16:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 127 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 7.
Lords amendments 1 to 6 and 8 to 15.
Jake Richards
I begin by putting on record the Government’s welcoming of the new shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), to his job. We look forward to working with him; he is somebody of some intellectual heft, and in any event, he is in the lucky position of having extraordinarily small shoes to fill. Of course there will be policy disagreements, as there should be, but my hope is that the new shadow Justice Secretary treads more carefully on issues relating to the independence of our judiciary and respecting our legal profession—perhaps there will be fewer vitriolic social media videos and more thoughtful analysis.
As for the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—or, as he likes to call himself, the “new sheriff in town”—we welcome that the inevitable has now happened, confirming the fact that Reform is little more than a backwater for failed Tory politicians with an ego. I spent five minutes—five minutes that I will never get back—reading the memo that the former shadow Justice Secretary left lying about. It says,
“Use humour—one of your best skills—don’t be afraid to be self-effacing or have a laugh.”
It certainly got us laughing. His memo also contains the memorable line,
“Don't ‘think’. You ‘know’ things to be true! Get out of the habit of saying ‘think’”.
I happen to think that he should get into the habit of thinking a little more.
The right hon. Member for Newark says that he has joined Reform to be “part of a team”. We are still unclear whether he will remain speaking on justice issues, and he is not in his new place today. Over the weekend, it was said that there would be a mini-reshuffle at Reform—a rather depressing game of musical chairs. Whether its justice spokesperson remains the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), or whether the right hon. Member for Newark takes over, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has a go, or the hon. Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) or for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) join in, the story is the same: failed former Tories who cannot be trusted with our justice system, let alone our country.
The Sentencing Bill will make sure that we are never again in the position that this Government inherited, with prisons at risk of running out of 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. That is why this Bill is vital. It does not kick the can 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.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is making a powerful speech. He will recognise that the Bill is of huge concern to residents in my constituency, because many victims of crime who are waiting for justice to be served are waiting years for the person responsible to face trial. Does the Minister agree that it is really important that this Government get on top of the backlog and get people in front of courts as quickly as possible?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is a fine champion of this agenda and for his constituents in Harlow, and as he knows, the Bill does more than just fix the crisis we inherited; it will confront reoffending and keep our communities safe.
As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out during the very first debate on the Bill in this House, it takes us back to the fundamental purpose of sentencing, which is punishment that works. Punishment must work for victims, who deserve to see perpetrators face retribution; it must work for society, which wants criminals to return less dangerous, not more; and it must work to prevent crime. We want better citizens, not better criminals—that is what will deliver safer streets and protection from crime. The Bill will restore victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system. I reiterate that nothing is worse for victims than prisons running out of places and crimes going without punishment, which is the situation we inherited when we came into government in the summer of 2024.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister has outlined very clearly what the Government, and he in particular, are trying to achieve. There is a perception among the general public—this is certainly indicated in the press and the media—that the Government are going to be a bit soft on those who carry out crimes, but I am very much in favour of rehabilitation, as I think is the Minister. Can he please outline what will be done to enable those who leave prison to be rehabilitated and to ensure that they do not reoffend? The rising number of those who reoffend is incredibly worrying.
Jake Richards
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Over the course of this speech, I will set out what the Government are doing more generally to increase rehabilitation and crack down on reoffending. The hon. Gentleman states that there is a suggestion that this Bill is somehow soft on crime. I say gently to him that by the end of this Parliament, there will be more offenders in prison than ever before, so I completely reject that assertion.
I want to briefly pay tribute to the campaigners who have informed large parts of this piece of legislation and the amendments we are discussing. We are introducing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders instead of the movement of victims. The 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 victims can move freely elsewhere. This was campaigned for by Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation. Once again, I pay tribute to them and all those who have campaigned for this crucial change.
Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which will enable probation services to identify abusers early, track patterns of behaviour and put safeguards in place. I must pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, and in particular to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his tireless campaigning and willingness to work across parties to deliver this crucial change, which I know all Opposition parties support.
More generally, it is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of the independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary, David Gauke. [Hon. Members: “Great man.”] “Great man”, the Conservatives say, but they are voting against every single one of his proposals. I take this opportunity to thank him again for all his work—it was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work.
We are determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible—there is an urgency to this process. I remind the House that alongside this legislation, the Government are building prison places at a faster rate than ever before. In our first year, we opened nearly 2,500 new places, and 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, but we cannot simply build our way out of the crisis we inherited from the Conservatives. The pressures on the system demand that we reform sentencing, but I remind the House that nothing in the Bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes who are serving extended determinate sentences or life sentences.
