be noted that this legislation offers new provisions to order a driving ban for offenders who receive a suspended or community sentence even if their offence did not relate to driving. However, I have been persuaded in the course of the debates in this House, and in my relatively short period in this role, of the need to look again at driving bans and to do so properly and rigorously. I have organised a meeting with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport to discuss this issue and to ensure that the points and individual cases raised in this and last week’s debates are considered in the Government’s road safety strategy, which is being developed. It is right that we undertake proper and further analysis of the current situation and how we can encourage greater use of driving bans.
I promise that I will ensure that this House is updated on the development of that work. I have reached out to road safety charities to ensure that they are consulted and kept informed, too. It is right that we investigate this issue carefully, but it is also important to say that the courts already have the discretion to implement these driving bans in precisely the way that various new clauses seek to do.
I will turn now to new clause 31 on exclusions from recall measures, which was spoken to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. A number of offences listed in the new clause are already excluded from the fixed-term recall provisions, while many others carry sentences that would be beyond the scope of the provisions. However, we understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Chichester. There is a balance to be struck between recognising the risks posed and ensuring a sustainable system. Before any recalled offender is released, the Probation Service will undertake a thorough review of release plans and licence conditions, ensuring that needs and risks are managed, with a focus on mitigating risks against known victims. This will take account of any patterns of behaviour. Recall remains an important public protection tool where risk escalates. There are still challenges, looking at the 56 days and the provision of education for those who are returned on recall. We have had discussions outside the Chamber and we will continue to do so. It is an issue that Lord Timpson and I are aware of, and we will make progress on it in due course.
I turn very briefly to new clause 42, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), regarding the awful Crown court delays we experience in this country—another element of the rotten legacy we received from the Conservative party. Brian Leveson has reported on this, and the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services will bring forward the Government’s response in due course.
It is an urgent issue, because all these problems—prison capacity, justice, rehabilitation, reoffending—can be solved only if we have a functioning courts system. Sorting out and stabilising our prisons, reforming sentencing and dealing with the Crown court backlog will be at the heart of the Government’s approach through this Parliament.
Ben Maguire
There was one small omission there. Can the Minister confirm that legal aid provision, which has been brought up by several Members today, will be addressed by the Government?
Jake Richards
Yes. Legal aid is vital, and the right to legal aid is important. The Government understand that right and will continue to look at it. There are financial constraints, which we are all aware of, but legal aid is very important. We have made certain commitments with regard to employment tribunals, and we will continue to look at that over the coming months.
Amendment 7 would remove clause 20 regarding changes to be made to the release of certain offenders. Let us start with the most basic promise of our justice system. When offenders are caught who pose a risk to the public, we ensure that there is capacity in our prisons for them to serve a custodial sentence. It sounds straightforward and a fundamental tenet of the social contract, but that is what was damaged and broken by the Tory Government. In July last year our prisons were essentially full, and the Government disgracefully could not fulfil that most basic promise to the British people. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for the lawless disorder they caused.
The changes that the Bill makes are necessary to stabilise our prison system. There is no alternative. What have heard from Opposition Members, carping from the sidelines, are wholly unserious proposals. Reform UK say that we should build paperweight temporary prisons. Portacabins holding hardened criminals in our backyards? No thank you.
Let me clear: that would place the public at serious risk of harm. We cannot simply rustle up a secure setting to incarcerate dangerous offenders. This Government are building more prison places than we have seen for over 100 years. Following the changes to be brought in by this Bill, there will still be more criminals in prison than ever before—2,000 more by 2029 than there are now. On the other hand, Reform has no serious plans to keep our communities safe.
The Tory position is even more absurd, if that is possible. Last week the shadow Minister began to apologise for the legacy that the Conservatives left behind in our prisons. He said that if he had been Prime Minister or Chancellor it would not have happened. We had five Tory Prime Ministers and seven Chancellors in 14 years. I am not sure that giving another one a go would have made the difference. Meanwhile the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), says, “Deport more foreign offenders. That will solve it all.” Completely unserious.
Under this Government, deportation of foreign national offenders is up by 14%. We have accelerated decision making on deportation, which can now happen when 30% of the sentence has been served. That is something that the Tories never did. Because of this legislation, we can go even further and deport a foreign offender immediately upon sentencing. These are practical measures from a Labour Government who are cleaning up the Tory mess.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
My father is a retired senior prison officer, and I know at first hand the devastation that 14 years of the Tories brought on our prison system. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on us as a Government to clean up the mess they left and fix the system urgently through reforms?
Jake Richards
I thank my hon. Friend’s father for his service. Prison officers across the country do a brilliant and important job. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I have sat through hours of this debate over the last few weeks, and while it has been important, the crowing from the Tories is galling considering the legacy that they left behind.
This Labour Government faced a crisis when we came into power last summer. The Tories had left our prison system on the brink of collapse, and lawless chaos was on the verge of breaking out. We took action, with plans to build 14,000 prison places—the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era—and 2,500 places in our first year, compared to just 500 places that were built during 14 years of the Conservative Government.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Does the Minister recognise, from his written response to me, that every single one of those 2,405 prison places was authorised by the previous Conservative Government and that the 14,000 prison places he planned to build will not be delivered because the firm that was due to build them has gone into administration?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member always makes that point, and he thinks it a good point. Towards the end of 14 years of Conservative government, the Conservatives suddenly realised they had not done anything to our prisons—it was an absolute shambles—and they started to take action. We have actually delivered those places, with 2,500 in one year compared with just 500 in 14 years. It is shocking. That is not a good point, and he should not keep raising it.
The Government began an independent sentencing review, led by a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to ensure that our system was sustainable. The Bill is that vital step to ensure that we can keep that most basic promise to the British people. We will ensure that there is capacity in our prisons to keep law and order on the streets. We will ensure that our justice system clamps down on reoffending and delivers punishment that works. We will ensure that we will never again face the chaos of Tory misrule. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to put it on the record that there has unfortunately been a blip on today’s version of the Sentencing Bill’s amendment paper. While I did put my name to several new clauses, I did not put my name to amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34 or 35.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. I know that House staff would wish to apologise for the error. She has put the facts on the record, so it will now be clear which measures she actually supported, and those to which her name was added in error.
Third Reading
Jake Richards
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a pleasure to speak at the Third Reading of this landmark legislation. I begin by expressing my gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly to deliver this important change to our criminal justice system.
It is difficult to exaggerate the scale of the crisis that landed on the desk of the previous Lord Chancellor—now the Home Secretary—and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), when they entered Government on 5 July 2024. Prisons were at breaking point, with a very real risk that the most dangerous offenders would not face custody at all and that our communities would be left vulnerable. They took urgent, necessary and decisive action to stabilise the system and keep our prisons afloat, and then they went further.
I pay tribute to David Gauke, the former Conservative Justice Secretary, for his work in leading the independent sentencing review. It is a rigorous and serious piece of work, and while the Government did not accept all the recommendations, it is the basis of many of the provisions before the House today. We thank David Gauke for his work, and perhaps look somewhat regretfully back at what a serious Conservative Justice spokesperson looked like.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their careful scrutiny of the Bill, and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), and the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant)—and a particular shout-out for my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for her tireless campaigning on tool theft. Through their personal experience, or the experience of their constituents, hon. Members have powerfully raised issues that the Government will continue to look at and address as this legislation progresses.
The debates we have had on this legislation neatly sum up the dividing lines in British politics. The Conservative party is in complete denial, with not a single word of apology. It is their mess that this legislation begins to clean up. The Bill goes further than simply stabilising the system; it confronts reoffending—the cycle of crime that blights so many of our communities—and learns from the Texan earned-progression model to encourage rehabilitation. Confronting reoffending and improving rehabilitation used to be policies that the Conservatives supported, but today they have provided nothing but opposition.
Meanwhile, Reform’s Justice spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), has not bothered to attend this debate at all, and inexplicably said over the weekend that she gets angry when she sees Asian and black people on her TV. She should concentrate on coming up with workable policies; we cannot build portacabin prisons for hardened criminals and keep our communities safe. Reform UK is simply not credible.
This Government, on the other hand, are getting on with the job and making difficult decisions to ensure that we can keep our promise to the British people: we will never let our prison system collapse like the last Government did, when even the most serious offenders might have avoided prison altogether. This Bill will ensure that our prison system is sustainable, while reducing reoffending and crime, and it will keep our communities safe. I commend this Bill to the House.
Dr Mullan
With the leave of the House, I will finish by explaining again that whatever good this Bill may do, the consequences for victims and their families’ sense of justice in this country are grave—the very same victims who want to see prosecution rates improve, who want to see court waiting times reduced, and who want to have a criminal justice system that works better for them in so many ways, but who never agreed to a swap. Victims of crime will welcome the changes and improvements that the Labour party says it can deliver, but they should not have to accept that something is taken away just because something else is given.
I say to Back Benchers that the Government can agree spending settlements and come up with plans, but they cannot create the changes in legislation that are needed for this Bill; Back Benchers do that. When the Government need MPs to change legislation, they can say no, such as the Labour Back Benchers who recently said no to welfare reform.
I remind Members what this Bill will do. This Bill will mean that more than 80% of paedophiles who are sent to prison will get out earlier. This Bill will mean that more than 60% of rapists who are sent to prison will get out earlier. It will mean that, in total, more than 6,000 serious violent and sexual offenders will get out of prison earlier.
I ask Labour Members to imagine that, in a couple of years from now, they have secured all the achievements that they want in relation to the criminal justice system. Perhaps a victim of sexual assault comes to see them—perhaps somebody who feels that their experience was improved as a result of the changes that the Government say they are going to make and who, like many victims of sexual assault, has seen their perpetrator sent to prison for three years. That victim will come and see Labour Members, and say that the perpetrator is getting out of prison after just one year—a third of their sentence.
That will be the reality for two thirds of the people sentenced to prison for sexual assault in this country, because the Bill’s measures will mean that they get out of prison after a year. What will Members say to victims? Will they say what they say to me: “It was the Tories,” “I didn’t know,” or “We had no choice”? How hollow will those words sound to victims and their families? Whatever this Bill might do, the price that victims will pay is simply too high—much too high. The Government have no right to tell victims and their families that they must accept a trade-off: if they want things to improve in one direction, they must accept a betrayal in another.
I ask Labour Members to reflect again on the figures I have given them. They are the correct figures and they are the facts, no matter what those on the Government Front Bench have muttered as I have been speaking. I ask Labour Members to force this Government to make different choices. Do not support this betrayal of victims. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can mutter. It will come back to haunt every single one of you when victims ask you, “Why did you vote for something that lets thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier?”
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Sentencing Bill
Thursday 30th October 2025
(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberSentencing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 October 2025 - large print - (29 Oct 2025)
Sentencing Bill
Wednesday 12th November 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberSentencing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 October 2025 - large print - (29 Oct 2025)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to bring this Bill for its Second Reading. I start by thanking the former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, and his team for his independent sentencing review; this has informed many measures in the Bill. I thank another former Lord Chancellor, too, the now Home Secretary, for her work in getting us to this point. I also want to thank the many noble Lords who have engaged with me on the Bill. The input I have received has been of great value and generally very positive as we take this legislation forward. Of course, I want to pay tribute to our incredible prison and probation staff, who have worked, often unseen and under-appreciated, through an incredibly difficult time. I see and appreciate what they do every day, and I am proud to call every one of them a colleague.
I also want to pay tribute to Baroness Newlove, whose sad passing I learned of today. As both Victims’ Commissioner and Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords, Baroness Newlove brought unparalleled experience and dedication to her roles. She championed the rights of victims and witnesses and held agencies to account. Her leadership shaped the victims’ code, strengthened victims’ voices in the criminal justice system, and ensured that the Victims and Prisoners Bill progressed with victims’ interests at its heart. She was an extraordinary public servant whom I was fortunate to know well and admired immensely, and whose life’s work and legacy are defined by courage, compassion and an unwavering commitment to justice.
Before I turn to specific measures in the Bill, it is important to understand the context of why it is needed. When the new Government came to power in July last year, we inherited a crisis in our prisons and probation service. We were days away from running out of places entirely; days away from the police having to prioritise which criminals to arrest, the courts having to make impossible decisions, and the criminal justice system buckling under insurmountable pressure; days away from our criminal justice system failing to deliver the one thing it was for—delivering justice.
We took urgent steps to prevent that catastrophe, and we have embarked on the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, delivering 14,000 new places by 2031. However, if we do not take further action, it is only a matter of time before we will be back here again. In a few months, we will again be facing prisons on the brink, having to take emergency measures and, again, asking, “How did we get here?” That is why this Bill is vital. It does not kick the can further down the road, and it does not shy away from making tough decisions to keep the public safe. Instead, it will end the cycle of crisis once and for all. It will build a justice system that victims can have confidence in, and it will bring stability and sustainability to our prisons and our justice system. More than that, it will restore purpose to sentencing. It will deliver punishment that works by following the evidence of what works; that works for victims, delivering them the justice they deserve; that works for society—we want better citizens, not better criminals; and that works for the public, delivering safer streets and protection from crime.
Of course, that means that we must always be able to lock up the most dangerous offenders. Prisoners serving extended determinate sentences—those the court has deemed to be dangerous—will not be affected by anything in this Bill. They will still need the approval of the independent Parole Board if they are to be released at the two-thirds point of their custodial term. The IPP sentence is also not included in the new progression model. The Parole Board will continue to review IPP cases at least every two years, and in many cases more regularly. Noble Lords will know that this is an area of incredible importance to me. I am determined to support those in prison to progress towards a safe and sustainable release, but not in a way that undermines public protection. For completeness, nothing in this Bill affects those who receive life sentences, having been convicted of the most horrendous crimes.
But we need to be smarter: we need to follow the evidence. For many offenders sentenced to less than a year, prison sets up a revolving door of repeat offending. Over 60% of those with prison sentences of less than 12 months reoffend within a year. Offenders have limited time to engage in rehabilitation. Instead, they are exposed to hardened criminals and shown a path that can lead to more crime. When they get out, they may have lost their home, their job, their relationships and everything that anchors them to society. They are being asked to make a U-turn on a one-way street. But evidence shows that community orders and suspended sentences can be more effective at reducing reoffending.
Clause 1 of the Bill therefore introduces a presumption to suspend short sentences. We are not abolishing short sentences; judges will still have the power to impose them in particular circumstances. If there is significant risk of harm to an individual, such as a victim of domestic abuse, or if a prolific offender fails to comply with the requirements of a suspended sentence or reoffends, prison will still be available. We will break the cycle of reoffending. That means fewer victims, and more offenders getting their lives back on track. As many noble Lords know, I believe in second chances. Clause 2 widens the scope of suspended sentences, increasing the limit from two years to three.
Of course, for many offenders prison is the right answer, but if we want them to turn their lives around, we must make sure that serving time is not just what they do in between crimes. This Bill introduces a new progression model for standard determinate sentences. Inspired by the Texas reforms that helped to end its capacity crisis, we will ensure that prisoners who do not behave in prison can be kept in for longer; release at the earlier point will be theirs to lose. In Texas, following a settling-in period, crime fell by 30% and it has closed 16 prisons.
Clauses 20 and 21 amend the release points: those serving regular standard determinate sentences must serve at least one-third of their time; for more serious crimes given a standard determinate sentence, offenders must serve at least half. But those are minimums: prisoners who misbehave, are violent, or are caught with illicit mobile phones can stay inside for longer. We will also double the maximum additional days for a single incident from 42 to 84, so that the worst behaved will serve longer in custody. It is the same as in our communities: if you break our rules, you can pay the price with your liberty. Punishment does not end when a spell inside does, nor does release mean an end to rehabilitation. Offenders will therefore enter a period of intensive supervision by the Probation Service. They will still face consequences for their actions.
Clauses 24 and 25 introduce a strengthened licence period. Offenders will be subject to strict conditions tailored to risk and offence. These clauses mean that probation can set new restrictive licence conditions—for example, stopping them going to the pub, banning them from football matches, or preventing them driving. This mirrors the new community requirement set out in Clauses 13 to 15.
We will incentivise better behaviour from offenders. Clauses 36 and 37 allow community orders and the supervision period of suspended sentence orders to be terminated once an offender has completed their sentence plan, including all court-ordered requirements. The Probation Service will be able to incentivise compliance and encourage early engagement and completion of rehabilitative activities, but anyone who does not do this will serve their sentence in full and could face further penalties. We will also expand community payback.
Clause 3 will introduce income reduction orders, so offenders with high incomes are penalised more effectively when serving their suspended sentence in a community setting. We will make sure that crime does not pay. Alongside the changes in the Bill, we will address the root causes of crime by expanding the use of intensive supervision courts, to break the cycles that lead to ever more reoffending. These courts are inspired by their success in Texas, which has seen a 33% fall in arrests compared to those serving prison sentences. They target offenders, often highly prolific offenders, who suffer from addiction or poor mental health, and they impose tough requirements to tackle those drivers. Over three-quarters of offenders meet the conditions the courts set. And we will tag many more offenders, to ensure compliance and restrict their freedom outside prison.
What is more, all offenders released into the community will remain on licence for the duration of their sentence. This goes further than the approach the review recommended. Those at the highest risk will continue to be supervised by probation to the very end. All offenders will be expected to comply with their licence conditions and remain liable for recall to prison at any time. Any further offence, even something that would not normally attract a custodial sentence, will potentially lead to a recall. Offenders will know that any backsliding or regression could land them right back in a cell. They will obey our laws, and there will be punishments if they do not. That is why Clauses 26 to 30 will introduce a standard 56-day recall, replacing the existing 14-day and 28-day terms: these are real consequences for returning to crime and punishment that works.
More punishment in the community, more intensive supervision, more monitoring and restrictions: these will all put more pressure on our already stretched Probation Service. That is why the recent spending review announced up to £700 million extra for probation. That is a 45% uplift by the final year, the largest in history, because we are investing in what makes a difference; investing in what cuts crime and rehabilitates offenders; and investing to support the staff.
We are also making sure that our justice system operates on the principles of putting victims first, fairness and accountability. Clause 4 amends the statutory purposes of sentencing to reference protecting victims as part of public protection. The Bill will also go further than ever before to restrict offenders’ movements to protect victims. Victims of the most serious sexual or violent offenders should not have to worry about who they will run into when they go somewhere new. That is why Clause 24 allows probation to impose new restriction zones on the most serious offenders on licence. Clause 16 will allow courts to impose these new zones on offenders serving community or suspended sentence orders. They will be required to stay in a specific area, so that their victims can move freely elsewhere. The victim should have the freedom, not the perpetrator.
Clause 6 also introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing. Probation will be able to identify abusers more easily, track patterns of behaviour, and put safeguards in place. This will improve risk management and further protect victims, and it is welcomed by victims’ groups.