The Bill delivers vital reforms to our probation services. We are rebuilding the service that the last Government decimated, increasing investment by up to £700 million by 2028-29—a 45% increase. We are also recruiting; in our first year, we hired 1,000 trainee probation officers, and we are on track to hire 1,300 more this year. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all the hard-working probation officers in our country. They deserve full credit for what they do, and it has been important for us to find the extra resources to put into this service, to grow the numbers and the support available.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
In government, the Conservative party oversaw a disastrous privatisation of probation, which ended in a £500 million bail-out by taxpayers. Our Probation Service plays a critical role in the rehabilitation of offenders and in keeping our communities safe, so can the Minister further set out how the Bill will ensure that our probation systems are strengthened and fit for purpose?
Jake Richards
I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I will come on to the issue that she raises shortly.
While we cannot support Lords amendment 7 as drafted, we fully support the intention behind it of promoting transparency and improving the experience of victims. We agree that robust processes are required to ensure the accuracy of transcripts, but placing a statutory duty on the judiciary to approve the release of all Crown court transcripts could significantly increase workload and undermine efforts to drive down the Crown court backlog.
However, I am delighted to say that we have tabled a Government amendment that will expand the provision of Crown court sentencing remarks. They will be provided to all victims who request them, free of charge. This new clause puts victims firmly at the centre of the process. The new clause delivers a major step forward for transparency, enabling victims to digest sentencing remarks outside the pressures of a courtroom setting, and without charge.
The details on timeframes and processes will be set out in due course, but I can confirm to the House that our intention is to specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. That timeframe will support applications made under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I can assure the House that we are considering the Opposition’s amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would extend that deadline to 56 days, extremely carefully.
I am grateful to Members for their engagement on this issue. This change represents a profound step forward for victims, and for transparency in our justice system. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) have been campaigning on this issue for some time. They deserve great credit, particularly the hon. Member for Richmond Park. For the first time, every victim whose case is heard in the Crown court will have this important right of access, free of charge.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
A comment often made to me and my colleagues when I was policing was that as soon as I left the police station in full uniform, I was a sitting target, every single day. Does the Minister agree that the proposal for mandatory whole life sentences for those who murder police officers, prison officers and probation officers sends a clear and unequivocal message that those offenders will be met with the harshest and most serious penalties on offer to the courts?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his service, his contribution, and his support for Lords amendment 1. As I said when I had the great privilege of meeting Lenny’s parents last week with the shadow Justice Minister and Lord Timpson in the other place, this is not just about the technical mischief that the amendment solves; thankfully, these cases are few and far between. This is about sending the signal to the brilliant prison and probation officers that the work they do is respected by people in this place and the country at large. I hope that this small change goes some way to doing that. Indeed, since we have announced this change, I have met prison officers who have intimated their gratitude to Lenny Scott’s parents, and to this place for hopefully making this change, and that is welcome.
Lords amendments 2 to 5 relate to the Sentencing Council. Through the amendments, we have sought to clarify what is expected from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice when they are considering any requests from the Sentencing Council for approval of its business plans and sentencing guidelines. Broadly speaking, the amendments do three things. First, if the Lord Chancellor decided not to approve a business plan, amendment 2 would require them to notify the council. It also requires them to lay a document before Parliament as soon as is practicable, stating the reasons for that decision. Amendments 3 and 4 make similar provisions under different guises.
Secondly, we want to make it clear that a very high bar must be met for any guidelines to be rejected, so amendments 4 and 5 provide that guidelines can be rejected only when that is necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Finally, we have set out in the Bill that any approval requests from the council are to be considered as soon as practicable. Taken together, the amendments represent a significant step by the Government to ensure that these approval processes are surrounded by clear safeguards, transparency and accountability.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
While the Lords have endeavoured to amend the Bill in a number of areas, part 4, which allows foreign national offenders to be deported at any time during their sentence, are important to Northern Ireland. Because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, an assessment has been made that there is a risk that these offenders will not be removed in Northern Ireland, leaving us with a two-tier system in which foreign criminals in Northern Ireland benefit from additional EU-derived human rights protections, rather than being sent home. Will the Minister meet me and a number of my colleagues to discuss this important issue to Northern Ireland?
Jake Richards
This issue was raised, I think on Second Reading and on Report, by one of the hon. Member’s colleagues. The legal advice we have received simply states that there is no discrepancy in Northern Ireland. I am happy to have a conversation with her and any other colleagues on that. It is clearly only right that these provisions apply to Northern Ireland, too.
The Government are committed to greater transparency on prison and probation capacity, and to current and future Governments being held to account. We have demonstrated that by publishing the first annual statement on prison capacity, in December 2024; the 2025 edition will follow shortly. Lords amendment 6 delivers on that promise by making it a statutory requirement to lay a statement on prison capacity before Parliament each year. Legislating on this duty ensures transparency in the long term, and delivers on the Government’s commitment to do so. Never again will we be in the position that this Government inherited after the previous Government overlooked prison capacity for 14 years, leading to the crisis with which we had to deal.
The Government have also accepted Lords amendment 12, which removes the clause that would have introduced a power to publish the names and photographs of those subject to an unpaid work requirement. The purpose of the clause was to increase the visibility of community pay-back, and to ensure that the public could clearly see justice being delivered. We remain committed to ensuring that local communities can see the benefits of community pay-back in their area. However, we have listened carefully to those in both Houses who have raised issues relating to this measure, and, perhaps more important, to the concerns raised by our brilliant probation and prison staff on the ground, and following careful consideration we do not think it appropriate to proceed any further. We are confident that unpaid work, bolstered by wider provisions in the Bill, will continue to be tough and visible without the addition of this measure.
We are pleased to have made further progress on sentences of imprisonment for public protection. We want to do everything we can to enable those who are still serving such sentences to progress to the end of them, but we are not willing to undermine public protection. The amendments made in the Bill strike that careful balance. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 made significant changes to the IPP licence period: the qualifying period for referral to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination was reduced from 10 years after first release to three years for those serving IPP sentences, and two years for those serving detention for public protection sentences who were convicted when they were under 18.
It is over a year since the first of those measures came into force. The licences of 1,700 people were terminated automatically on 1 November 2024, and a further 600 became eligible for referral to the Parole Board on 1 February last year. We have now gone further by giving those serving IPP sentences an earlier opportunity for licence termination, and providing an additional opportunity for license termination to those serving IPP and DPP sentences thereafter. Those serving IPP sentences will be considered for licence termination two years after release, rather than the current three years. That provides suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community, while ensuring that our communities are best protected from harm.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome the amendments that deal with IPP sentences. This is a matter of concern to many Members on both sides of the House. Can the Minister assure us that following the changes to IPP licence termination, these sentences will continue to provide for community rehabilitation, while protecting communities from harm? Will the Minister also commit to continuing to work to resolve the remaining challenges relating to such sentences?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend, a member of the Justice Committee, always makes thoughtful contributions on justice issues, but in particular on IPP. A balance must be struck between public safety and ensuring rehabilitation. The Government think that the Bill has gone some way to doing that, but there is always room for further review and assessment as we proceed, and Lord Timpson, who is leading on this piece of work for the Government, will continue to engage with the Justice Committee on the issue.
I am very grateful for the improvements that have been made to the Bill during its passage in the House of Lords. I hope, particularly given the undertakings that I have given on the provision of sentencing transcripts, that all parties will be able to support the Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 7. They represent a major step forward for transparency and for victims.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
There is no doubt that our justice system faces significant challenges. I have always acknowledged that, and during recent debates on a wide range of issues, from sentencing to prison capacity to probation to jury trials, there has been cross-party acknowledgement that for decades, under a number of Governments of different colours, not enough investment or political priority has been given to our justice system. That, however, should not and must not serve as an excuse for this Government to make changes to our justice system that damage it and fail to address the challenges before us. There are alterations that elements of the Ministry of Justice have always wanted to make. We should not let them use the excuse of the current challenges to finally slip them through the net. That is what we see happening in the Bill, in relation to the proposals on jury trials and, even more clearly, in relation to measures that are to the detriment of victims.
I welcome elements of this Bill, and I will discuss some examples. The Minister mentioned the restriction zones and the domestic abuse markers, but these measures are overwhelmingly outweighed by the fact that at the heart of the Bill is a catastrophic blow to victims’ search for justice: it will let thousands of rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier. The Minister mentioned the independent sentencing review; I remind Members that it gave absolutely no consideration whatsoever to what victims and the public think of the proposals on sentencing. The report is an insult to victims and their families, as many have told me directly.
During the Commons stages of the Bill, every party other than Labour joined the Conservatives in voting against these dangerous proposals, including the Liberal Democrats. In fact, a number of Labour MPs bravely abstained. It should be a matter of deep shame for Liberal Democrat Members that they have since joined Labour in voting to let rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier, especially as they have previously articulated why this is wrong. It is a complete betrayal of victims of serious crime and their families.