These principles are also why we are progressing reforms to the Sentencing Council through the Bill. The council has undertaken valuable work and helped to bring greater consistency and transparency to the sentencing process. It also plays an important constitutional role, balancing interests across Parliament, government and the judiciary in sentencing policy and practice.
We are keen to support the council with its work. Following events in recent months, we are introducing a pair of measures that aim to maintain public confidence in its guidelines. Clause 18 introduces a requirement on the council to obtain the Lord Chancellor’s approval of its annual business plan before it can be published, and Clause 19 requires it to obtain approval from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice for all sentencing guidelines. My officials will be working closely with their counterparts at the council to agree underpinning detail on the practicalities of both approval processes.
I took this role to help reform a system that I have been passionate about for most of my life. My colleagues and I have looked across the world for what works; these learnings are contained in the Bill. Brought together, these measures will bring stability and sustainability to our justice system. In that regard, there is no alternative. However, they do more than that. The Bill will make sure that we have prisons that work; a probation service that reforms offenders; and fewer victims. It will put our justice system on a footing fit for the future, one that prioritises victims, fairness and accountability and one that prioritises punishment that works. I urge noble Lords to support the Bill and the principles behind it. I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I say at the outset how sorry I was to learn of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She will be much missed around the House. She was a powerful champion for victims.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill, but I must say that it does not live up to the expectations one might have of a Sentencing Bill. It is not a plan for safer streets or a stronger justice system; it is, in essence, a plan to release offenders early because our prisons are full. The Government present this as a reform, but much is, in truth, a knee-jerk reaction to the challenge of managing prison capacity, and it is one that risks public safety.
The centrepiece of the Bill is the presumption that any sentence of 12 months or less will be suspended, so, in practice, short custodial sentences will all but disappear. Figures suggest that around 43,000 offenders will avoid prison altogether. Among them will be repeat burglars, serial shoplifters and sex offenders. This is not sentencing reform; it is surrender. How can any Government who claim to be tough on crime defend that?
The Government say this will apply only to “non-violent, non-sexual” offences, but as any practitioner knows, many assaults, domestic abuse cases and sexual offences fall at or below that 12-month threshold. Those offenders will now walk free. To allow this will be a profound failure of the state’s duty to protect its citizens—unless it has the unintended effect, of course, that courts increase nominal sentences to override the presumption. Will we in fact see an increase in the number of immediate sentences of 15 to 18 months? That would be an unintended and perhaps unfortunate consequence, but we know how human behaviour reacts.
The Bill also reduces the time to be served in custody. For most offenders, automatic release will come after just 33% of the sentence—five months of a 15-month term. The rest will be served in the community, supervised, in theory, by the hard-pressed Probation Service. It has been predicted there will in fact be an immediate 6% rise in crime. As Cicero said: to what good? That is not sentencing reform; it is a policy of early release with rising crime the consequence.
We are told that this is about rehabilitation. Are those who make up the 6% to be treated as rehabilitated? Worse, what new money is to be invested in probation, treatment or community infrastructure? There will simply be a prison system operating at 98% capacity, with Ministers desperate to empty it.
The Probation Service will bear the weight of these changes. As we know, it is already overstretched, under- staffed and struggling to manage risk. The Government’s own impact assessment concedes that an additional 580 officers will be required each year, at a cost of £30 million a year—funding that simply does not exist in the current settlement. As the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, on which I served, has demonstrated, reducing numbers in prison does not mean a saving: the running costs of prisons will remain the same. Will the Minister explain where in the ministry’s budget the money will come from? Will it be from defence legal aid fees or the budget for our crumbling courts? Can we have answers?
Clause 11 goes further still by removing from the courts key aspects of sentencing and transferring them to probation officers. They are not judges, are not judicially trained and already work beyond capacity. They will now bear responsibility for deciding how much rehabilitative activity an offender must complete. That is a big shift of responsibility. Sentencing—the determination of punishment—is, and should remain, a judicial function. It is a matter for judges applying the law in open court.
How can we have a Sentencing Bill that, in effect, removes an important plank of sentencing from the courts and the public eye? How will the public know that punishment is being imposed consistently and in proportion to the offence in question? What safeguards will prevent political or managerial pressure—I emphasise managerial pressure—from influencing those decisions? Policy will be made and put into effect behind closed doors. An important part of a sentence in a given case will not be given in public.
That is not reform; it is the start of the separation of powers being dismantled. It hands quasi-judicial authority to an exhausted service, doing so without additional resources, oversight or accountability. If the Minister believes that probation officers should exercise the functions of judges, he should say so openly to Parliament. To make such a change under the guise of efficiency is constitutionally wrong.
The Bill introduces a host of new community restrictions on offenders, including bans on entering pubs, sporting events or defined geographical areas. On paper that may sound straightforward, but how will it work? Who will be responsible for enforcement? Will it be the licensed trade, the police or venue owners themselves? Who will be told? In a big city pub, who is to know? The Bill gives no clarity, indicates no resourcing and gives no accountability framework; it simply assumes that someone, somehow, will make it happen. Probation officers, who are already overstretched and under- resourced, are expected to monitor compliance, enforce restrictions and manage breaches. The Bill provides no guidance on how that will operate. How will it work?
The Bill was not in the manifesto, which referred only to sentences that
“make sense either to victims or the wider public”.
The proposals in the Bill do neither. They will undermine public confidence in the justice system—confidence that is already eroded by early release schemes, court delays, and prison overcrowding and escapes. Every element of the Bill points in one direction: leniency driven by necessity. We suggest that that is not how to develop important policy. The prisons are indeed overcrowded, and previous Governments have failed to manage that successfully, but the public expect that those who break the law will be dealt with properly and punished, and that those who pose a threat will be detained. However, henceforth, an offender could serve one-third of a sentence, breach licence conditions, be recalled and still be re-released early.
Only yesterday, or the day before, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner sounded the alarm and wrote to the Lord Chancellor. Under Part 2 of the Bill, as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner pointed out, offenders recalled to custody will now be automatically re-released after just 56 days, with no review by the Parole Board. This will include convicted abusers after recall for contacting or stalking their victims, yet they will go back into the community with no fresh assessment of danger. This is complacency. It places victims at avoidable risk.
The Bill requires rigorous scrutiny. It blurs the line between rehabilitation and release. It hands judicial powers to the Probation Service and places public protection second to administrative convenience. We are not told how it will be funded. We are told it is modernisation. In truth, it is a risky experiment with public safety.
We on this side will carefully examine every clause in Committee. Our position is clear: sentencing exists to protect the public, to deter crime and to deliver justice to victims, and it is for judges. The Bill fails on all those counts.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I had hoped that a more favourable reception might have been accorded to the Bill by the Conservative Front Bench, given the respect that many of us have for David Gauke and the work he did on the independent review, and the respect we have for the Minister, with his practical experience in this area. I entirely share the view that there are parts of the Bill that need careful scrutiny in Committee, but it is an attempt to deal with an appalling and farcical situation of releases by an overworked and understaffed Prison and Probation Service trying to deal with overcrowded prisons. The figures demonstrate that we reached the point where we had almost 100% usage of prison cells. There was no scope, therefore, for sensible use of them.
We are in an appalling situation, which has been driven by many years of trying to talk tough on sentencing. What that involved, and I am afraid it came from both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party at different times, was asserting that it was better to spend money badly on imprisoning the wrong people for longer than to spend the money effectively on rehabilitation, to which the Minister has rightly devoted much of his life.
There are good things in the Bill, including the identification of domestic abuse by the court, which, as the Minister pointed out, would be seen only by probation staff and others who have reason to be concerned where this arises. That is very welcome. The presumption against short custodial sentences is very welcome. The direct reference to the protection of victims in “purposes of sentencing” is a welcome inclusion, particularly in the light of the death of Baroness Newlove, who campaigned so vigorously for victims. It is particularly good that it appears in this Bill.
Robust community sentences, which the Bill facilitates by providing more means by which they can be made robust, are extremely important. Unless we achieve wide acceptance by the public of robust community sentences, led by some acceptance in the media that they may be the most sensible solution for some offenders, we will not change the upward drift of the prison population. This is extremely important and I am glad that it is in the Bill.
There are things that are less welcome. Having to release prisoners not as a result of careful judgment of individual cases but because of the need to reduce the numbers, as has been happening for several years now, is something we must get away from. I am pleased to see the earned progression model in the Bill for that very reason.
Let us look at some more controversial aspects of the Bill. This is the second Bill about the Sentencing Council in this Parliament. This is a ridiculous state of affairs. We now have a Sentencing Council that is required to submit a business plan, which the Lord Chancellor may or may not approve of. Who knows what happens if the Lord Chancellor does not approve of the business plan. Does it carry on doing it, or does it just stop work altogether, produce another one and wait until it gets approval for it? There is a veto for the Lord Chancellor —the Secretary of State for Justice—on the sentencing guidelines. Where is the trust? The Sentencing Council is a body of extremely experienced people that is used to dealing independently, and without bias and prejudice, with the issues that come before it. The Government do not trust it at all, creating a series of obstacles to it doing its job properly. I am very unhappy about that.
I am not against the income reduction orders in principle. They are seen as a punitive element in the sentence. However, they involve a fair bit of bureaucracy, to which the Law Society addressed some of its comments, and they could be a disincentive to work. I am sure the Minister would agree that the last thing you want is a disincentive to prisoners working when they are released. Work, having a job and carrying out that job, is well known to be one of the main factors in ensuring that people do not reoffend.
I am doubtful about photos of offenders as a provision in the legislation. All the guidance and all the rules under which that will become possible are the subject of delegated legislation and statutory instruments. We will not know, as we pass that part of the Bill, precisely how this photo opportunity or photo system will work. That has all yet to be settled.
Then there are the things that are missing from the Bill. We are still waiting for a real reform of IPP sentences, as are 2,500 people and their families. The Bill does nothing about that, as the Minister conceded in his opening remarks, except to allow the limited arrangements operating currently to continue.
One would have liked in the Bill the certainty that prison and probation services will have adequate resources to implement the release programme. We have not got it. I hope that the Minister can make further efforts to demonstrate to us that the capacity will be there. Making a success of the reforms in this legislation depends on the Prison and Probation Service being adequate in numbers, adequate in training and adequate in the amount of time it has for the numbers of people that it is dealing with. We need more assurance on that.
Despite the pessimistic picture that I have painted of the state of some of our prisons, which is truly appalling in many cases, there are good things going on. I reference the Oswin Project associated with HMP Northumberland, which involves a café in the prison, a farm shop associated with the prison and a café in Newcastle Cathedral, all involving offenders and much supported, maintained and made possible by volunteers. There is a lot of good work going on in prisons with a lot of people who want to see good things happen so that reoffending is reduced. Any further encouragement that the Government can give to that kind of work is desirable.
Prison is expensive and, if not properly managed and resourced, it sends people out into the community who are very likely to reoffend. When we contemplate what we do with our resources, we should not be deluded by the long-held practice of seeing prison as a free good, something the state must provide in whatever quantity that it decides. We should be looking at how we spend money in the criminal justice system and at what works and what does not work.
I commend Ministers for being prepared to look at what was going on in Texas. We looked at that in the Justice Committee in the House of Commons nearly 20 years ago when they started work on it. It was quite encouraging to hear right-wing Republicans saying, “We have to back this because we are wasting the taxpayer’s dollar”. That was in the days when the Republican Party did not believe in wasting money. Things have changed a bit under President Trump. It was a realistic demonstration of how, when you start to look at what you are using your money for, you must look at whether your measures make the public safer. I commend the Government for doing that and look forward, with my noble friends, to ensuring that the Bill, where it can be improved, is improved.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring some interests. I was on the independent panel chaired by David Gauke which produced a preliminary short review in February, History and Trends in Sentencing. I shall return to that, if I may. It then produced a final report in May, many of the recommendations of which underpinned the proposals in the Bill.
I was also president of the Sentencing Council for six years while serving as Lord Chief Justice. The Bill has two clauses relating to the Sentencing Council. I broadly welcome the proposals relating to sentencing. One or two of them might be tidied up but it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I regard the clauses relating to the Sentencing Council as misconceived.
As is well known, the impetus for this sentencing legislation flows from our prisons being full. There is no prospect of capacity being expanded sufficiently to cope with the demand in the coming years. Urgent steps must be taken, or the system will fall over.
There are a number of reasons why the prison population has doubled between 1993 and today to now over 87,000 people. At the heart of them has been sentence inflation. In 1993, the average custodial sentence for indictable offences was 16 months; by June 2024, it was 22 and a half months. There have been substantial increases in the minimum terms that those subject to life sentences must serve, driven by legislative change in 2003 by Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act, which governed murder. That pulled up all sentences for violent offending, which in turn fed over into sentences more generally. The number of life sentences has substantially increased, as have sentences over 10 years, despite serious crime having fallen. The detail is in the history and trends report to which I referred.
Parliament has also repeatedly legislated to increase maximum sentences. This has all happened at a time when political and much public discourse has focused on the punitive element of sentencing while marginalising other important purposes of sentencing, which include reducing reoffending and rehabilitating offenders. With respect to my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we have heard little of that this afternoon.
The impact of sentencing of different types is studied around the world, and thus rich data are available on the impact of different sentences on reducing crime. There is compelling evidence that non-custodial sentencing—of course, with a proper punitive element—reduces reoffending when short prison sentences do not, and that lengthening sentence does not reduce reoffending.
Countries across Europe—as well as Texas, of which we have heard already—have shown that reduced sentences and less use of immediate custody reduce not only prison populations but crime. So I particularly welcome the measures in the Bill to restrict further the use of short, immediate terms of imprisonment—subject, of course, to necessary exceptions—and those to enable sentences to be deferred for 12 rather than six months, and to increase to three years rather than two the period of imprisonment that may be suspended.
It is important that both community sentences and suspended sentences should be seen to include a proper element of punishment. The expansion of the list of requirements that may be imposed as a punishment is a positive step. Perhaps the Government would immediately also consider adding a foreign travel ban to that list. These are steps in the right direction to reduce the unnecessary and, frankly, counterproductive use of custody. They do not tackle sentence inflation, which I earnestly hope but doubt that our political class will have the courage to confront collectively before too long.
The Government have broadly adopted our recommendations for rationalising release dates and introducing incentives to earn release, as well as measures to contain the explosion in the recall population in prisons. They have gone further than we recommended with removing foreign national offenders. All three should reduce the prison population. There may be room for some debate about whether foreign national offenders should be deported immediately or at least serve part of their sentence to ensure that there is a punitive element.
While some may be concerned about allowing release on licence of fixed-term prisoners who have behaved well after serving a third of their sentences, those of your Lordships with a longer memory than mine will recall that the Criminal Justice Act 1967 provided for release after a third, and it was that way for very many years.
It is clear that the changes proposed in the Bill will work only if the Probation Service can undertake the additional work required of it. That will require increased numbers and funding—to that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. But it also depends on technology, especially tagging technology. That must work, and it is necessary that any breaches are enforced. So, there will be much work to be done on delivery: work that the Minister is especially well equipped to oversee as the former chief executive of a substantial business. I wish him well in that task.
In the relatively short time left to me, I will make some observations on the clauses relating to the Sentencing Council, which echo those already made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. Clause 19 requires the Sentencing Council to seek the consent of the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice before publishing a guideline or publishing amendments to a guideline. If both do not consent, publication is blocked, the guideline will not come into force and amendments to an existing guideline will not take effect. This is no more and no less than a political veto in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. No Lord Chief Justice would want a power of veto, nor, frankly, ever exercise it. This power would enable the Lord Chancellor, and possibly a less benign Lord Chancellor than we have today, to stop some or all of the work of the Sentencing Council. That cannot be right.
Moreover, to fail to consent would be extraordinary given the careful construction of the scheme under which the Sentencing Council operates. Having undertaken deep research and wide consultation, it publishes a draft of its proposals. It calls for comments from anybody who wishes to provide them and consults further, widely. Both the Lord Chancellor and the Justice Committee of the House of Commons are statutory consultees. The Lord Chancellor has a representative who attends all meetings of the Sentencing Council to convey the governmental view. The membership of the council is carefully balanced by statute to reflect a broad range of interests. The DPP is there, and so too is a chief constable and a voice for the victims, for example.
I am puzzled that it is said that there needs to be a political override. There has never been one before in this area, and that is for very good reason. Before the Sentencing Council, there was a non-statutory body that worked as its precursor, and before that, the exclusive jurisdiction for setting guidelines for different offences rested with the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. So, to the extent that the Sentencing Council and its predecessor, a non-statutory body, which were established at the instigation and with the full consent of the judiciary, impact upon anybody’s constitutional responsibilities, they are those of the judiciary, not the Executive.
I hope noble Lords might bear with me for another 30 seconds or so. I believe that the Bill would be better without Clause 19. If something has to stay, it would be better inverted, so that the Sentencing Council may publish unless both the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice object.
What can one say about Clause 18? Perhaps the Minister can explain what it is all about. It is silent on what happens if the Lord Chancellor does not approve the business plan. This looks to be a controlling mechanism, although how it would work is opaque. The Explanatory Notes are coy on the subject—that might be the best way of putting it—and the Minister only touched on it glancingly in his opening.
I finished on a slightly sour note, but I wish to emphasise that I do not want that to distract from the fact that I support the aspects of the Sentencing Bill that deal with sentencing rather than the Sentencing Council. I apologise for overrunning.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I declare an interest as Anglican bishop to His Majesty’s prisons in England and Wales. I, too, pay tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, not least in her role as Victims’ Commissioner. I want to echo so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, have just said, which has lifted my spirits.
There is much to welcome in this Bill. For example, as has been said, we know in general that short custodial sentences do more harm than good, so I am delighted that we are now seeing some evidence-based policy-making rather than policy shaped by media headlines. We also need to clarify our long-term vision and aims. As a Christian, I believe that every human being is made in the image of God and is created to live in interdependent relationship, and broken relationship sits at the heart of all brokenness. Strong relationship sits at the heart of all that is good and transformative. I thank the Minister for his introduction, but I am dismayed that we are setting the context of this Bill as overcrowded prisons and a current crisis. Surely our long-term vision and big picture is not simply about more prisons or even decent prisons, but ultimately about strengthening communities so that people flourish in a network of healthy and safe relationships.
I am therefore hugely concerned by the piecemeal selection of David Gauke’s recommendations from his independent sentencing review and our failure to look at that big, long-term picture. For example, including victims in the statutory purpose of sentencing is welcome, but, if we want to respond well to victims and reduce the number of victims in the future, we need to pay attention to where relationship has been broken in people’s lives as well as in their offending. When sentencing, the place of trauma needs to be addressed for offender as well as victim. It is interesting that many people are both, and I wonder where that leaves us when we talk about putting victims first.