This is likely to be my final opportunity to say that I am confident that Labour MPs will come to regret these elements of the Bill, and will find it difficult to explain themselves when victims see perpetrators of crimes such as rape, child sex offences and child grooming leave prison—sometimes having served only a third of their sentence—because of MPs’ support for these measures. I will do whatever I can to ensure that victims know who made those choices, although so many alternatives were available to them. However, I have to accept that this Government’s majority, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, has for now ended the campaign against this change, so we should consider the Lords amendments that are before the House today.
As I know that the public greatly value constructive cross-party working, I will begin with an important issue on which we were able to secure Government support. Lords amendment 1 would ensure that when a police officer, prison officer or probation officer, including a former officer, is murdered because of their service, a whole life order is the starting point for sentencing. This proposal originated from the Opposition, and I am grateful to the Government for accepting the principle, following my meetings and campaigning with Paula and Neil Scott, whose son Lenny, a former prison officer, was murdered because he refused a bribe from an inmate.
Parliament has long been clear that those putting themselves in direct danger by confronting and standing up to the most dangerous people in our society should have the greatest possible protection from our law: a whole life order. We had previously legislated to that effect through the introduction of a mandatory whole life order for those who murder police and prison officers who are undertaking their duties, but the case of Lenny Scott highlighted a gap in the law. Lenny was brutally murdered, years after his service as a prison officer, in revenge for handing in a phone that he found in a prison cell search. He had moved into a new phase of his life, and was enjoying work, the gym, and time with his children and the rest of his family, but he was shot in a car park late at night, simply for doing his job. Lenny’s mum told me that she knew something was wrong when Lenny did not come home that evening. She even went out in the middle of the night to look for him, only to have the police arrive at her door at 1 am with the devastating news.
It has been a true privilege to work with Paula, and with Lenny’s dad, Neil. I extend my sincere thanks to Lord Timpson in the other place, and to the Minister, for taking the time to meet them both, and for agreeing to work with them further to see what else we might do to improve protections for our prison officers. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it was clear from the meeting what decent, moral people they are, which explains the sort of person that Lenny was. I am also very grateful to Lord Timpson for bringing fresh thinking to this area by including probation officers in the measure. They too must work closely with dangerous, violent offenders, and sometimes stand up to them to protect the public. They face the same dangers, so they should get the same protections.
Although our wider focus must always be on preventing crime and protecting the public, it is right that clear gaps in the law should be addressed when they arise. The Opposition therefore support Lords amendment 1 in lieu of our amendment, and I know that Lenny’s parents, family and friends have been delighted to see its progress in the House. In my time working with victims on campaigns, I have learned the pitfalls of naming a law after an individual case—there are always others who might warrant the remembrance of their experiences in the naming of a law—but Lenny’s family have every right to call this measure “Lenny’s Law”.
I will now consider amendments that attempt to deliver much-needed reform, but which are simply insufficient. Lords amendments 2 to 5 all concern the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council. Between them, they provide guidelines for specific scenarios in which the Lord Chancellor does not approve the Sentencing Council’s business plan; conditions for withdrawing consent to the Sentencing Council’s issuing of sentencing guidelines; and conditions for withholding consent to a request from the Sentencing Council to issue allocation guidelines, if it is necessary withhold that consent in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. We saw in the debacle of two-tier sentencing just how far the Sentencing Council has strayed, and these measures will not fundamentally correct that. The official Opposition have made it clear—I will restate it—that our firm policy position is that we would abolish the Sentencing Council, restore power to elected Ministers who are directly accountable to the public, and give Parliament a role when it comes to sentencing guidelines.
The functions of the Sentencing Council in delivering consistency through sentencing are well recognised, and it is not our intention to do away with the functions that will be restored to the Lord Chancellor’s Office, but we believe it is for the Justice Secretary to be responsible for our sentencing guidelines, not a group of unelected individuals with no direct accountability to the public and limited accountability of any kind. Consultation with the public is not the same as accountability to the public, and we are clear that Parliament should have the power to act. Therefore, while these amendments are not a point of contention in the Bill’s progress and we will not divide the House on them, I raise them to point out that they would not be part of a Bill introduced by a Conservative Government, as we would abolish the Sentencing Council entirely and fully restore accountability.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that the Bill will deliver long-term and sustainable reform to our criminal justice system and make sure that we never again end up in the position where dangerous offenders are not being locked up, the police do not have the capacity to make arrests and courts are not able to hold trials. It was a breakdown in law and order like nothing we have seen in modern times, because the last Government increased sentence lengths without reckoning with the consequences of doing so, adding just 500 places during their time in office. That was a dereliction of duty beyond comprehension and something that must not be forgotten in the context of this Bill.