There needs to be scope to be attentive to the underlying reasons for people’s behaviour, not least in an endeavour to break the cycle of reoffending and fractured communities which is costly: physically, emotionally and financially. In wider society, there has increasingly been a push, as we have heard, for longer sentences and more punishment. The review found that
“punishment … has been given disproportionate weight and … there has been insufficient focus on reducing crime”,
and it stated that custody should be a “last resort”. The Bill does not address these criticisms. We are failing to ask what will enable a reduction in reoffending in the individual and bring transformation not only for them but for those who are impacted by their choices. We must include reduction of crime in the purpose statement, as recommended by David Gauke.
Creativity with community sentencing could be life-changing, but, sadly, even the proposed changes are set within such a punitive framework and tone. This is pandering to public opinion, not changing it. On that note, measures to name and shame people completing unpaid work as part of their community sentence need greater scrutiny. I am sure that the last thing the Government would intend is harmful consequences for thousands of children and young people whose parents are completing their sentence.
I applaud the skills and professionalism of our probation officers, and I am glad to see the rehabilitation activity requirement replaced by a probation requirement. But, to be effective, resource must continue to be increased, such that money currently wasted on inappropriate prison sentences is redirected to the recruitment, training and retention of dedicated probation staff and, indeed, prison staff. If prison sentences are going to be restorative, the recruitment, training, valuing and retention of prison and probation staff are vital.
All this is set against a backdrop of severe financial challenge. We need to spend financial resources differently, and that brings me back to the need for clarity about vision and aims, and what long-term good looks like. Although HMPPS has mission and purpose statements, I urge us to define in legislation the purpose of imprisonment. That would bring much-needed clarity to all parts of the criminal justice system and wider stakeholders, and would reduce confusion, if we are truly committed to reimagining and building an effective, well-functioning prison system.
I will seek amendments to the Bill to define in legislation the purpose of imprisonment. In recent days, we have seen yet again intense media and political attention on prisons, but we need to reduce the political heat and seek cross-party solutions. I am dismayed by much of what I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. We must shape public opinion rather than follow it. Is the Minister prepared to face down the media on matters of principle and evidence? Sadly, we saw the exact opposite of that earlier this year when we had before us the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill. There was bluster and knee-jerk reaction, and we saw the independence of the Sentencing Council put at risk, as we have heard more about today.
The Government refer to the position of the Sentencing Council as a “democratic deficit”, yet the independent sentencing review makes plain that politics has been a driver of the current misuse of prison. I am deeply disappointed that the Government have not addressed that charge and, notably, have ignored the recommendation to introduce an external advisory body to help Ministers to make sentencing policy, plan prison capacity and invest the money needed wisely. There is nothing in the Bill to give assurance that our planning and management of the overall prison population is going to be significantly better than it is now, or that we have grasped the significant changes needed, because we have failed to articulate the big aim and clarify what good would look like for victims, offenders, families and wider society in the long term.
If we had a well-functioning prison system with good headroom and capacity, low rates of violence and self-harm, and people coming out of prison less likely to offend than when they went in, this Bill might have been sufficient. Instead, it is a long way from the radical and bold thinking that is necessary to reset the appropriate use of prison.
Beyond the doors to the Chamber is a statue of Queen Victoria, positioned between the figures of Justice and Mercy—two key attributes, I believe, of God, who is in the business of reconciliation and transformation. If we allowed mercy and justice to truly dialogue, the Bill could be transformed. We need a joined-up public health approach to the criminal justice system that puts relationship front and centre. The Bill contains some good elements, but I urge the Government to listen more carefully to the Gauke sentencing review in the round, as well as to the many who call for the Minister to go further.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the non-executive chairman of Leicester law centre, and I am privileged to serve on your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
My first speech in your Lordships’ House was on sentencing. It was a pretty standard maiden speech, I am afraid, although the late Lord Longford was nice enough to say a few kind words. That was 27 years ago. Now, in November 2025, I am speaking on sentencing again.
I have to admit that although there have been many changes to sentencing policy, some good and some not so good, it is not until now that the approach that prevailed in 1998 has really changed. At long last, we now have a Bill that thoughtfully and sensibly tackles the fundamental problems of an almost broken system, one that can fairly be said to have failed. As examples, one fault is that there are just too many people in prison, women as well as men. Another is that they are there for far too long; and a third, even more depressing in some ways than the first two, is that rehabilitation is too often an aspiration rather than a reality. The results are all around us: our prisons are absolutely full, while too many ex-prisoners reoffend and find themselves straight back in jail.
The House will therefore probably not be surprised to hear that I warmly welcome the Bill, the principles behind it and the tone that it sets. I am also proud of the Government who have brought it forward. I want it to become a new chapter in our sentencing policy, one which is of our time and up to date and is not a victim of a long-standing and often phoney war between the political parties, as has already been said in the House today. How much time have we lost in the last 30 years by putting up the ante between Governments and Oppositions, as if to say, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the toughest of us all”?
The irony is that, until 30 years ago, there was not this battle to be the hard man. There were, of course, different opinions and debates, but basically, and at heart, there was an agreement and understanding that going for the lowest common denominator was not in anybody’s interests. The Bill seems to be a serious attempt to find an approach that can be supported by all people of good will and intelligence. Is that too much to ask? Of course, I accept that the Bill is not perfect. The implementation of its proposals will not come close to success unless it is given the backing, including the financial backing, that it needs. For that success to happen, the Probation Service is absolutely key, as many speakers from around the House have already said.
Probation has been to hell and back again over the last 15 years or so; experiments that Dr Frankenstein would have been proud of have been tried on it. In a way, it is a bit of a miracle that it is still with us—but it is, and its role is essential to the success or failure of the new sentencing policy as set out in the Bill. We are asking the Probation Service to play the leading role in changing people’s lives around, while satisfying the public that they are being protected. The service needs sustaining and strengthening, in numbers and in funding if more is to be maintained. My concern is that the money pledged until 2029, which is generous, will frankly not be enough if we are to make a success of the Bill and the excellent independent review that was its parent. Government must recognise this as early as possible.
Before finishing, I will mention one aspect of the Bill in a tiny bit more detail. I refer here to an amendment tabled in the other place by my honourable friend Linsey Farnsworth, the Member of Parliament for Amber Valley. She argued that as far as the earned model is concerned, there should be reward for positive behaviour by prisoners, as well as reward for behaving yourself in prison and obeying the rules and other criteria. As I understand it, the Texas model contains some reward for positive behaviour in prison, as well as merely neutral behaviour. The Minister’s reply in the other place was not discouraging, and I look forward—if an amendment is tabled on this matter—to the issue being debated and discussed here, and to what the Minister will say.
I end by emphasising once again my support for the Bill. The fact that it is here today, so soon, is a huge compliment to David Gauke and the independent inquiry that he completed so quickly, and of course to the Minister himself, who with his experience and commitment has been responsible for this legislation. I hope it is in order to say that the Minister has been a breath of fresh air in this area and has given us the chance to be proud, once again, of our sentencing system. Let us make sure that we pass this Bill and take that chance.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I will be forgiven if I concentrate more on what should be in the Bill than what is in it. For the purposes of today’s debate, I intend to focus primarily on sentences of imprisonment for public protection, or IPPs. Before I do so, I would like to make some brief remarks about other aspects that relate to sentencing, and also to the prison system.
We debated deportation orders last week, and voted on them last night. Most people in this country— but not, I think, the majority of this House—favour deportation orders, subject to two important provisos. The first is this: it is highly desirable that a foreign national sentenced to a serious period of imprisonment should be required to serve a substantial part of that sentence in the United Kingdom before deportation. The reason is that there is too great a chance that on deportation, the receiving country—unless there is an appropriate agreement in place—will simply let him walk free. That is what has happened to Mr Hadush Kebatu on his release to Ethiopia. The second proviso is this: in order to satisfy the principle of proportionality, an automatic deportation order should arise only in the event of serious offences, marked by a significant period of imprisonment. The threshold period will be a matter for debate.
My next general point relates to non-custodial sentences, of which I am a very strong supporter. However, in order to reassure the public, the non-custodial sentence must serve the public interest in a very obvious way, and must also be enforced with rigour. That means a properly financed and resourced Probation Service, among other things. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said about the Probation Service, and I welcome the fact that financing has been significantly increased.
My next point is to emphasise the importance of purposeful out-of-cell activity for prisoners in custody. I know the Minister agrees with this. There should be much more concentration on remedial education and training for employment. Far too many prisoners are spending far too long locked up in their cells, and that is quite wrong.
My next general point relates to what happens on discharge. It is essential that there is a proper package of support for discharged prisoners and, most important of all, the prospect of employment. I give credit to the Minister in respect of his pre-ministerial career in this matter. Your Lordships will have noticed that quite a lot of the recently released prisoners were simply shown the door. So far as I could see, they had no proper support, and that is quite wrong. Again, it reverts to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that we require a properly resourced and funded Probation Service.
The last of my general points, before I come to the IPPs, is on independent monitoring boards. I was the Prisons Minister under my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell many years ago. He was a most distinguished Home Secretary, as he was a most distinguished Foreign Secretary. I served under him and became very familiar with monitoring boards. When I retired from the House of Commons, I became a member of the monitoring board of our local prison. Along with the inspectorate, the monitoring boards are a vital means of scrutinising what goes on in individual establishments. I hope that the Minister will encourage boards to be as candid and as critical as the facts justify, and that he will encourage prison governors to enable the boards to fulfil the functions that I think they should.
I turn now to the IPPs, which are rightly characterised as an enduring stain on our judicial system. I am not going to repeat the relevant facts in any detail. Noble Lords will find all the detail that they require in excellent briefing notes by the Library of the House of Lords. A very helpful report was published in 2022 by the Justice Committee of the House of Commons and, most recently, a very important report was produced in June 2025 by the Howard League for Penal Reform. It is a report in which the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was intimately involved, as was my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier.
I acknowledge that there has been some progress in the action plan now in place but, alas, the progress has been too slow. On 31 December 2024, there were still 695 unreleased prisoners who had been in prison for more than their tariff and, indeed, for more than 10 years. Unsurprisingly, self-harm and suicide are much higher for this category of prisoner than for any other. As of March 2025, 94 people on IPPs had taken their own lives while in prison, and this is deplorable. One has to ask oneself what we do about this enduring crisis, bearing in mind that there is an action plan already in place. As I have said, the action plan is proceeding too slowly. That is not surprising, as many prisons do not provide the courses that are required to enable a prisoner to proceed towards release. The House of Commons committee in 2022 recommended the resentencing of individual IPP prisoners. That is a proposal that I probably did support, and I certainly would support.
However, that recommendation was refused by the previous Government and, indeed, by the present Government. I do not imagine that a change of mind is going to occur in the near future. Consequently, the Howard League has come forward with seven interlocking and mutually supporting recommendations. The most important of these is the proposal for a two-year conditional release scheme for IPP prisoners. The recommendation is that, in IPP cases,
“the Parole Board should be asked to set a date as to when the person will be released within a two-year window”,
together with what has to be done to achieve public safety. The report quite rightly sets out a range of safeguards, together with a mechanism for setting aside the release date if there is a requirement for that decision.
The recommendation for a conditional release date, together with the other recommendations in the report, seems a very sensible way forward, but I do not want to be unduly prescriptive in this debate. I suggest that early progress is essential to mitigate and, I hope, resolve an undoubted scandal. I hope that, in the context of this Bill, there will be cross-party discussions that result in serious amendments of a kind likely to commend themselves to this Government, and that thereby we can reasonably hope to see an early resolution to a very serious injustice.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, before I make my remarks, I declare two interests. I am a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Lords, which is so admirably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I am also an officeholder of the All-Party Group on Penal Affairs.
The Bill sets out important reforms to reduce the unnecessary use of custodial sentences, tackle over- crowding, reduce offending and protect victims. I welcome all that, but I want to highlight some of my concerns, which I hope we can deal with in Committee.
The Bill quite rightly bolsters suspended sentences. However, we must guard against more use of suspended sentences instead of community orders, because evidence shows that suspended sentences are imposed on those who should have received community orders. Community orders are not a soft option. With the right investment, intensive community sentences can succeed where short sentences fail. We know that community orders are flexible and allow individuals to tackle the root causes of offending by engaging with mental health, alcohol and drug treatment while retaining their work, home and community ties.
We know that the use of community sentences has more than halved in recent years. We need to encourage greater use of community orders, not less. We also know that female offenders in particular benefit from community orders. The committee on which I sit published a report, Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences, which highlighted a number of best practices in this area—which, given the time, I will not repeat. If we do not use these sentences, it will defeat the Bill’s objective by simply delaying custodial sentences.
While greater use of community orders is desirable, we also know that, as others have said, their full potential will not be maximised until the Probation Service is fully functional. The Government’s commitment to invest £700 million is welcome, but there will be a shortfall of staff and a time lag in getting staff levels and training up to speed to meet the Bill’s expectations. Furthermore, the Probation Service needs community-based voluntary organisations to be effective. When services are provided locally, various agencies can co-operate effectively. In our report, we argue:
“The colocation and co-commissioning of services are the gold standard”.
Investment in the Probation Service and community-based organisations is crucial if we are to maintain public trust in community sentences.
The earned progression model in the Bill differs from that recommended by the independent sentencing review. The Bill does not include incentives to engage in purposeful activity within the prison before release. There are, however, challenges to the implementation of an earned progression framework, particularly while someone is in prison. Issues of concern—some of them have been highlighted—are, of course, the current overcrowding, a lack of purposeful activity, unequal progression within the prison estate, an unfair adjudication system and the problem of added days. These need to be tackled; without doing so, the progression model will be ineffective in easing the prison capacity crisis and reducing offending.
The second part of the progression model will see those released entering intensive supervision and increased use of electronic monitoring or tagging. The Government have confirmed that tagging will be automatically applied to offenders at the point of release into the second part of the progression model. It is estimated that this would double the number of those tagged. Tagging can be an effective part of community supervision, but at present there is no clear strategy, clarity or guidelines on how the expansion of the use of tagging should be monitored and its impact on the Probation Service.
Disproportionate use of tagging can be counter- productive, particularly for women. Furthermore, small technical breaches that do not amount to reoffending could result in incarceration, thus defeating the objective of the Bill. Earlier this month, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee sent a letter to the Ministry of Justice on the use of electronic monitoring, to which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will refer.
To succeed, this Bill will require investment in the Probation Service, promotion of the benefits of community orders and a clear strategy on tagging. My final concern is, of course, about the Sentencing Council, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon. I will not go into it; all I will say is that, although I recognise the importance of Parliament’s role in overseeing sentencing policy, forcing accountability and monitoring its effectiveness, this measure risks the Executive curtailing the independence of the Sentencing Council. The reaction to what happened before, when we had the other Bill, was rather over the top and this particular measure is, in my view, unnecessary. We should concentrate on sentencing and supporting the Sentencing Council’s independence in any way we can.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I must add to the tributes to that great, brave and humane soul, Baroness Newlove.
It is, as we have heard, over 30 years since two political pugilists faced off from opposite Dispatch Boxes in the other place and triggered a law and order arms race from which our criminal justice system and the society it is supposed to serve have yet to recover. For decades, this excited expectations that Governments could legislate their way to headlines and re-election by diminished due process and tougher sentencing. They purported to do this even when imposing economic austerity, in the form of cuts to living standards and the justice system in particular, as well as youth, mental health and addiction services. Today, we reap the bitter harvest in both the human and the financial costs of a justice and penal system that is on its knees, in which few members of the public have faith.
By contrast, and with no disrespect to the elected Chamber, my noble friend Lord Timpson is a perfect example of the finest Government Ministers sitting in your Lordships’ House, bringing a wealth of experience, expertise and vocation for genuine reform. Not, perhaps, since the fictional progressive prison warden Henry Brubaker, played by the late Robert Redford in the 1980 Hollywood film, went inside disguised as a convict, has one man attempted such a brave reforming challenge. Of course, my noble friend comes disguised not as an inmate but as a politician. None the less, I pay tribute to him, and indeed to the much respected Conservative Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, whose sentencing review has inspired so much of the Bill before us. In particular, I commend a focus on preventing and reducing crime and diverting people away from prison so far as possible. Such aims are nothing short of a sea change from decades of crime and sentencing legislation drafted, if not quite on the back of a cigarette packet, on the back of rainforests of press releases full of punitive talk and sentence inflation.
Talk is cheap and legislation not much more expensive. The exorbitant cost comes later, in failed sentences and overstuffed prisons where rehabilitation programmes are all but impossible. The continuing cost is of reoffending and the revolving door—and I do not mean the one outside your Lordships’ House. The Bill must, of course, come with sufficient funds to implement it—adequate funds for our crumbling courts and demoralised probation, third sector and prison services—otherwise, this once-in-a-generation possibility of reversing the vicious cycle will be set up to fail.
I wholeheartedly welcome the presumption against short sentences, and the discretion to suspend short custodial sentences in the light of decades of data on reoffending. How hollow were those slogans of yesteryear about a “short, sharp shock” and how “prison works”? However, it is vital that suspended sentences translate into less custody, not fewer community orders, as we heard from the noble Baroness. Investment, training, monitoring and constant evaluation in every part of the system will be key.
By contrast, the new consent process for the Sentencing Council smacks a little more of the press release than sound policy. The will of the people on matters of sentencing is properly expressed by Parliament’s role in scrutinising and enacting sentencing legislation. The Sentencing Council exists to help the independent judiciary achieve consistency within the realm of its discretion. The Lord Chancellor of the day is, in practice, the initiator of sentencing legislation; they need not and should not be co-signing off on the Sentencing Council’s business plan and guidance documents. It is an encroachment on the independent judiciary, worthy of some of the political judge-bashing of the past. If the new process is not to be dropped, at the very least perhaps the Justice Committee rather than the Lord Chancellor should co-sign with the Lady Chief Justice. In any event, that committee is more reflective of Parliament than a senior member of the Executive is.
In the context of standard custodial sentences, the new progression model will need careful consideration. I urge my noble friends in government carefully to read the concerns of both Justice and the Howard League for Penal Reform. I know that many noble Lords are appreciative of their work in general and providing detailed written briefings on this Bill in particular. Only adequate, purposeful activity in prison can ensure progression rather than regression. There must be clear guidance on how the model should be implemented; the prison adjudication system must be reviewed as to fairness and potential discrimination, not least against disabled and otherwise vulnerable prisoners. The increase in the possibility of added days for bad behaviour must be carefully monitored and reviewed. There is a risk of some prisoners not being released until the very end of their sentence, with no subsequent probation requirements in the community.
Greater public faith and government investment in community orders is at the heart of the Bill. Care must be taken over the fairness, proportionality and unintended consequences of intensive supervision, restriction zones and electronic tagging. Offenders must be supported as well as supervised—and not set up to fail.
Clause 35 is of serious concern, with its powers to publish the names and photographs of those serving orders in the community. I am reminded of an informal meeting I had as director of Liberty with a Home Office political adviser around 20 years ago. During the encounter, the adviser’s phone rang; when they realised who the caller was, they turned very pale and left the table for a few minutes. On their return, they asked me what I thought of an idea to force those on community orders to wear striped uniforms while performing unpaid manual work in the community. “What do you think I’ll say?”, I replied. “What do you really think in terms of safety, decency, rehabilitation and public order?” The adviser nodded silently but looked very anxious. The call had come from the editor of a national newspaper, demanding the policy as a story for the next day. As journalism is currently under fire, I shall withhold the name of the editor and paper concerned. I believe that the pillory was abolished in 1837, and the stocks fell out of use in around the 1870s, so let us not revive them in time for the 2030s.
Finally, I welcome the Bill’s amendments to the Bail Act 1976; in particular, adding to courts’ considerations a defendant’s pregnancy, primary care giving or situation as a victim of domestic abuse. I urge the department to go further and build on reforms in the Mental Health Bill to abolish remand in custody of people, including children, for their own welfare or protection, even for non-custodial offences. This is surely one of the most obvious symbols and examples of our criminal justice system being used as a dumping ground for social problems and vulnerable people who would be far better cared for and protected elsewhere, and at far less financial and human cost.
Overall, I congratulate the Government on creating such an opportunity for enlightened and effective reform. Because it is in his nature, I know that my noble friend Lord Timpson will seek to collaborate across the House on ensuring that this opportunity is taken to the best of our shared ability—including, I hope, on IPPs. I wish him well in his task and look forward to playing my own small part.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, but I add that my points here are mostly my own. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s ambition to rehabilitate more prisoners so that we move away from the endless cycle of successive Governments ramping up the length of sentences so as to be seen to be tough on crime. For far too long, sentencing law has been focused exclusively on punishment, and insufficient attention has been paid to the other statutory purposes of sentencing, especially reduction in crime and rehabilitation. We all know that 80% of offending is reoffending—a really shocking statistic.
I welcome the recommendations of the sentencing review, and there are many good things in the Bill that build on that review. However, the Bill has not implemented all the recommendations, even though the review considered them to be
“a holistic package of measures that will work best in conjunction with each other”.
Many points could be made but, for the purposes of Second Reading, I will focus on what I consider to be the most important area; namely, the way in which the Bill provides for so-called earned early release at the one-third point of the sentence, and the likely consequences of that. My comments will echo points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and indeed just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
Earned release is a commendable rehabilitative concept, which originated in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. That Act provided for Parole Board release for fixed-term prisoners at the one-third point of the sentence, if they had satisfied the board that they had been sufficiently rehabilitated so as to make it safe to release them—but it was a big if. A prisoner could be released on licence, with a two-thirds reduction in time served in prison, only if they could show they had taken steps to rehabilitate. That is not this Bill.
The Bill provides that a prisoner will earn early release at the one-third point merely by behaviour that avoids additional days for breaches of the prison rules; for example, offences against discipline, threatening, abusive or violent behaviour or possessing unauthorised articles. Immediately, one sees the likely adverse consequences of that approach. First, it will lead to a concentration of vulnerable and challenging prisoners within the prison environment. Individuals who struggle with multiple and complex needs, such as mental health, neurodiversity and substance dependence, are most likely to break prison rules and get placed on report and adjudications. Over time, therefore—and we must look at the long term, since this Bill will probably remain the law for years to come—the prison population will comprise a disproportionate number of people who have not accessed early release due to this factor.
Secondly, who will award additional days and on what basis? This becomes a critical issue if early release at the one-third point is to depend on avoiding such adjudications. If it is prison officers, that could clearly be open to abuse. It could also negatively impact on staff-prisoner relationships.
Thirdly, is avoiding additional days for things such as threatening, abusive or violent behaviour so as to gain early release really “earning it” in a meaningful sense? The 1967 Act experience teaches us that release is only truly “earned” if the offender engages in meaningful purposeful activity and attends any required work, education, treatment and/or training obligation where these are available. Only then can they be said to have taken steps to rehabilitate before their release. In an ideal world, therefore, release at the one-third point should not be automatic merely by avoiding punishment. It should be properly earned—as was recommended by the sentencing review—so as to demonstrate that the prisoner is less likely to reoffend or breach licence conditions when in the community and end up being recalled to prison.
I recognise that Clause 20 is partly an emergency mechanism to alleviate current capacity pressures. To provide that release at the one-third point must depend on engagement in purposeful activity might deprive Clause 20 of its utility, since the state of capacity and staffing crisis in prisons are such that access to such activity is severely limited. However, this means that the burden of rehabilitating prisoners will fall exclusively on the Probation Service, which will already be on its knees with the upsurge in community sentences. There is a massive danger that, in trying to create more prison capacity with release at the one-third point, the measure might in fact diminish it because of the number of recalls.
This is not fanciful. Let us take the number of prisoners who were released early last Autumn under the Government’s emergency release scheme SDS40: MoJ figures published on 30 October show that, between April and June, there were more than 11,500 releases under the SDS40 scheme and over 10,000 recalls, which is 15% higher than in the same quarter in 2024 and is a record high. Although some of these recalls may have been unrelated to the scheme, the department acknowledges that the unprecedented increase was likely driven partly by the implementation of SDS40. If there has been such an increase following release at the 40% point, how much worse might it be if prisoners are released at the one-third point under this Bill? Meaningful purposeful activity in prison before release would surely have reduced the number of such recalls.
But I recognise that the Government are between a rock and a hard place on this: on the one hand, they need to release more prisoners early so as to create more capacity and, on the other, they risk putting so much pressure on the Probation Service that a large number of released prisoners will be recalled to prison, thereby defeating the whole point of Clause 20. I do not know the answer to this in the short term, which must surely depend partly on a vast injection of new probation resources, the like of which we have never seen. Even then, you cannot wave a magic wand to produce overnight significantly more trained probation officers with the experience to deal with the increased burden. Whatever the answer in the short term, it still leaves the long-term problem of how purposeful activity in prison can, at some future point when capacity issues have subsided, be made a requirement before release at the one-third point. Otherwise, prisoners will have no incentive to participate in such activity, since Clause 20 will guarantee their release at the one-third point anyway.
Something needs to be done now, since otherwise Clause 20 will continue, unless amended by a future Bill, to require release at the one-third point irrespective of whether prisoners have taken steps to rehabilitate. The burden of rehabilitating prisoners would then, for the foreseeable future, fall exclusively on the Probation Service. One suggestion, so as to build some flexibility into the system now, would be to insert an enabling power in Clause 20 for regulations to be made which, at a future point, when capacity and resources allow, would enable Clause 20 to be modified so as to incorporate a requirement for purposeful activity. This would give the department the option of modifying Clause 20 in the future without the need for a fresh Bill. It would keep the options open, which is never a bad idea where prisons and probation are concerned.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is obviously a Bill with good aims: to reduce the prison population and put more resources into probation and rehabilitation. However, the problem is that the prison population is going up in the long term because Governments keep coming up with new reasons to lock people up.
We have had a lot of briefings on this particular Bill, and a recurring theme across them is the issue of resourcing capacity within the probation and rehabilitation system. Several organisations, notably Justice, stress that without significant investment in probation services and community-based interventions, the proposed reforms risk placing unrealistic demands on an already overstretched system. The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust caution that, while the Bill may provide short-term relief to the prison estate, it will not be sufficient to address the long-term growth in the prison population, which is driven by sentence inflation and systemic pressures. For example, the Government estimate that the Sentencing Bill will reduce demand for prison places by 7,500 places by 2028. This reduction is achieved through a combination of reforms, including changes to sentencing, release points, recall processes and remand measures. Despite this, the prison population is still projected to increase by 2,000 people by 2029.
Concerns that the proposed earned progression model risk becoming a mechanism that punishes poor behaviour, rather than genuinely rewarding good conduct, are certainly valid. There is the danger that adding additional days through the prison adjudication system would result in a prisoner reaching the end of their sentence without the licence period. In addition, increasing use of fixed-term recourse to prison will not improve the situation for victims or offenders. I have heard from those working with victims of domestic abuse about their fears of offenders being re-released without any assessment at all of the risk they pose to the people they have offended against. Of course, they are being put back on the streets and could commit crimes against other people. This certainly does not improve the lives of those being recalled. Sending somebody back to prison for 56 days does not allow them access to any offending behaviour work or reduce risks but simply holds them in an overcrowded prison before they come back out, often having lost their accommodation and any progress that they made before the recall.
On the probation resources, there is broad support across organisations for the presumption against short custodial sentences of 12 months or less and for extending the courts’ powers to suspend custodial sentences of up to three years. The Justice briefing underlines the need for adequate resourcing of various services, alongside guidance and training for practitioners. The Howard League, Justice and the Prison Reform Trust stress that the implementation of these provisions must ensure a genuine reduction in the use of custody, rather than the reconfiguration of existing penalties. Refuge urges the Government to ensure that domestic abuse offenders are exempted from the presumption against short custodial sentences and that appropriate monitoring arrangements are established.
While I welcome using rehabilitation measures in the community, as opposed to in prisons, a clear theme runs through many of the briefings we have received, which is that without serious investment, the proposed reforms risk collapsing under their own weight. I would be very interested to hear the Minister reassure us on that, because we could spend endless amounts of money, but if it is not spent in the right way, it is a terrible waste.
There are many issues that I wish I could pick up. The Howard League supports amendments to the Bail Act 1976, designed to reduce unnecessary remand, particularly for pregnant women, primary care givers and the victims of domestic abuse. Justice further advocates for the removal of the courts’ powers to remand individuals for their own protection, including children remanded on welfare grounds.
Although it is not included in the Bill, the Law Society highlights the opportunity for the Government to revisit the resentencing of individuals serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, as previously recommended by the Justice Committee in 2022. As the Minister knows well, IPP prisoners have been languishing in prison for petty crimes. On IPP releases, in August, 172 were freed for the first time, while it will take an estimated decade to free 2,544 prisoners still trapped in their sentences.
I would like a commitment from the Government, if they are keen on bringing down the number of prisoners, to please not release men charged with domestic abuse and stalking who repeatedly harass women. Here are three things that the Government could do instead: abolish the draconian anti-protest laws that result in five-year prison sentences for hanging a banner over a bridge; reverse the proscription of Palestine Action, which has led to hundreds of arrests for sitting down peacefully and holding up signs; and, personally, I want the Home Office focused on keeping violent prisoners in prison and letting peaceful protesters out on the streets to try to make the world a better place.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness.
I find myself speaking in the company of very distinguished and knowledgeable noble Lords, with great judicial experience and knowledge of the sentencing system in its widest sense. I am not in that company. I would venture to say, though, that I have considerable sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve here. I have doubts about the efficacy of ever longer prison sentences, and indeed about their purpose. Listening to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, I allowed myself a measure of doubt about whether we have a clear notion of the purpose of prison. After all, prison as we understand it is a relatively modern idea; it goes back only to Jeremy Bentham. It is a sort of 200-year experiment. If the right reverend Prelate is going to give us an opportunity, in the course of the Bill, to give some consideration to what we are actually trying to achieve and whether we are succeeding, that might be of some general benefit.
However, I want to follow the speech so eloquently made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, when he spoke about IPP prisoners, a subject also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This scandal continues to fester. At its height, in 2012, there were 6,000 prisoners subject to the IPP regime. According to the latest figures supplied by the Ministry of Justice, 14 years later, that figure has now come down to 2,422 in custody, 1,476 of whom are on recall. Nearly 1,000—946—have never been released, 14 years after the sentence was abolished. Many of them, I think nearly all of them now, are beyond the tariff that they deserved and were given at the time of their original sentencing. Many of them are years, as much as a decade, beyond the tariff that they were given.
One has to acknowledge progress and good will. Undoubtedly, the Minister, but also his predecessors from a previous Government, have come to this task with great good will, a recognition of the injustice and a wish to bring it to an end, but the furthest that they have been able to go when dealing with those prisoners who are in prison is an action plan, which has not materially changed with the change of government. The last Government, as we know, made considerable progress, in the Victims and Prisoners Act, in alleviating the position of prisoners who are out on licence, but my focus is on those who are not out on licence but still in prison for one of the two reasons I have mentioned: either never released or on recall.
The action plan has certainly seen a reduction in numbers—even in the last year, numbers have been reduced—but if one focuses briefly on those who have never been released, one sees that the action plan is losing its effectiveness, because one is getting to that number of prisoners who will always be a challenge for the probation system to approve for release, many of them because of mental health difficulties acquired as a result of their experiences while serving the sentence. The challenge for the Minister is to recognise that there needs to be something over and above the action plan to help deal with those people and find some path back to giving them justice—justice being simply that one serves the sentence that arises as a result of the crime one has committed. We see very little sign of that, but the Bill offers us opportunities to do it.
We have seen ideas. The Justice Committee in the Commons, late in the last Government, had a proposal for resentencing—the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has a live Private Member’s Bill which would put that into effect. We have great hopes, I think, in the report of the Howard League more recently, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—who I am glad to see in his place and due to speak later in this debate—the essential effects of which were described by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. The question for the Minister is whether he intends, with vigour, to take up some of the ideas being offered to him; whether he will use the Bill as a means of doing so; and whether he will enter urgent talks. I cannot criticise him for failing to talk to noble Lords. He has been very good about holding cross-party round tables—in fact, his secretary is in the process of organising another one for next month—but will he sit down, as my noble friend suggested, in the course of the Bill and engage in cross-party discussions as to how the Bill can become a vehicle for addressing, in particular, those who have no hope of release, whether through the recommendations of the Howard League or some other means? That would be a huge advance.
I leave those thoughts with noble Lords. It is a huge omission that the Government have so far not included them in the Bill. The Minister began by saying that they were not included, but there are enough of us across the House to see amendments tabled, perhaps with some effect, to bring them back into the Bill. This is the opportunity in this parliamentary session to do that and, if the opportunity passes, more time will be lost and more unjustified suffering will be endured as a result of our lack of dispatch and engagement with this issue.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who makes some very important points.
I begin by joining the tributes that have been made to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who was a doughty supporter for the victims of crime and will be much missed. I pay tribute also to David Gauke for his excellent report, and also to the Minister, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, is a breath of fresh air, and certainly could never be accused of kicking the can down the road.
As my noble friend Lord Beith pointed out, we on these Benches are very supportive of much of the Bill, but we have some concerns. However, rather than addressing the many concerns that others have raised, I will concentrate on a more general concern I have that we will simply not achieve the Bill’s intended ends unless we supply the means to do so. Frankly, I am concerned that this is currently not the case.
I will illustrate this by reference to three recent reports by your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I have the great privilege to chair. In particular, all three reports have made it absolutely clear that whatever sentence is imposed on an offender should provide punishment but also measures that reduce reoffending, as a key means of keeping the public safe and reducing the prison population, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, demonstrated very well earlier.
The Bill provides measures to replace short-term prison sentences. This was called for in the committee’s report, Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences, under the then chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. After all, the reoffending rate of prisoners released from short sentences is a staggering 61.2%—and that is after it has cost over £53,000 for each prisoner, 13 times more expensive than the cost of community sentences.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, made very clear earlier, while community sentences have a much lower reoffending rate, the committee was clear that much needed to change if they are to reach their full potential of turning round the lives of offenders and supporting them to avoid reoffending.
For example, many offenders have a key problem in relation to drug, alcohol or gambling addiction, or with mental health issues, yet the current provision of support for addiction services has fallen and fewer than 2% of those with mental health issues even start treatment. So the Bill can propose an increase in non-custodial sentences, but that will not help reduce reoffending—and so reduce the number of people in prison—unless measures are in place to boost mental health and addiction support services. So I hope that the Minister when he winds up will explain how that is going to be done and funded.
As others have said, the greatest concern is in relation to the Probation Service. The Bill will require the Probation Service to manage many more issues, including a large increase in the number of community orders and a near doubling of the number of people being tagged. Yet the Probation Service is already facing significant shortfalls in staffing and so is unable to do all of what is already being asked of it. A community sentence order is rarely given without a pre-sentence report, yet, because of staff shortages, the number of such reports has fallen dramatically. How can the Bill expect a significant increase in the preparation of such reports if the service cannot even cope with the current demand?
So there is an urgent need to address staffing and retention in the Probation Service to cope with more pre-sentence reports, more supervision of those on community orders and more supervision of those who are going to be tagged. Without it, the Probation Service is being set up to fail.
The Government of course increased staff numbers by 1,000 last year and has promised a further 1,300 this year, but these numbers, even with better use of new technology, are unlikely to meet the demand, which some estimates suggest may be as many as 10,000. As he did in his opening remarks, the Minister may well point to the promised £700 million over four years, but we still have no clarity on how much of that will be spent on additional staff and their training. I hope the Minister will provide that clarity at the end of the debate, but, with much of the money likely to be spent on housing, it is therefore unlikely there will be enough to boost staffing to the level required by the Bill’s proposals.
In that respect, the Bill’s financial impact assessment is deeply worrying. It says:
“Across all the Bill measures, the impact on probation is estimated to lead to a modest increase in average annual costs of £4.5 million”.
Surely that is complete nonsense. It goes on to say that there will be additional costs for increased tagging and supervision of prisoners released early through the progression model. But these costs are not provided. Rather, the assessment says that the costs of this expansion are “being considered” by the department as part of funding allocations. What confidence can we have that the means will be provided to achieve the Bill’s aims?
Additional funding for the Probation Service is not all that is needed for the expansion of tagging, not least to reduce reoffending. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, the committee has made a number of recommendations, including the need for a new electronic monitoring strategy. Given the lamentable performance of the current private contractors, we suggested that consideration should be given to bringing the management and operation of EM services under the control of the Probation Service, or at least an increase in the number of private providers to increase competition.
Without these and other recommendations, alongside more funding and many more well-trained probation staff, there will not be a successful electronic monitoring expansion or a successful expansion of truly effective community service sentences, and the Probation Service really will be set up to fail.
The Bill also aims to reduce the size of the prison population, but many offenders will still end up in prison, where, as recent media reports show, the Prison Service is already failing. This is not surprising. As was clear from the committee’s report, Better Prisons: Less Crime, much of the blame must lie with successive Governments, which have increased the level of sentences and failed to provide the service with the staffing numbers and support it needs.
As prisoner numbers have risen, staffing levels have fallen. There are fewer prison officers now than even a year ago. We now know that 13% leave every year, half of them having spent less than a year in the service. Nor has the judiciary been given adequate support: we now have a staggering 20% of the prison population comprising people on remand awaiting trial.