Our prisons were brought to the point of crisis; frankly, they only survived until the 2024 general election because, on the quiet, the last Government released 10,000 offenders early, completely undermining public confidence in our justice system. [Interruption.] Well, it’s true. The shadow Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), is shaking his head. I was working in the Prison Service—I know what went down. I know exactly what happened. While the Bill was born out of necessity, it includes absolutely transformational reforms that Governments of all colours should have introduced in years past.
It is not that we are not being tough on crime—in fact, it is quite the opposite, because as the Minister has laid out, there will be more people in prison at the end of this Parliament than ever before—but, as has been outlined today, anyone who thinks we can simply build our way out of this crisis is not living in the real world and is not serious about public policy. It is welcome that we are deporting more foreign national offenders and bearing down on the court backlog to reduce remand prisoners. All of that is necessary but not sufficient, which is why this Bill is very welcome.
I want to speak specifically about amendments 1 and 14 and the broadening of whole-life orders. When I was a prison officer, I found it incredibly frustrating how little acknowledgment was given by wider society to the serious assaults and injuries that staff often had to suffer. I will take this issue up with the Minister another time, as I know it does not relate directly to the amendments, but I do think it is important that there is public recognition of how dangerous the job can be, including for probation officers. I pay tribute to Lenny Scott’s family, who have worked tirelessly to advocate for this welcome change. I hope that every Member of Parliament from across the House will support those amendments, which send the clear message that this House backs our police, probation and prison staff, given the particular dangers they face, and that we support them today and every day.
Although the Bill may have been born out of necessity—and, frankly, emergency—at the start of this Government’s time in office, I am proud that it is a Labour Government who are introducing the reform that our justice system has long needed. I am proud to support the Government amendments today.
Jake Richards
Today is a pivotal day. Subject to agreement from this House and from the other place, the Bill will complete all its stages and shortly become law. I want to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin). Although I was the Minister to take the Bill through the House, his painstaking work in developing the policy was fundamental and he deserves great credit.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); at every opportunity, including this debate, she rightly raises her campaign to clamp down on tool theft and she is a fine champion for her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). She brings huge experience to debates on these issues. We are taking measures to give prison staff further protections, but I am happy to speak with her about what more the Government can do.
We have aired the debate on the Sentencing Council before. The Conservative position was developed by the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).
Jake Richards
The hon. Member says, “It was a team effort.” I am not sure about that. The Conservatives’ position is an example of real constitutional vandalism. It has never been the case that this Bill would threaten the independence of the judiciary. Our amendments, and the proposal set out in this legislation, ensure that there is a democratic lock around sentencing and that there is a role for this place, but that the Sentencing Council remains independent. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
I welcome the degree of consensus on transcripts. The Conservative position on this amendment, at the back end of last week and then early this week, seems to have changed a few times. Our amendment in lieu strikes the right balance. If anyone could seek a free transcript of sentencing remarks, we might be in the position where our court staff, who have a big job in getting a grip of the backlog, spend all their time issuing transcripts.
Let me turn to the issues raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). We have to look into the question of what happens with transcripts when victims are either children, deceased or where there is a lack of capacity. It may be that the victims code does that already for us, but we have to get it right and we will ensure we do so as the policy is developed. She mentioned her concerns about exceptions and omissions and asked me to ponder on examples when those exceptions could be engaged. Of course, this may be relevant when there are issues of national security or public safety, but one would hope that such circumstances would be extremely exceptional. It is important, though, that those provisions are in the Bill.
We believe that our amendments will allow for more openness. They are ambitious but also realistic, considering where the technology is at the moment and the pressures on our court system. Do we want to go further when we can? Absolutely. We believe in the fundamental principle of transparency and openness in our justice system, and where we can, we will.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I apologise that I was not here for the Minister’s opening speech; I was chairing the Justice Committee. I do not think that matters, though, because I agree with him on the amendments. They strengthen the Bill considerably. They bring more openness and transparency, and we welcome all the recommendations here, whether in relation to the Sentencing Council, to the prison capacity report, to the transcripts through the amendments in lieu, or to IPP prisoners. They are all welcome improvements on the Bill. We think that they need to go further in some areas, particularly in relation to IPP prisoners, but this is a good step along the way.
Jake Richards
I always welcome an intervention from the Chair of the Justice Committee. As I said following an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), the work on IPPs is an ongoing process led by Lord Timpson in the other place. I know that he is always happy to engage with hon. Members from the Select Committee.
I conclude my remarks by stating firmly that the Bill will solve the mess that this Government inherited and begin to make sure that our prison system is fit for the future. I once again thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. Their expertise strengthens it in many important respects.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.