A crucial way to reduce overcrowding is by reducing reoffending. As the committee report reminds us, in addition to overcrowding, prisons are often in bad and unsanitary condition, with a maintenance backlog of nearly £2 billion. They face issues such as a shortage of funds, gangs operating with impunity, drones undermining security, an alarming availability of drugs and overstretched, inexperienced and demoralised staff in a service faced with a severe recruitment and retention crisis.
It is hardly surprising that prison staff have inadequate time and resources to provide prisoners with the support they need for mental health problems and addictions, or to provide them with training and educational opportunities that can prepare them for life outside. In the absence of such support, it is not surprising that the committee pointed out that 80% of offending is reoffending. It is estimated that it costs £18 billion a year, and of course it is a major contribution to the size of the prison population.
One of the best ways to reduce the prison population is through wider prison reforms, not least to reduce reoffending. Such reforms do not feature at all in the Bill but must be implemented alongside it, and the committee report provides many details about the reforms needed. Despite a fairly positive response to those recommendations, it is not entirely clear how well they will be implemented. After all, the Government agreed with the committee’s recommendation that there should be wider access to a more diverse range of educational opportunities in prisons, but then, just a few weeks later, announced plans to cut spending on prison education by 50%.
The Bill contains some controversial but many welcome proposals. However, it will be difficult to support them unless there is evidence that the means to implement them will be in place. At present, I believe that is open to question.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I so want to be able to welcome this Bill; instead, I feel rather despondent. I ask the Minister, of whom I am something of a fan, not to take that personally.
The issue of sentencing matters—to me, to all of us here and to the public—and it has been rightly agitating the public of late. Recent debates have raged over controversial sentencing decisions. Lucy Connolly’s social media posts saw her sentenced to prison for longer than actual rioters who used violence against asylum hotels—is that the right kind of sentencing? Then there are the regular rows about whether some crimes are punished too lightly, whether mitigating circumstances are used too liberally and whether sentencing for serious offences such as sexual assault or child abuse adequately reflects those heinous crimes.
Conversely, many are concerned that some crimes are punished too heavily. Should activists be locked up for protesting? Are too many young people and women being locked up when better alternatives exist? Others worry about all the laws being pushed through Parliament that criminalise ever more activities. Over in the Crime and Policing Bill, we are seeing the creation of a plethora of new offences such as respect orders, the breach of which can lead to two years in prison. So there is plenty for us to discuss and debate in relation to sentencing.
In that spirit, I welcome the Bill’s attempt to clip the wings of the Sentencing Council. Debating sentencing is our responsibility, not a quango’s. I agree with the Justice Secretary’s point that any sentencing framework needs greater democratic oversight and that
“policy must be set by parliamentarians, who answer to the people”.
Let us be frank: the people are tearing their hair out about the mess that parliamentarians are making of sentencing and prisons as we speak. The now-weekly revelations of prisoners being freed from jail by mistake make a mockery of our deliberations here. What is the point of hours and hours pondering sentencing if, once they are sentenced, the system is going to let them go by accident? These are not harmless lags: of the 262 released by accident in the year to March 2025, 87 were convicted of violence against a person and three for sexual offences. Never mind the accidental releases—we have also witnessed the travesty of an emergency release scheme that has seen 38,000 prisoners released early for no other reason than official mismanagement of prisons.
Then there is another anomaly: too many criminals are not being caught to be sentenced, not because they are criminal masterminds but because the forces of criminal justice seem to have abandoned swathes of the country to lawlessness. We will all know friends, family members and colleagues whose stolen phones, laptops and bikes are fitted with tracker devices. When they report that to the police and say, “I know where it is, officer, and who has it”, the police shrug and do nothing. Let us not mention those many instances of mass shoplifting, which is such a scourge in so many communities yet is ignored by the authorities. These are criminals missing from our sentencing consideration because of state negligence, and the public are inevitably frustrated.
With that backdrop, it feels surreal and demoralising to be asked to have a meaningful debate about sentencing policy. But, ever hopeful, I hope that we can try to dig deeper, as this Second Reading debate has done, to consider all sides philosophically. Are ever-longer prison sentences the key to tackling crime, or is prison itself, as the Minister implied, creating more criminals than it is rehabilitating? I am worried that the Bill avoids those proper debates. Despite what the Minister said, the Bill will hem us in, because the Government’s justification for it is hooked on the problem of prison capacity and overcrowding. We are told that
“we cannot … build our way out of this crisis. Without significant reform, demand for places will outstrip supply by … early 2028”.
It is posited as a technical problem.
What is demoralising is that we are basically being told that we have no choice but to reform by reducing sentences. Regardless of what we think, or if we disagree, we are met with the retort, “It’s the overcrowding crisis, stupid”. The proposals in the Bill are all about reducing sentences—not based on principle but for technocratic ends, with a contested evidence base and without the resources, as we have heard.
One of the key proposals is to reduce by a further 10% early releases of fixed-term sentences. The public are already bewildered about why it is so routine to release prisoners after only 50% of their time inside. Then the Government’s recent emergency release scheme lopped off another 10%, which has meant that tens of thousands have been freed after serving 40% of their sentence. This Bill now suggests a further 10% reduction, to 30%. How can that do anything but make a mockery of sentencing? If someone is given a sentence of 15 years and will be out in five, what is the point of the original 15-year sentence in the first place?
Clause 1 introduces a presumption against the use of short custodial sentences of 12 months or less, so you get sentenced to a year in prison but will not go to prison. Meanwhile, suspended sentences will be expanded from two to three years. I am often on the prison reform side of such policies, and there may well be merit in bringing in either of those measures or even the leaked revelations that the majority of women prisoners should not be incarcerated. But the Government’s emphasis on freeing up space in prisons to justify such moves is likely to sideline the need to persuade the public, who might well query whether these policies will weaken deterrence or threaten public safety. Hiding behind the Damocles sword of an overcrowding crisis seems to be an evasion of political accountability and could well fuel public cynicism.
The choice of sentence has a real-world consequence. Take the case of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif, the Algerian sex offender mistakenly released from HMP Wandsworth, who was a repeat offender and visa overstayer when he was convicted in November 2024 for indecent exposure. He was then put on the sex offenders register for five years—fair enough—but his sentence was only an 18-month community order. That non-custodial sentence does not meet the threshold for automatic deportation, so when people ask why he was even in the country to offend, the answer is: sentencing choices. I have some worries that community orders and suspended sentences —forced through not based on efficacy but because we are told there is no room to lock people up—will create even more problems.
The Secretary of State, David Lammy, talks of expanding
“effective sentencing outside of prison”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/9/25; col. 1407.]
What does expanding effective sentencing outside of prison mean? It sounds as though communities are now expected to accommodate a quasi-militarised security and surveillance regime. It seems that convicts in the community can now be banned from certain pubs, attending sports and other public events, and confined to restrictive geographical zones, and, of course, there is more use of electronic monitoring. To me, that sounds more like prison than freedom. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has asked, who is going to monitor all these provisions and supervise a huge influx of prisoners into our communities? It seems delusional to rely on an already overstretched Probation Service, as we have heard so eloquently expressed by so many people, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who just summed up what the problems were.
The problem of probation gaps is one reason why we should not fool ourselves or the public by saying that using community resources and sentences as an alternative to incarceration is always humane, progressive or effective. This was the presumption of the Mental Health Bill, but as we debated that Bill earlier this year, the review of the Valdo Calocane case was published. Catastrophic errors in his medical treatment in the community led to schizophrenic Mr Calocane stabbing three innocent people to death, so we should not romanticise what punishment in the community means.
Finally, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I cannot finish this speech without noting that, when sentencing policy goes wrong, it can wreck the lives of so many people, including prisoners, and discredit criminal justice. The imprisonment for public protection—the IPP—was a sentence brought in in 2003. It was so wrong-headed and such a stain on our justice system that it was abolished, and yet here we are, 13 years after that abolition, with, as we have heard, 2,500 prisoners still languishing on a sentence that went wrong. I just finish by stating that even the Prison Officers’ Association has hit out at the Government for clinging on to this grossly unjust sentence. Napo, representing probation officers, has called on the Government to “finish the job”. I really hope that we use this Bill to finish the job when it comes to IPP. “Prison overcrowding”, you say? Surely, the state can let out some obvious candidates: that is, at least some or quite a lot of the IPP prisoners.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I am co-chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, and I very broadly welcome this Bill as a logical and rational response to the serious problems of prison overcrowding and of years, even decades, of sentence inflation. I will focus my remarks on two areas, if I may: on concerns with the Bill expressed to me by the justice unions, especially Napo—formerly the National Association of Probation Officers—and also on something seriously lacking from the Bill, which has already been pointed out, namely a viable way to wipe away the vile stain of IPP sentences.
I echo the concerns raised in the other place on probation capacity, unpaid work and electronic monitoring, following warnings by Napo, which led to three amendments tabled, as the Minister knows, at Committee and Report stages. The first of these gave the chief inspector the power to delay any aspect of the Bill that places extra pressure on probation until the service is indeed ready. The second stopped the private sector profiting from the expansion of unpaid work orders or community sentences, which are only run by the Probation Service, charities, local authorities or other non-profit organisations. The third aimed to bring tagging operations into the public sector Probation Service and out of the hands of the failing and corrupt privateers, such as Serco and G4S. On this point, I note last week’s letter to Ministers from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee warning that probation is being “set up to fail” with electronic monitoring. It also called for an independent review on tagging
“with a view to operating parallel contracts managed by a fully funded and supported Probation Service”—
something staff would very much agree with; I have no doubt about that.
I raise these points today because, unfortunately, none of the concerns was addressed during the debates in the other place, nor has the promised union meeting with Commons Ministers materialised. That is what I believe. I hope that, by my putting all this on record, the Minister will appreciate the depth of feeling among front-line staff on these issues and seek to reassure them appropriately.
Turning to IPP sentences, I have listened to the previous contributions, including from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He talked about “progress, but”—and it is a big but—and he gave a tremendous overview of IPP and its potential way forward. As always on this subject, the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, were outstanding, and I thank them on behalf of prisoners and their relatives.
Your Lordships will know that I am currently sponsoring a Private Member’s Bill, as has been mentioned, to resentence everyone still serving these torture sentences. IPP resentencing was debated when this Bill passed through the Commons with different amendments proposed by—wait for it—the Liberal Democrats and the chair of the Justice Select Committee. Although the power of the Whip meant that these initiatives were unsuccessful, it is important to continue to use this Bill to highlight the plight of IPP prisoners, both to pressure the Government and to continue to raise public awareness.
That is why I intend to table my own amendment on IPP resentencing, based on the text of my Bill and incorporating the helpful amendments proposed by Members of the Committee on my Bill. These include the secure-hospital backstop proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, so that anyone whom the resentencing court considered too mentally ill to be released into the community yet could be moved to a secure hospital to receive badly needed therapeutic resources. I wish to table this new amendment, because I want the Government to put their objections to it on the record, for them to be judged fully and fairly in the future by action on IPP—not just warm words and slow actions, which, unfortunately, is still the case at the moment.
It genuinely pains me to say this, but I am starting to lose a little bit of faith that Parliament will fix this appalling injustice that Parliament itself created well over 20 years ago. That does not mean we should give up fighting—no, not at all. We must fight harder, for fairness and, indeed, for justice. But until we see an ITV docudrama made about this scandal, like “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, or until MPs’ mailboxes are full of messages from constituents, our best hope lies with the courts and with them showing the justice and mercy that successive Governments have failed to. That is why it so important for the Minister to explain the Government’s position fully and fairly on why they will not support resentencing with a secure-hospital backstop.
As perverse as it might sound, the more stubborn and unreasonable the Government sound, the more likely it is that the judiciary will side with those of us who are desperate to end this injustice. Indeed, so will the United Nations, which is currently considering a complaint brought by IPP campaigners against our own Government. It is shameful. People imprisoned for public protection and their families know that there are a growing number of us in this House and in the other place that will not give up until this stain is wiped clean. Noble Lords had better believe that.
In finishing, I repeat what my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said: I give compliments to our Minister, who deserves praise where praise is due. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to a further debate on these issues as the Bill progresses and to our next IPP update on 10 December.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, in this Second Reading debate, I will open by speaking about women who cannot speak for themselves and highlight what I think are two significant omissions. First, may I associate myself with the comments on IPP sentences made by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, whom I have the pleasure to follow, and others. I had never heard of these until I held my first MP surgery and I was visited by a prisoner’s mother. She told me the whole sorry story. I was totally shocked, and I never understood why the last Government, which I served in as a junior Minister, did not fix this. It is a matter of deep regret to me, and I wish we had done something about it while we had the chance.
I pay tribute to the campaigners and families I had the privilege of working alongside while I served as Safeguarding Minister. Poppy Devey Waterhouse was just 24 when she was stabbed more than 100 times by her ex-boyfriend in her own home. Her killer, who had subjected her to coercive and controlling behaviour, received a minimum term of 16 years. Joanna Simpson was bludgeoned to death by her estranged husband in front of their children. He received 13 years. These are not isolated tragedies. They are the visible tip of a system that still treats domestic homicide as less grave than other murders.
The families of these women, particularly Carole Gould and Julie Devey, who lead the Killed Women campaign, have fought for years to expose this injustice. I thank them for briefing me ahead of this debate. Their campaign has attracted support from across the House and the other place and has revealed how many domestic murders involve what forensic experts call overkill —multiple stab wounds, strangulation, bludgeoning, and coercive control. Yet those killings, which are often triggered when the victim tries to end a relationship, attract lower starting points than murders of strangers in the street. For a man who takes a knife out of his house intending to use it in public and commits murder, the penalty starts at 25 years. However, if that same knife is already in his kitchen drawer and he uses it to kill his partner after years of coercive control, the starting point is still just 15 years.
The Killed Women campaign asks that murders following a history of coercive or controlling abuse attract the same 25-year starting point as other aggravated murders and that the justice system collects and publishes data on domestic homicides to track patterns and ensure consistency. We began to look at this issue in the Wade review under the last Government. I understand how many factors are at play in the sentencing framework, as we have heard from many learned Members of your Lordships’ House, but this Bill is precisely the place to act. It is disappointing that the Government have not used the vehicle in front of us now.
While in opposition, I was often opposed by the now Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips. She argued passionately and repeatedly for reforms to toughen sentences for domestic homicide and to close the gap between murders committed in the home and those committed with a knife on the street. She called these measures essential to delivering justice for victims of domestic homicide. Now that she sits in government, she and her ministerial colleagues are noticeable by their silence on this issue. The Killed Women campaign said last December that they were told that the Law Commission review would take at least three years to complete, delayed by a lack of resources. Realistically, we will not see significant change until the next decade— so much for the current Government’s pledge to halve violence against women and girls. I hope that the Government reconsider their approach to this and come back to this in Committee.
The second omission in the Bill is the absence of explicit recognition of the, in my view, egregiously named honour-based abuse in our sentencing regime. To take one example, 20 year-old Somaiya Begum was murdered by her uncle in Bradford. The judge said that it was impossible to identify a motive, even though she had been under a forced marriage protection order. Without honour recognised in law, the very reason for her death was absent from the courtroom. There are many such cases. We usually prefix “honour-based abuse” with “so-called” because there is nothing honourable about such abuse. It is often family-orchestrated, community-endorsed and underpinned by the appalling logic that a woman who asserts her independence has brought shame on her family, shame that must be cleansed through violence.
According to Karma Nirvana, which runs the national helpline, around 80% to 85% of callers identify with a south Asian heritage—Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi —and around 90% are from Muslim, Sikh or Hindu backgrounds combined. Victims also include white British, eastern European, Christian and Traveller women, but data is very scant and patchy. We know that this form of abuse is found wherever patriarchal or collectivist values override individual rights. These are values which are alien to the freedoms that we hold dear in Britain. However, we must not shy away from these facts for fear of offending people. In the context of grooming gangs, we saw how the denial of cultural and communal drivers allowed abuse to persist for years in plain sight. An estimated 12 women a year are murdered in the UK to defend so-called honour, but these cases are too often hidden in wider domestic homicide statistics. I had the privilege of being the Minister who took the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 through the other place, outlawing forced child marriage. I know that we can legislate when the will exists.
Back in 2024, Labour shadow Ministers proposed new clauses to make honour-based violence an explicit aggravating factor in sentencing for murder, ensuring that courts recognise its motive and the community pressures behind it. Again, Jess Phillips described it as essential to delivering justice and, again, the Government have not acted. Furthermore, the promised violence against women and girls strategy, due in summer or autumn—we are now in November—has still not been published. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner said in September that halving violence against women and girls within a decade was an ambitious and laudable target, yet this strategy is still delayed. No major funding has been announced for specialist domestic abuse services—and I fail to see where the momentum within government is coming from.
I finish by asking the Government: when will they fulfil their commitment to ensuring that honour-based abuse is an aggravated factor in sentencing—if not in this Bill, when? When will they fulfil their commitment to levelling up domestic homicide sentencing—if not in this Bill, when? When will they finally publish the long-promised violence against women and girls strategy, which is not directly in the Sentencing Bill but must include many elements connected to sentencing policy? These reforms are overdue. The women whose names I have mentioned this evening deserve not just to be remembered but to have the law changed.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as the founder and vice-president of Catch22, the largest community preventive agency for those young potential offenders. Before that, I was the chairman and founder of Crime Concern, which I served for 21 years before creating Catch22. As the Minister knows, because he came to see it, I founded My Brother’s Keeper, working in 14 prisons across the UK in the last year, especially HMP Isis, where for the last two and a half years our team has seen a 30% reduction in violence in what was one of the most despairing prisons but is now one of the most positive. I have spent 37 years visiting prisons and intensely over the last 11 years have encountered hundreds of men who have told me their very personal and very deep and serious stories. I do not see in the Bill—yet—any substantial vision of what reform should look like or the value of sentencing to change our culture of fear about crime.
I pay tribute to the Minister for his very engaging efforts with so many of us about issues of concern that we feel very deeply. He is open, he is effective, he communicates with us well and we all realise that he is doing a really good job against what seems to be a lack of government vision on the subject. What we see from his second boss, his new boss, is a lot of excuse-making about what is not working and from his previous boss a crowing enthusiasm for 130,000 prison places. Does the Minister still believe that we need 130,000 prison places and are we proud of that fact? Surely we should be ashamed of wanting to grow our prison estate—unless we are replacing antiquated rat-filled prisons. Why do we want to become the most incarcerating state in the world after the United States? That cannot be a good outcome.
I raise this because after all the hype that the last Government gave us—a royal commission on criminal justice, promised in 2019 in the Conservative manifesto, declared in the Queen's Speech in 2019, repeated six times in Oral Questions in this House but never done—here we are, all these years on, with no royal commission and in this Bill a migraine-making management roll of measures. It is “Add, add, add, add, change, change, change, change, but don’t substantially transform”. Of course it is better to have more effective, shorter sentences and a more brilliant, engaged probation service. No one disputes that this will improve things. However, the real problem, identified by so many already in this debate, is the pressure on repeat offending. That pressure on repeat offending, besides IPP, which I shall come back to, is that we are churning people back into a system where change has not substantially happened.
The Minister rightly cited, and let us be grateful for it, mechanisms in Texas for which we can see good outcomes—let us copy the best of all those mechanisms. But I went, as the Minister knows, to Medellín in Colombia last year, to Pablo Escobar’s former prison, and to many other prisons in Colombia. I saw a major difference between government prisons, with a repeat offending rate at around 70%—slightly higher than our own—and prisons run by the Prison Fellowship network, in Colombia and Brazil, and in Nigeria, where I visited them as well, with a repeat offending rate of 17%.
If charities and organisations recognise that dignity changes people’s outcomes, and that when people are reformed they do not come back, we must ask: why are we building more prison places to keep people in, rather than investing in better second chances processes, as well as relationships, that will lead to an effective culture of reform, rehabilitation and positive, affirmed relationships, and set people free to become citizens again in a positive culture of renewal?
Here I identify so closely with the speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester in which she recognised that relationships are what is needed to fulfil that transformation. My own experience in 37 years of prison visiting, and the last intense 10 years of weekly prison engagement, is that I have seen fantastic individuals who were the worst of people completely changed into some of the best of friends, and it is possible, deliverable and cheap to do.
Confidence building does not require millions and billions of pounds, but it does require us and the Government to stop panicking the public constantly about those who come out of prison. Regular prison releases have always been a weekly experience, but when the Government set about releasing larger numbers, it was as though this had never been done before and we were led to believe that this was a crisis measure. Yes, in some ways it was a crisis measure, but what about suggesting that actually we do not need to panic the public severely and we need to build a better process of renewal and reform?
I want to touch on some other areas. Recalls are back and probation, which, as the Bill sets out, is being expanded. We are grateful for that: more money for probation, better training, et cetera. But, as the Minister knows, it is so easy—too easy—for probation officers to press the panic button when they are not coping well, and when they do not feel they are getting compliance from a former offender, and to send them back to court.
Take Jordan—I will not reveal his full name—who finally found out yesterday that, 63 days after being recalled to a prison in Oxford on completely ridiculous, non-verifiable information, having been a category D prisoner and done 16 years of effective change, he will finally be out on Friday, having been banged back up by a probation officer’s bad misjudgment, which was recognised nine weeks later. People such as that are driven back constantly because a probation officer panics, fears and does not engage relationally with the individual.
Overreach is not dealt with in the Bill. I want to urge the Minister to not just consider how to get more probation officers or how to train probation officers, but how to prevent probation officers being the ones who have the absolute control. Many Members have already mentioned that there is a real need for recall to prison to be up to the courts. It should not be up to individuals who, under high stress, see too many back inside.
Remand is an area that is driving our prisons absolutely round the twist. I understand from information that was on Radio 4 yesterday that 40% of the youth estate is entirely based on remand. We used to have the principle in the United Kingdom that we believed that you were innocent until proven guilty. We now have multitudes of young men, largely, who are guilty and possibly may never be seen as innocent—hard trials taking years to arise.
I want to talk next about the possibility mentioned in the Bill of the shaming by photograph and name identification of people on community sentences. That can never be right. Any one of us who has worked with people who have had a community sentence, who are working through it to change and improve their lives and who are doing their duty fairly, know that to shame them in public is to destroy their relationships and community place, to see them at high risk and to put their children at severe risk. That is just bad politics and needs to be taken out of the Bill.
Lastly, on IPP, where so much has been said, we all believe that the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, in an amendment, should be fully supported. We should see a resentencing exercise. It is the worst gross injustice, yes, by the last Labour Government, but not corrected properly by the last Conservative Government, that has now been left as literally a big black hole of fearsome and painful places for individuals. We need a Nightingale courts process. If we could do it for the postmasters, who rightly deserve fairness and justice, let us do it for IPP—the people who are still on the sentence and still in prison.
Based on the calculations given by the Ministry of Justice, it will take eight more years to see everyone out who should be out. That is way beyond this Government’s term. Please, Minister, let us settle it, resolve it, bring it to an end and keep the public safe by admitting, honestly, that not everybody who has been to prison is an awful person—some are great.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I want to start on the Sentencing Council and I want to say how sad and unfortunate it is that we have lost the Lord Justice Sir William Davis, who sadly died on 7 June. I believe that William Davis was a very fine public servant and, if anybody wants to assess what might be thought about him and his legacy, they should read his five-page letter of 27 March, written to the Lord Chancellor, which sets out the Sentencing Council’s position in relation to the demands which were at that time being made by the Lord Chancellor. It is not any part of my intention to go into the details of that disagreement; I will simply say both how sad it is and what an unfortunate loss it is that Sir William is no longer with us.
In talking about the Sentencing Council, I must say that I admire both the council and the scheme that was set up in the Act of 2009, and the work which has been done subsequent to the setting up of that scheme. I think the Council has done a fine job in its 15-year history. I will not go into my reasons for saying that, because your Lordships need only to read the speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, in order to have a full description of why. But I will go on to say that, in the opening speeches, the Minister seemed to be making some sort of move from what I have identified as a sort of panic stations response of the Government to the circumstances that have taken place since last March. I hope I am right, and I will read what he said very carefully and, of course, what he says in his response to the debate.
But I have to say, with some trepidation, that it is difficult for a Back-Bench member of the Conservative Party, who has been a speaking member of the Conservative Party for 75 years, to make a speech when my noble friend on the Front Bench has said nothing whatever about Clauses 18 and 19.
They are the two clauses that have been slipped into the Bill, as the Civil Service can advise Ministers to do, to warn us about what it may intend to do about the status of the Sentencing Council, which is a statutory non-departmental public body. The rest of what I will say is some interpretation of what that intention might be. It might be best if I go straight to the two questions that I was going to ask the Minister and then go back and explain why I am asking them.
My first question is: what is the democratic deficit that Clause 19 seeks to correct, and how has it come about? The second question is: how and when is Clause 19 intended to be implemented while keeping the confidence of the judiciary and the public intact?
I was subject to the National Heritage Act 1983, when a considerable number of non-departmental public bodies were put in place. I became the chairman of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew when it was turned into a non-departmental public body. Any interpretation of the Government’s position that implies that Parliament delegating some authority to a non-departmental body creates a democratic deficit is a very serious accusation. I believe that that, as this Government have said, raises a constitutional issue. I do not think there is any precedent for a non-departmental public body having its purpose reversed, and that is in effect what would happen if the council no longer issued definitive guidance and that guidance was instead, in effect, issued by Ministers.
That seems to me to be a constitutional issue. If there is no precedent, it is very serious. I very much hope that the Constitution Committee of this House, for example, has a look at the implications. That is probably enough about what may indeed be a constitutional issue.
There is a challenge to the council, which has not in fact been criticised for any form of democratic deficit. It has had, as I have seen it, the confidence of the judiciary, and that is very important. It has been responsible for providing information and trying to interpret that information as an assistance to the people who pass sentences. I have no comment to make on sentences as such; I simply say that that is what the council has done—it has provided information.
If noble Lords were to read the letter of 27 March, they would see that Sir William’s argument is: we have never interfered with policy, and it is no part of our purpose to interfere in policy; we are here to provide information as a form of guidance. Of course, nobody has to obey our guidance. It is guidance; it is not in any way enforceable. That is a very important point.
In conclusion, I am puzzled. I do not understand why the Government are taking this position in relation to the Sentencing Council. The Sentencing Council is a fine body and has done a very good job to date, and there is no reason to suppose that it cannot continue. If it is no longer to be responsible and accountable for issuing definitive guidance, I regret to say that that amounts to a death sentence.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may first pay tribute to Baroness Newlove. She brought to the office of Victims’ Commissioner an enormous energy, and she will be greatly missed.
Secondly, I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, in declaring my interest as a president of the Sentencing Council. I also declare my interest in having been appointed by the Government of Wales to chair a Commission on Justice in Wales for the people of Wales. I have also contributed to one or two bits of work, as has already been said this evening, in relation to the issues in the Bill.
I welcome the Bill, but we must see it in its context. We really need a reappraisal of our whole sentencing system, as so many people have said, but we cannot get there in one step. So, the Bill should be seen as a step. We need to look at why we are now imposing sentences that are vastly greater than those handed down by the tough old judges I remember 30 years ago. They were thought to be very tough, but these days they would be plastered over the popular newspapers as softies. Why have we done this? That is a question we should ask ourselves. But, more importantly, we should ask ourselves about the consequences, which are that there are not the resources in the prisons to do what they should be doing, and nor are there in the Probation Service, which will now have a great deal more to do. We must see this in context. I welcome it. I pay tribute to the Minister for bringing it forward, and to David Gauke for the tremendous amount of work he has done.
There is much to be welcomed. The provisions in respect of deferred and suspended sentences will enable the Sentencing Council, which I hope will be given its independence to continue, and the judiciary, to develop deferred sentencing and get suspended sentences right. I also welcome the reality of trying to make the public understand that community orders are a punishment. If we do not get that right, there is a real risk that judges and magistrates will suspend sentences of under 12 months. Of course, a suspended sentence increases the risk of incarceration if subsequent offences are committed. This is a very important consideration, which experience has shown we must not overlook.
Having said that, there are one or two observations I will make in more general terms, judged by two principles. The first is that sentencing is part of a system of justice, and we must show that the Bill is a just Bill. Secondly, I want to address the question of practicality and resources.
The first question that relates to the justice of the Bill obviously relates to IPPs. I pay tribute to the Minister for what he has done to try to invigorate the action plan. But the action plan will not achieve justice and remedy an injustice in a period that is just.
There are four short points, in the light of everything that has been said, that I would like to make. First, this sentence has been accepted to be wrong in principle. How can we, as a nation, continue to punish people under a sentence that is wrong in principle? There is no justification for that.
Secondly, there is a misunderstanding about this sentence. People who write about it now simply do not understand what it did and how it worked. It was not a sentence that punished serious violent or serious sexual offending. If we look back at the tariffs that were given, we find that they are of the order, in some cases, of 16 or 18 months. It is absurd to say that these are serious offences—look at the tariff. It is also a misunderstanding of the circumstances in which it came to be imposed.
Thirdly, it is now required that those who are subject to a punishment that we accept is wrong are effectively required to prove that they are not dangerous, but people who committed exactly the same offences before 2005 or who were sentenced after 2012 do not have to prove that. How can that be just? It fails on that score.
Finally, there is the responsibility of the department in continuing this sentence in a means that has made those who languish in prison without knowing when they are to be released more dangerous. That is the responsibility of the Government, and they should acknowledge that. I look forward to and hope we will see cross-party dialogue on this matter, because we must find a solution.
There are three other short points I wish briefly to make on the question of justice. First, the system of earned progression and the way in which punishments are to be added to must be subject to detailed study and detailed dissemination before we pass the Bill. It must be just and be seen to be just. Secondly, it is important that we think again about deporting offenders without them being punished. We do not want this to become a nation where people can shoplift for nothing or, worse still, commit serious crimes and return—courtesy of taxpayer-funded travel, of course—without any consequence.
Thirdly, so much has been said about the Sentencing Council. I do not wish to add anything to that. I was present when it was all negotiated. It was a carefully constructed balance of the power of Parliament, the power of Ministers, and the duties and responsibilities of judges. Getting the constitutional balance right was achieved. We should not upset it because of an unfortunate incident about which least said, soonest mended. Let us just give this up. Those are the points I wanted to make about judging this Bill by reference to justice.
I shall make three other quick points relating to the other principle: does it produce and reflect the realities? First, it seems that we must look at IPPs through the reality of resources. They are taking up room in prison, and probation officer time. We need to adjust and look at the costs of that quite separately from the priceless attributes of justice. Secondly, we must be sure that there is adequate funding for what is to be done. That point has been very strongly made, and there is no point in me repeating it.
Thirdly, I shall say something about Wales. I fear, at times, that we are back in the 19th century and the famous entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica about Wales: “See England”. However, Wales is different, in the form of the way all other home affairs, other than, for example, probation and other aspects of justice, are dealt with. There is a different system. It was the position of the previous Government, and it now appears to be the position of this Government, that they cannot give consideration to what the commission I chaired recommended, which the Welsh Government were happy with, in respect of probation—there were a whole lot of others, but I want to concentrate on probation. Why can they not devolve probation? I want to raise this issue. It seems an important one, and I would like to know why the Government will not give Wales the benefit of what England has. I welcome the Bill, but there are things we must do to put it right.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, I echo the tributes made to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. Our thoughts are with her family today.
This Bill is important. The UK has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in Europe and one of the highest rates of reoffending. People in our prisons are not typical of people in Britain. They are more likely to have grown up in a family facing financial hardship, more likely to have poor literacy and numeracy skills, and more likely not to have a job. They are more likely to have been homeless or in unstable housing, more likely to have suffered from a mental health issue, more likely to have had a drug or alcohol addiction problem, and more likely to have suffered childhood abuse or trauma. These are the differences before they enter prison.
There are some amazing people and some amazing organisations, some of which have already been mentioned, working to help people address some of these situational factors that increase the likelihood of people offending again. Programmes such as StandOut, Clean Slate Solutions and Recruitment Junction all help transform people’s lives and stand as examples of what can be done. These programmes, although significant for the lives they have turned around, are still the exception rather than the norm.
David Gauke’s review into sentencing rightly made three points that I particularly want to draw out. First, focusing on rehabilitation and moving to greater use of community sentences could, in some instances, be a way of reducing reoffending. There is significant evidence, as has been mentioned, that short custodial sentences in particular often do more to increase the chances of reoffending, for all the obvious reasons, such as cutting people off from social ties, exposing them to more serious offenders and placing a stigma around them. Secondly, efficiency matters, and we should prioritise focusing expensive prison places on those most serious offenders who pose the greatest risk to public safety. Thirdly, importantly, he points out:
“The overwhelming consensus from the evidence the Review has gathered is that rehabilitative support in the community is, in many cases, the most effective way to reduce reoffending. This relates to the services offenders are required to engage with when serving a sentence in the community or released into the community on licence, following a custodial sentence”.
In theory, the Bill seeks to address these points. I am concerned, though, that good intentions are not enough. The Bill’s provisions and the government policies that sit alongside them need to go further in establishing the adequacy of supervision, providing accountability and, crucially, as has been mentioned numerous times, guaranteeing resourcing if they are to make any real difference to reoffending and not simply make the problem worse.
I would be grateful if the Minister could specifically address the following points, which pick up on these themes that have been raised many times now. First, the Bill relies heavily on electronic monitoring working, yet this is an area that historically has been rife with problems. What guarantees can he make that there will be a step change in monitoring to ensure its adequacy? Will he consider what further provisions can be set out in the Bill to address this point?
Secondly, Clinks estimates that there are close to 2,000 community and voluntary organisations operating in the criminal justice sector. Scaling the capacity of these organisations will be crucial to delivering the reduction in reoffending the Bill seeks to address, yet the Bill says nothing about them. Will the Minister consider introducing a suite of policies to sit alongside the Bill to ensure that voluntary and community organisations engaged in the delivery of community rehabilitation services are adequately supported and resourced to perform their functions under it? This could include policies such as: a move away from short-term contracting towards multiyear unrestricted grant funding; as has been mentioned earlier; a rebalancing away from national commissioning to regional commissioning; and greater use of co-commissioning, where funds can be pooled between departments. Will he also consider what measures could be included in the Bill to hold the Government accountable for the adequacy of resourcing to the sector?
Thirdly, on assessment and accountability, sentences are an area that would benefit from a more evidence-based approach, as has been discussed. It is vital that resources are focused on measures that are most effective at reducing reoffending. Will the Minister consider what more can be done, either within the Bill or alongside it, to ensure that robust assessment is made of the effect of different combinations of requirements on reducing reoffending? Will he commit that this assessment and any associated reporting mechanism will then have an impact on how future resources in the system are allocated?
Lastly, on resourcing, the Bill is intended in part to reduce reoffending. To do so, it will need to dramatically transform the level of support that offenders are given to turn their lives around, tackling entrenched and multifaceted practical challenges, from addiction to poor literacy. As the Institute for Government notes, the Bill shifts the weight of responsibility for much more of this into the community. The Minister has committed that, alongside the Bill, £700 million will be deployed into the Probation Service over the spending review period, yet no detailed breakdown of how the £700 million will be spent has been published. What reassurances can he give that that amount will be adequate? Will he commit to publishing a breakdown of how the money will be spent?
To reiterate, the objectives of the Bill as they relate to reducing reoffending are welcome, but neither its specific provisions nor the policy and commitments that sit alongside it go far enough in explaining or guaranteeing how this greater focus on transformation in the community will happen. I urge the Government to consider how they can strengthen the Bill and associated policies to ensure that there is proper accountability, reporting and adequate resourcing to prevent the measures contained in it making a difficult situation worse.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to Baroness Newlove. I had the privilege of working alongside her when I was the Children’s Commissioner and she was the Victims’ Commissioner. It is a hugely sad loss, and she was a fantastic advocate. My thoughts are with her family.
I welcome and support the Bill, and I thank my noble friend for his leadership in bringing it to us. However, the changes it is making are designed for the adult system; as it stands, children and young people are excluded from these positive changes and will potentially have to spend longer in custody, with poorer results. That is what often seems to happen, and it is an example of the way that the rights of children in custody can often appear to be sidelined in a way that is less likely in the adult secure estate. While not included in the Bill, reform of the youth justice system is urgent for both the young people involved and wider society. My remarks today are about the changes that are not included but are needed.
The starting point is that there have been huge gains in the state of youth justice in this country over recent years. We should be pleased that the number of children in custody has been falling for many years; there are now—although it is of course still too many—fewer than 500 young people in custody. So let us do all that we can to make those numbers continue to come down, and to make sure that children in custody are supported to leave with options and opportunities and do not end up reoffending.
While there are now fewer children in the secure estate than there were, those who receive a custodial sentence are almost always in prison for very serious crimes of violence or harm. We need to look at why they got there, how it came about, what went wrong and whether we could have prevented it—and the answer is almost always yes, we could. When I have met young people in the secure estate, many have told me about the missed opportunities that could have diverted them from becoming involved in crime or serious violence. They talk about the experiences that made them particularly vulnerable to exploitation and put them at a higher risk of harm, and many have similar stories to tell. Over three-quarters of children in youth custody were persistently or severely absent from school, and more than half of those were out of education at least one academic year before moving into the secure estate; one-quarter of children in youth custody had been permanently excluded while at school; and over one-third of all children in custody grew up in the 10 poorest areas of the country. The signs and alarm bells are all there.
Neurodivergent children excluded from mainstream school are disproportionately likely to be in custodial settings. Looked-after children have long been overrepresented in the youth justice system, with more than half of looked-after children born in 1994 receiving a criminal conviction by the age of 24, compared to just 13% for those who had not been in care—that is 52%, a number that we should really take note of. Often, those young people are not getting the advice, support or conditions that can support them to thrive and to rehabilitate. The Covid pandemic revealed a system that is frequently not child centred, with children spending very little time out of their cells and having in-person visits stopped, and children in custody not included on the vulnerable list to be eligible for face-to-face education.
When I was Children’s Commissioner, I saw how the justice system so often focuses on adults, with young people seeming to be bolted on as an afterthought. I found that, at every stage of a child’s journey through the criminal justice system, opportunities were missed to get to the root causes of offending and to put children’s best interests at the heart of the response. We need to improve that significantly, and we should be ambitious and impatient for that reform.
There is much to do on reducing the numbers of children on remand. Nearly half of children held in custody are on remand, a figure that has doubled over the last 10 years, yet almost two-thirds of them do not subsequently go on to receive a custodial sentence. Urgent reform is also needed to the YOI system to rehabilitate, educate and reintegrate. One in three go on to reoffend, with reoffenders committing four further offences on average—the highest rate in 10 years—and the costs to the taxpayer and new victims of crime are of course high. I know that my noble friend, Minister MacAlister at the DfE and Minister Richards at the MoJ want to do everything they can to drive down these numbers, and I will support them however I can.
I hope the fact that young people are not included in the Bill means there will be other opportunities to push forward on the reforms that are urgently needed in the youth justice system across prevention, remand and rehabilitation. Otherwise, there is a risk that children will be placed at an even greater disadvantage. There are parts of the Bill that could provide springboards for reforming the youth justice system if applied. For example, the new progression measures allowing people to be released after serving one-third of their sentence if they refrain from poor behaviour should be applied. There is no reason why a child should serve more of the same sentence than an adult.
Any future measures for the youth justice system should focus on rebalancing resources from crisis to intervention; a clear plan to tackle the cumulative impact of racial inequalities—the problems set out so succinctly by the current Lord Chancellor in the Lammy review still exist and still demand action; a comprehensive, long-term strategy for keeping children safe and ensuring that custody is a last resort and that, when children are in the secure estate, their rights and dignity are not forgotten; and a greater focus on preventing reoffending through boosting skills and education in the secure estate. We cannot expect young people who have committed serious crimes to slot back into society without supporting them to succeed and tackling the root causes of their actions. After all, we are a country that believes in holding people to account for their actions while providing most with a second chance and the possibility to thrive and to be active citizens who contribute to society again. Let us not miss the opportunity to do so for those young people in the youth justice system.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I largely welcome what the Government are attempting with this Bill. I wish the Minister involved all the luck in the world, because this is a tough nut to crack. I believe he approaches it from the right point of view, with real passion, understanding and a focus on rehabilitation. When I come to my comments, I need him to take them in that spirit. I associate myself with the comments made about Baroness Newlove; she will be sorely missed. She was warm and welcoming, and a champion for the victim.
Before I go into my comments, I want to address some sentiments that I am picking up in the Chamber today. I have been in youth and community work for over 35 years now, and there seems to be a notion that criminals are victims. I caution the Minister about talking to communities, particularly poor communities, as if criminals are victims, because a poor community will have had all the challenges that those criminals have had but displayed none of that behaviour. If he is at home asking himself, “Why are the public so mean when it comes to rehabilitation or punishment?”, it is for the poor communities. They have had all those troubles and behaved the way they did—properly—but do not seem to be receiving the same support as criminals. I just want him to bear that in mind; it is very important.
My own youth and community work focused for a long time on gang work, which is why I say that we really need a strategy on tagging or electronic monitoring, whatever you want to call it. When you talk about county lines, tagging could be a vital tool in keeping some young children safe. Many years ago, I joined my local gang to break it up, and I wore a tag to see what that experience was like. I showed it to the young people who I was with, and they scattered. Then one 13 year-old boy came back to me in the morning and said something so profound that I have never forgotten it. He said: “Crime needs privacy; the tag breaks that privacy”. We really should look at using that tactic, but it has to have some kind of meaningful plan behind it. We cannot just give them out like Smarties.
We have talked about the acceptance of community orders et cetera. There are three sets of people who need to accept them: yes, the public and, yes, parliamentarians and the system, but also the criminals. The single biggest driver of crime is the idea that you have got away with it. If community orders are seen as a soft touch, they can be used as a recruitment tool. I can imagine a conversation where my local recruiter—I will not the colloquial term; it is not polite language—says to young people, “You’re only going to get a community sentence, so don’t worry about it”. It is very important to make sure that criminals see it as an imposition, not just to make the luvvies in comfortable parts of the country feel good about it.
Before I go on to some other comments, I want to say one more thing about responsibility. I have worked with children who have done some of the most heinous things possible for a person. I have also worked with children, in larger number by far, who have been involved in what I would call anti-social behaviour. The key thing missing from that conversation, not just for children but particularly for adults, is “responsibility”. In the Minister’s own work, he and his family have given people an opportunity to take responsibility. That has to be part of the conversation we have with people, particularly repeat offenders, about their own behaviour. They are acting irresponsibly, against their own best wishes and against their community. If that is not part of the conversation, we will never convince the public that we are doing the right thing by trying to rehabilitate people and not just punish them.
Regrettably, here in London we have had a huge rise in crime. Overall, the Met Police’s recording of crime has gone up by almost a third. Knife crime, which I have seen blighting communities—black and white, rich and poor—because of the fear it generates, has gone up by 86% in the capital. Something needs to be done about that. Only 5% of robberies were solved in the capital last year, which generates the idea that lawlessness is what is happening on our streets. That must be nipped in the bud.
I want to talk about tool theft. The theft of tools and expensive farm gear is very important because if you come from a community that is striving, when tools are stolen it sends the idea that those who are trying are fools while those who commit crime are on to something. That is why it is important that tool theft, in particular, and farm equipment theft are really drilled down on. It sends a message about striving, because the antidote to poverty is not welfare but work. The idea that people in your community are trying to work is very important.
I want to talk about shoplifting as well. What shoplifting is doing to communities is sending the idea that there is no consequence from it; you will speak to people who will tell you that. Shop owners have no confidence that the police have the resources or the desire to go after shoplifters. Customer theft losses in this country topped £2.2 billion last year, which is a record amount and has a ripple effect not only for our businesses but in communities.
That is compounded by the effective decriminalisation of shoplifting through this imminent Sentencing Bill, in which short sentences will, in effect, be banned. Technically, that might be incorrect, but I tell the House that on the street, that is how it is read. I have great sympathy for what the Minister is trying to do with short sentences. I dealt with many young people who went to prison; it was basically a college of crime, so they came back with a much better idea of it than the one they left with. But what is the consequence for low-level crime and for shoplifting? That really has to be brought home to the public. I go back to my theme: if we are to convince the public that rehabilitation and dealing with crime in the community are worthwhile things to pursue, things such as shoplifting will have to seem as if they have some kind of consequence. I ask the Minister again: what is the consequence? How will we tell the public that there is a consequence for what many people consider a low-level crime?
The release of criminals part-way through their sentences also poses a significant threat to society. After just over a year, this Government have freed 26,000 criminals. Where are they? Whose houses are they living in? What effect are they having on people’s communities? I do not see them in the new place where I live, but what effect are they having where I come from? We cannot just push these people out into communities. They might not be your communities, but they are mine. It sends the notion that crime is something people have got away with, or that they can commit more crime. We have to look at the effect of putting those people into particular communities. If we were releasing them into Belgravia, that would be one thing—but that is not where we are releasing them to.
The Government’s own impact assessment says that the Bill will reduce demand for prison places by only 7,500. I know that is not a big figure, and I welcome any reduction, but if we are to say to the public that the motivation for the Bill is that we want to reduce demand for prison places, we will have lost before we begin. We need to say to them that the motivation for it is to reduce crime on the street, to make them safer and to cut reoffending—not to free up prison places, because that simply does not wash. If you doubt me, go to your local chip shop or pub and have a conversation. When you bring that up, see what the response is.
In response to the Bill the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, my late noble friend Lady Newlove made this statement:
“Continual adjustments to sentences through emergency release schemes have eroded public confidence … any new sentencing framework must deliver … above all, public safety”.
I agree with that analysis and so will the public. Please can the Minister tell us how he will display to the public that this is a worthwhile thing to pursue?
The other problem, of course, is about the confidence of our police services to carry out their job. Many police officers feel that they are under a witch-hunt and that if they use the powers they have, they will end up losing their job. That is devastating for poor communities, who need the police to act with confidence to keep them safe. That is very important. We are about to lose 1,300 officers across the country; here in London, we are about to lose 2,000 police officers and police staff. That could have a detrimental effect on the Metropolitan Police’s ability to police the capital. It is important that the Bill addresses issues around the finances and resources that the police have just to carry this out in the first place.
I end on this notion—I want to go back to it for the Minister. The single biggest driver of crime is the idea that people will get away with it. Whatever we decide in this House, we must send a strong message that they are not getting away with it. We are rehabilitating the system that deals with them, but they are not getting away with it. If the Government miss that trick, we will just be right back to where we were in the beginning.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, and I join others in the House in paying tribute to Baroness Newlove. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I was very taken with my noble and learned friend Lord Burnett of Maldon saying that lengthening sentences does not necessarily improve reoffending. It is quite an interesting thought.
I am not a lawyer, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but I have retained an interest in sentencing and imprisonment following many years as a trustee of the Koestler Trust, which puts arts into prisons. The whole purpose of this is to give prisoners access to self-expression through the arts and music, which in turn enables a degree of hope. Hope is a very important word to which I will return.
There are two matters that I would particularly like to address. The first is IPP—perhaps not surprisingly, given what I have just said. In some cases, this simply precludes hope. Although the Minister is making no changes to IPP in this Bill, I am nevertheless very grateful to him for his attention to this, and I detect a genuine concern and a desire to improve the situation. That is as it should be. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the late and much-missed Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood; we need to sit up and take note when such a legal expert as he was is moved to declare IPP as the single greatest stain on the British judicial system.
As we have heard, the Howard League recommended a change in Parole Board practice so that it sets a definite date for the release of each prisoner within a two-year window, and then specifies what the prisoner must accomplish, with professional support, to achieve that. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, convincingly advocated for a resentencing policy to which I was greatly attracted, and still am.
The IPP sentence was introduced by the former Labour Government in 2003, supposedly to protect the public from dangerous offenders. It was, in effect, a life sentence for those who have not committed serious offences, such as murder, that would usually attract a life sentence. The sentence was abolished by the former coalition Government in 2012, but the abolition did not apply to those who were already serving the sentence. Over a decade after its abolition, some 2,422 prisoners are still shamefully languishing in custody under the sentence.
Dr Alice Edwards, the UN special rapporteur on torture, has described the IPP as an “inhumane” punishment that
“often amounts to psychological torture”.
If noble Lords feel that is an overdramatic description, I invite them to imagine themselves in the same position: behind bars, unable to make progress, with no hope of getting out. That is an intolerable situation.
I turn to joint enterprise, which has not really been mentioned in the Bill but which I and many others think should be. There has been growing alarm over Crown Prosecution Service data, from organisations such as Liberty, showing that black people are disproportionately prosecuted under joint enterprise, and that a 2016 Supreme Court ruling that the law had been wrongly implemented for more than 30 years has had “no discernible impact” on the number of prosecutions. In her report, Nisha Waller said:
“Joint enterprise is unjustifiably vague and wide in scope. Law reform will not eradicate institutional racism and broader issues with police and prosecution practice. However, the current law encourages the overcharging of suspects and allows cases to be propelled forward based on poor quality evidence. Prosecutors are then left to fill the gaps with speculative case theories and often racialised narratives from which juries are invited to infer joint responsibility”.
I am sure we can all imagine a young boy, under the influence and maybe in fear of older peers, feeling he must follow his comrades without fully realising the implications of what is happening. I would be very interested to know whether the Minister feels that there is equality proportionate to culpability in cases of joint enterprise. Should this not form part of the Bill?
Finally, I am very sympathetic to those who have argued that prisoners convicted of domestic abuse or stalking, and who have been recalled, will not have thrown off that obsessive behaviour after 56 days. That is a really important point.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I start by expressing my sadness—along with that of so many others in the House—at the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, whose heartfelt commitment to and hard work for victims have been quite outstanding. I also thank the Minister for his opening, and his work on this Bill. It is a tribute to him that—with the enlightened and evidence-based backing of David Gauke and his team—he has had the courage to champion and introduce these reforms to sentencing, aimed at reducing reoffending.
The urgency of this Bill had indeed flowed from the prison-capacity crisis, which this Government inherited from the Conservative Government—whose responsibility, I am bound to say, was surprisingly not acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in his criticisms of the Bill and his call for severity. The reality is that we imprison far too many people in this country, for far too long: many more than many other western European nations. There is no evidence of a reduction in reoffending rates as a result. As analysed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, we have persisted in increasing sentence lengths by legislating both for longer overall sentences and for longer periods served, but also by a general sentence inflation, possibly in response to political, public and media pressure.
The noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, captured this well in their critique of the regrettable toughness contest between political parties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, put it into historical context with his story of severe judges of the past now being seen as “softies”. The number of remand prisoners has increased, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, pointed out, and we have recently seen a record number of prisoners recalled for breach-of-release conditions: some 15% higher in the second quarter of this year than in the same quarter last year. The reality is that prison often does far more harm than good, and that is particularly true of short sentences. Where we can, we should be relying instead on effective and well-resourced community sentences, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester argued in her principled speech, supported in large part by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.
Many of our prisons have been bad at rehabilitation: underresourced, overcrowded and understaffed, with the toxic cocktail of failings rehearsed today and regularly in previous debates in this House, including too many prisoners in cells filled beyond capacity; prisoners locked in their cells, often for 22 to 23 hours per day, with very little purposeful activity. There is a shortage of vocational and educational training, and too few staff to manage the courses there are. An epidemic of drug abuse is fuelled by widespread drug trading often, sadly, involving corrupt staff. Prisoners, adults and young people, with serious mental health and addiction issues—as well as the literacy, educational and social difficulties discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield—find that those issues are all going unaddressed.
There is also appalling violence within our prisons. In June, the MoJ and Prison Service reported increases of 11% in assaults by prisoners on other prisoners and of 13% in assaults on staff over the last year alone, attributed in their report directly to overcrowding. There are persistently squalid conditions in many prisons with inadequate, cancelled or deferred maintenance programmes.
As my noble friend Lord Beith said, the criticisms we make do not apply to all prisons. Many of our prisons are of high quality, innovative and motivational, but a successful Prison Service would ensure that all institutions met those standards. In spite of all this, I accept the Minister’s overall characterisation of the commitment and performance of prison staff as incredible. But against a history and background of low morale, there are still too many who fall badly short of that characterisation, and their wrongdoing needs to be exposed and tackled.
The Bill recognises that reducing reoffending depends crucially on rehabilitation and on the Probation Service. It is worth remembering the massive cost of reoffending, estimated to account for more than half of the overall costs of crime in the UK—an annual cost of between £18 billion and more than £23 billion, even without the costs to the state of housing and social care for the families of offenders.
Central to the success of the Bill and the Government in their aims will be resourcing the Probation Service. The Government plan, as we have heard, to recruit 13,000 more probation officers by March next year and are allocating an additional £700 million to the Probation Service by 2028. However, we are seriously concerned that these figures do not add up, as my noble friend Lord Foster explained in detail—the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and others expressed the same doubts. Do the figures take into account three areas of extra costs arising from this Bill: more tagging; implementation of the presumption against immediate short sentences: and extra supervision of early releases on the earned progression model?
We welcome the presumption against short sentences. We have been calling for this for many years in the light of consistent evidence that such sentences increase rather than reduce reoffending. It is to be hoped that supervision of suspended sentences, together with conditions such as treatment conditions imposed by the courts, will lead to a targeted approach to rehabilitation and to addressing the individual difficulties of offenders in achieving rehabilitation within their communities, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Porter. Suspension of sentences for three years rather than two should assist in this process. However, more suspended sentences should not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, argued, reduce the making of community orders where prison sentences are not warranted.
We also welcome the introduction of the earned progression model recommended by the Gauke review for standard determinate sentences. We recognise the perhaps surprisingly beneficial influence of the Texas model. This represents a logical, sensible and, above all, transparent approach to early release to replace the emergency and indiscriminate SDS40 arrangement. But, for the new system to work well and fairly, training and education in prison must be made more universally available. We would argue that there should be better rehabilitative programmes for prisoners on remand, as well as for sentenced prisoners, and we will introduce an amendment to that effect.
The introduction of a recorded finding of domestic abuse in the sentencing of a relevant offender is a reform for which my honourable friend Josh Babarinde campaigned in the House of Commons. This should enable victims and subsequent partners of domestic abusers to be better protected from past perpetrators. We also applaud the overdue recognition of the interests of victims as a factor in the purposes of sentencing.
On the question of the Sentencing Council, we fully agree with points widely made by my noble friend Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and others. We regard the Sentencing Council as performing a valuable and independent function in providing advice to sentencers. Nor do we see the Sentencing Council’s work as undermining the constitutional role of Parliament in sentencing policy, as the Bill and this debate so clearly demonstrate. We will seek to amend the proposal in Clause 19 to subject sentencing guidelines to a veto by the Lord Chief Justice—or Lady Chief Justice—and the Lord Chancellor, which is an unwarranted restriction on the independence of the Sentencing Council.
We have specific concerns about the recall provisions in Clause 29. Effectively, the Bill would introduce an automatic recall of 56 days for most prisoners recalled to prison. For less serious breaches, 56 days is a long time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, such recalls may cost offenders their accommodation or places on treatment programmes or the like. We will seek to amend this.
My noble friend Lord Beith mentioned our regret that the Bill does not commit to a resentencing of IPP prisoners. I agree with the tenor of speeches on IPPs from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Woodley and Lord Berkeley of Knighton, the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and others. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, made the point of principle, and he added an important point on the cost of IPPs.
We also reject the notion of publicly shaming offenders undertaking unpaid work with names and photographs. It is vindictive and unhelpful—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.
Overall, the Bill is overdue in putting rehabilitation and reform first, respecting the evidence on what works in reducing crime. Along with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and others, we reject the Conservative Front Bench’s characterisation of these reforms as likely to increase crime and make the streets less safe. We stress, however, along with all those who have insisted in this debate, that the Bill’s success depends on providing the Probation Service with the support, personnel and resources that it needs. Ultimately, the potential savings to the public purse in reducing the cost of reoffending and the burgeoning costs of the Prison Service could, if realised, bring great net benefit to society, financial as well as social.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by paying my tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, not only for her contribution to this House but for the considerable work she did as Victims’ Commissioner. I also thank the Minister for his introduction of the Bill, and all noble Lords for the detailed, informed and sometimes diverse opinions that they have expressed.
The importance of this debate is underlined by the fact that the Bill received so little scrutiny in the other place. It was in Committee for one day. For a Bill so substantial and with such wide ramifications, that seems wholly inadequate. Indeed, it meant that many of the radical changes proposed in it were never even mentioned in the other place, let alone discussed or debated. It is essential that we have the opportunity to examine the Bill carefully and, in some respects, forensically.
I will make a number of general observations. Is this simply an attempt to tackle overcrowding in our prison estate? I certainly hope not, yet there was no mandate for these reforms in Labour’s manifesto. There was a reference to sentencing:
“Even when criminals are found guilty, the sentences they receive often do not make sense either to victims or the wider public”.
Will this Bill improve the complexity but not the comprehension of sentencing? I fear that might be the case. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, observed, the public must be able to comprehend that disposals such as community sentences are not only effective but a form of punishment. It will be important to explain that early release is in the public interest and not just a fiscal necessity. How is that to be done?
As a matter of generality, I also have a degree of concern about the clarity of the proposed reforms and powers that are to be implemented. I make particular reference to Clauses 13 to 16 and Clause 24, which introduce powers for the courts to forbid offenders to enter drinking establishments and attend sports and other public events, as well as to inhibit them from driving and even from leaving specified geographical areas. It is simply not clear in the Bill how any or all these measures would be implemented or enforced. A number of questions arise. How is that to be done? Where will the funding come from? On whose shoulders will enforcement lie? Will it be the responsibility of public houses and those in control of sporting and other public venues? Will they be required to ensure that their own customers are not under court orders? This will require meaningful and effective reform, and, in turn, it will require a meaningful and effective debate so that we can understand how these provisions will work in practice.
Then there is the role of the courts. The Bill leaves the Government’s stance on this somewhat unclear. Clauses 11 and 12 deal with rehabilitation activity requirements. They provide that probation officers, rather than the sentencing courts, will decide on, for example, the number of days of activity in a community order that someone must complete. That means that probation officers will, in effect, replace the courts in the imposition of sentences on those on community orders. That transfers a crucial power, and indeed an important role, from the courts to the Probation Service—a point to which I will return. Again, we require a degree of clarity on that.
Furthermore, the Bill appears to blur the Government’s stance on the relationship between the courts and the Executive, a point addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, when he referred to the provision in Clause 19 for a statutory requirement for the Sentencing Council to obtain approval from the Lord Chancellor before sentencing guidelines are issued. This implies that the Government believe there should be a close relationship between the Executive and the judiciary on the issue of sentencing, and yet, when concerns were expressed about sentencing for offences such as fly-tipping, shoplifting and knife crime during a recent debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government’s response was:
“sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/25; col. 211.]
Is it, and will it be, under the provisions of this Bill? More particularly, how are we to consider the provisions in Clause 18 with respect to the apparent veto? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, again pointed out, it is somewhat opaque in its provisions.
Turning to some more specific issues, we have the end of short-term custodial sentences and the introduction or development of early release. All of these may, in principle, be attractive, but under Clauses 1 and 2, for example, there will be a presumption that custodial sentences of 12 months or less will be suspended except in limited circumstances, such as breaches of protection orders. Does that mean that, for example, where someone pleads guilty at the first opportunity and gets a remission in their sentence, someone who would have received a sentence of 18 months but is to receive a sentence of 12 months will find themselves with a suspended sentence? In other words, does this presumption apply not only in respect of custodial sentences of 12 months but those up to 18 months? I would welcome the Minister’s response on that.
It is estimated that the implementation of these provisions would mean that about 40,000 criminals would avoid prison entirely. But for what? The purpose of sentencing is not purely punitive but to protect the public from repeat and violent offenders. As many noble Lords observed, rehabilitation and community orders are essentially resource-based. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, put the matter very pithily when he said you need the means to achieve the ends. Is the Minister confident that this Bill is going to provide the means to the end? I bear in mind the way in which the Treasury often regards the Ministry of Justice and its role as one of the orphaned children of government; there is a considerable barrier for the Minister to overcome in that respect.
On early release, Clause 20 will reduce it to one-third of the original sentence. I acknowledge that, if we go back to 1967, there were similar provisions in place, albeit that the test was significantly different to the one proposed in this Bill. If we have such early release, how are we going to accommodate the police estimate that this could lead to a 6% increase in overall crime, or approximately an additional 396,000 offences per year, the vast majority of which will involve reoffending by those who have been released from prison?
We are liable to find ourselves in a cycle of release and recall unless we are very careful. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, made clear why that cycle can be broken only by effective rehabilitation. Again, I repeat the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath: you need the means to achieve the ends. Where are the means? Can that be explained?
I am also concerned that the Government’s messaging may be somewhat inconsistent. The Government recently expressed outrage that criminals such as Hadush Kebatu were at large on the streets, and yet, under this Bill, offenders of his type who received a 12-month sentence would be at large on the streets. Could the Government clarify whether they are genuinely committed to including those convicted of such offences in this scheme? It seems that their position is that the community is capable of accommodating such offenders, but it can possibly accommodate them only if effective probation services are in place. Again, it is a case of requiring the means to achieve the ends.
There is also a risk that this Bill simply sends the wrong message to repeat offenders. The presumption against short custodial sentences may appear to have merit, but it removes a vital deterrent to repeat offending, particularly in low-level crimes, anti-social behaviour, theft—particularly retail theft—domestic violence and other cases of stalking and harassment. Such so-called minor crimes are very often the precursors to more serious offending. So short sentences can play an important role as an intervention and a deterrent against that sort of persistent and repeat offending. Has that been properly taken into account when considering the use of non-custodial or suspended sentences in so many of those cases?
There is a risk that we are sending the wrong message to repeat offenders. Indeed, as one noble Lord observed, we may also be sending the wrong message to very young offenders, who may believe that the future holds no risk of imprisonment if they engage in what is regarded as, or what they are persuaded to believe is, low-level criminality.
I suggest that the Bill might involve potential overreach for the Probation Service itself, and will certainly place considerable burdens on that service. Clauses 1 and 2 deal with short custodial sentences being replaced by non-custodial sentences, and Clauses 20 to 23 deal with early release, all of which will increase the burden on the Probation Service. But then Clauses 11 and 12, with respect to rehabilitation, will require probation officers to sentence offenders to the number of days they must complete. Clause 34 will enable probation officers to reduce the amount of unpaid work that an offender must complete.
I will come back to these provisions in a moment, but all these clauses require officers to manage, supervise and monitor a very large number of offenders, who will have avoided custody or have been released early under the Bill. There are, of course, provisions for the probation reset to help or assist the struggling Probation Service, but, when we look at the financial impact assessment, it could at best be described as opaque. We are told that in some instances there will be a modest increase in the cost of services and that the remainder has not been calculated. But probation officers will be expected to take on these new tasks, and a question arises as to whether they will be equipped financially, apart from anything else, to take them on.
But there is also a perhaps more fundamental constitutional issue to be considered here. If probation officers will take on these judicial-type responsibilities, which are being transferred potentially without corresponding investment in training or supervision, where will that lead us? Unlike sentencing decisions taken in open court, these apparently administrative terminations will occur without transparency, oversight or, it would appear, any form of appeal mechanism. The Government have not provided any mechanism to ensure that these decisions are monitored, audited or even transparently reported. I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, about there being room for very material error where you impose these obligations on staff who are potentially underresourced, undertrained and unable to determine with any certainty how they will perform these new functions, which are to be regarded as at least quasi-judicial functions. That represents a major constitutional shift in the balance of responsibility between the judiciary and the Executive. Has the Minister thought that through and considered the operational pressures that this will actually impose on the Probation Service?
Finally, and very briefly—with apologies for being over time—I acknowledge the point about IPP sentences. As a matter of principle, they cannot be maintained. The onus placed on this small cohort is placed on no other prisoner in the prison estate, and they will struggle time and again to overcome it, because we have now reduced that cohort to perhaps the least able to meet the requirements presently placed on them with regard to how they are to be dealt with when they come to seek release. I do not offer a solution to that—I am well aware that the need for a solution has dogged Government after Government—but we cannot wait another eight years to see this play out and I invite the Minister to consider seriously whether this matter should be addressed in the Bill.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to close the Second Reading debate on this vital Bill. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and thank those who have spoken to me privately. I will attempt to answer as many questions as possible, but what I do not cover I will follow up in writing. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his speech. Yes, this Bill is about prison capacity, but it is also about how we can reform the system so it is sustainable, it is affordable and it works, so that we get fewer victims and a real focus on rehabilitation.
I turn first to IPP sentences. I acknowledge that many noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have raised this today, and it is important that their concerns are raised and discussed today. This Government are determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for those serving IPP sentences—but not in a way that undermines public protection. I put on record my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his work with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on recall and what we are still learning from that work.
The IPP action plan has contributed to an overall reduction in the IPP population over the last 12 months. As the Prison Reform Trust has said, we are seeing “modest but welcome progress”. For example, the unreleased prison population has reduced by around 14%, to 946 people in September 2025. After three years of quarterly increases, the recalled IPP prison population has fallen in every quarter for the last two years, from 1,652 to 1,476 as of 30 September this year. We have implemented changes to reduce the qualifying period for referral of an IPP sentence to the Parole Board and introduced a provision for automatic licence termination. These changes have reduced the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two-thirds.
The revised action plan, published on 17 July, sets out where we intend to go further, including increasing access to release on temporary licence, expanding the approved premises pilot to improve resettlement support, and enabling swift re-release following recall through risk-assessed recall review when it is safe and appropriate to do so. I am determined to do all we can to support the remaining IPP offenders and their families. I am confident that our efforts will further benefit the IPP cohort. I will continue to engage with noble Lords, and I will continue to focus on developing new ways and improving existing plans to help IPPers have successful parole hearings, and to see fewer IPP recalls. My door is open, and I look forward to our next Peers’ meeting.
I turn to noble Lords’ points on the proposals in the Bill. The earned progression model was raised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas. I must begin by being clear about the context in which the Government have introduced these measures. The prison population is still rising too fast, and we simply cannot build our way out of the capacity crisis. Our new progression model, inspired by Texas and recommended by David Gauke, sets a minimum release point of one-third for those serving standard determinate sentences, which currently have an automatic release of 40% or 50%. For certain sexual and violent offences, the minimum will be 50%. But the most dangerous offenders—those on extended determinate sentences and life sentences—will be unaffected by the measures in the Bill and will remain in prison for as long as they do now. Following the changes in the Bill, there will still be more criminals in prison than ever before.
Under the progression model, if they play by the rules prisoners can earn an early release. If not, they can be locked up for longer—up to the end of their sentence. So if someone receives a six-year standard determinate sentence and they behave badly, they can serve that full six years in prison. Although I have heard the issues raised by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, it is essential that this model can be implemented quickly and effectively through the established process for punishing bad behaviour and rule breaches in prison.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Bach welcome the earned progression model, as well as the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I reassure noble Lords that I have spent a lot of time already discussing how the progression model will work. Although it is not an exact mirror of the Texas model, because of the capacity issues and the complexities that it could create, in the prison environment you essentially go up the hill—for bad behaviour, you stay in prison for longer—whereas in probation you go down the hill, so the quicker you do your community service, the quicker you finish your responsibility. We know that this needs to be tough, which is why we are doubling the maximum punishment of added time from 42 to 84 days per incident. The noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Prashar, rightly brought up the subject of adjudications. Again, that is something that I am looking into; they are right that they need to be absolutely robust and fair.
A number of noble Lords have raised short sentences, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Marks, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and others. It is an important point. We are not abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison when they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances. However, around 60% of adults sentenced for under a year reoffend within 12 months; a number of noble Lords recited similar facts about the ineffectiveness of short sentences. That is unacceptably high for victims and the public. The evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. I am also following the lead of the previous Government, who introduced this measure in their Sentencing Bill.
I have heard the points raised about the impact of these changes on victims. I reassure noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, that victims are at the heart of this Bill. First and foremost, we fail victims if prisons run out of places entirely and crime goes without punishment. For me, victims must always come first—and we will publish the VAWG strategy shortly. We are imposing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders, instead of limiting the movement of victims, and creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing so that domestic abusers are known to prison and probation services and their victims are better protected. We remain steadfast in our commitment to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. In addition to the measures in the Bill, we are continuing the provision of free sentencing remarks to victims of rape and sex offences, and expanding the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, with trained staff to support victims and more co-ordinated management of offenders.
I turn to the points that noble Lords raised about probation capacity and how the reforms in the Bill are being delivered. What is clear from by far the majority of speeches today is that noble Lords are well aware of the pressure on probation but also how powerful it is when you get this right and how fantastic the staff are. That is why I suspect that we will drill deeply in Committee into how the probation proposals work and what we can do to make sure that they are robust. The Probation Service is an indispensable part of the criminal justice system that keeps us safe, but the last decade has been a very challenging time. We have already taken significant steps to focus resources on the highest-risk and prolific offenders, where the evidence shows that probation can have the greatest impact. Earlier this year, we announced a package of measures to rebuild the Probation Service. By the final year of the spending review, our annual £1.6 billion spend on probation and community services will rise by up to £700 million—a 45% increase.
As was clear in the Gauke review, the third sector has a key role to play. We are indebted to so many wonderful organisations that are integral to the work of probation, and I agree that the longer-term funding models are the direction of travel that I would like to see. Although the detailed allocations of that money are to be finalised, I can say that my priorities are clear: more people in post; digital investment that saves time; and tools for probation to use, from increasing tagging to rehabilitation, so that offenders can have a chance to turn their lives around. This will make the job of our probation staff more manageable and more rewarding. I am hopeful for further conversations with noble Lords to give more clarity on probation funding in the days ahead.
Recruitment, retention and training of staff are high priorities for the Probation Service. The right reverend Prelate is clearly aware that we need to ensure that we have sufficient workforce to safely supervise and manage people in the community. This Bill includes several measures, such as welcoming the removal of post-sentence supervision, the introduction of a new probation requirement, and the termination of community orders once an offender has completed their sentence plan. These will streamline processes, enable probation to focus its efforts on those who pose the highest risk, and incentivise offenders to engage with rehabilitation.
The theme of incentivisation is something I feel very passionately about. Having run a business whereby I incentivised colleagues on the front line in shops to serve customers well, I believe—and I see it across the criminal justice system—that not all but many offenders respond to the right incentive at the right time, in their time in prison or on probation. We have gone further since the Bill’s introduction. The Deputy Prime Minister recently announced an expansion of Justice Transcribe, equipping 1,000 more probation officers with the technology that cuts administration and ensures staff can spend more time doing the thing they do best: working with offenders face to face to turn their lives around. We want to go further with this too. Probation staff who have been engaging with Justice Transcribe call it a game-changer and something they have been crying out for for years. It is an important part of our plan to modernise the service. A range of further digital and process improvements will transform the way in which probation staff work, and ensure that they can spend more time doing the things that they love doing.
I am confident that our overall package of investment, continued recruitment and modernisation puts us on a path to ensuring the sustainability of the service for the long term. I will continue to work closely with the Deputy Prime Minister to that end. I would be delighted to meet the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to talk about a country that is dear to my heart and which I can see from my house: Wales.
I turn to electronic monitoring, which is a crucial means of managing offenders safely in the community. I thank noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Porter. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, may not remember but, many years ago, we met at No. 10, and I would be delighted to carry on the conversation that we had then, which followed the very strong theme of his speech today.
The evidence is clear: tagging works. It provides clear and reliable proof of an individual’s whereabouts and behaviour. A recent study found that curfew tags reduce reoffending by 20% as part of a community sentence. Since their introduction in 2020, alcohol monitoring tags show no tamper and no alcohol consumed on 97% of the days worn as part of a community sentence. Currently, there are around 20,000 people on tags. We will increase this by up to 22,000 across court bail, community sentences and prison leavers, with many subject to curfews and exclusion zones.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised the Sentencing Council. Judicial independence in making sentencing decisions is a fundamental constitutional principle. The Government have an important duty to secure public confidence in our criminal justice system, and Ministers are responsible for that. It is that balance that we seek to strike in arrangements for the Sentencing Council. We shall return to this in detail in Committee.
The issue of youth sentencing was raised strongly by my noble friend Lady Longfield. There are, and always should be, substantial differences in how children are treated in law compared with adults. The youth sentencing system must strike a right balance between public protection and the principles of justice, while accounting for children’s lesser maturity and protecting their welfare. This is why we will be reviewing the position on youth sentencing separately in the light of the changes that the Bill introduces.
I turn briefly to other points that were raised in the debate. The removal of remand for someone’s own protection does not form part of the remand measures in the Sentencing Bill. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is aware, the Mental Health Bill proposes to end the use of remand for someone’s own protection, where the primary concern is the defendant’s mental health. I am open to hearing more on the general removal of remand for own protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, raised concerns about Clause 11. The clause does not remove the court’s sentencing powers. It is ultimately up to the court to determine whether to include this requirement when making a suspended sentence order or community order. Probation officers assess each individual’s risks and needs after sentencing. They are currently responsible for determining the volume of supervision required and, as such, are best placed to determine how many rehabilitative activities will be most effective. That is why this clause removes the court’s set activity days. This ensures that resources are used where they have the greatest impact in reducing reoffending and protecting the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raised recall. Recall is, and will remain, an important risk management tool to protect the public and victims. We are going further than the review’s recommendations to introduce important safeguards. To protect the public and victims, certain offenders can receive only a standard recall. These offenders will be re-released by the Secretary of State or the Parole Board before the end of their sentence only if they meet the statutory release test.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beith, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, raised concerns about Clause 35. I am sure that we can agree that people who commit crimes should show that they are giving back to society. I assure noble Lords that careful consideration has been given to how this is implemented and how wider impacts can be mitigated.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that I am keen to discuss gambling and how we support addiction generally in the community. It is something that I am very passionate about too.
I would be delighted to meet the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, to discuss joint enterprise with my colleague, Minister Alex Davies-Jones, as it is her area of expertise within the Ministry of Justice.
This has been a wide debate, and I bow to the experience and expertise in the Chamber today. I and my officials will read Hansard carefully and, if I have missed anything in my response, we shall make sure to engage with your Lordships before and after Committee. I look forward to that. I beg to move.
Lord Timpson
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 9, Schedule 2, Clause 10, Schedule 3, Clauses 11 to 27, Schedule 4, Clauses 28 to 31, Schedule 5, Clauses 32 to 47, Title.