Commons Chamber

Tuesday 21st October 2025

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
None Portrait Q2. What steps he is taking to help improve the performance of the most underperforming NHS trusts. (905902)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shaun Davies number six, sir. So state. Thank you, Mr Speaker. This government has invested an
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
None Portrait Q3. What steps his Department is taking to improve maternity and neonatal care. (905903)
-

Samantha Niblett question number three, please, Mr Speaker.
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:45
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
None Portrait Q6. What recent progress he has made on reorganising the NHS. (905906)
-

Rebecca Smith thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

student at. King's Minister.
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
None Portrait Q7. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of NHS Online on waiting times. (905907)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Well, hey. Mr Speaker, the NHS. Online hospital will connect patients with.
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
None Portrait Q8. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the time taken for cancer diagnoses. (905908)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me stop. Thank you, Mr Speaker. This
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
None Portrait Q10. What steps his Department is taking to support people with acute myeloid leukaemia. (905910)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Number ten, Mr Speaker.
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:07
12:07
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
None Portrait Q14. What steps his Department is taking to tackle wasteful spending in the health service. (905914)
-

Richard Burgon number 14, Mr Speaker,
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
None Portrait Q17. What steps he is taking to transfer care from hospitals into the community. (905918)
-

Jas Athwal.
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:19
None Portrait Topical questions: Health and Social Care
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

please speak up. So state. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Since I last answered questions in this
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:45
Jess Phillips Portrait Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)
-
-
A A national A national audit A national audit into A national audit into A national audit into group A national audit into group based child sexual exploitation and abuse. These crimes, committed by grooming These crimes, committed by grooming gangs are among the most horrific imaginable. And her report, exposed imaginable. And her report, exposed over a decade of institutional inaction, and we are determined to ensure such failures are never ensure such failures are never repeated. Central to our response is a statutory national inquiry under a statutory national inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, which will oversee local investigations with oversee local investigations with full powers to compel evidence.

It will be time limited to three years to ensure that victims and survivors receive answers swiftly. The inquiry will examine safeguarding systems, will examine safeguarding systems, accountability and intersections with ethnicity, race and culture, identifying failures and good identifying failures and good practice. The inquiry will inquiry will work alongside the national police operation, Operation Beacon Port. The appointment of the Chair is at a critical stage and we hope to confirm the conclusion of this soon. Victims and survivors have been at the heart of this process, with trauma informed opportunities to share their views.

We began engaged with them on the Chair appointment and the terms of reference, which will be shaped by the Chair in consultation, in public, again with stakeholders, as widely reported in the media. Victims and survivors are meeting prospective chairs this week. Today. In fact, this process, contrary to the reporting, was not managed by the Home Office but by an independent child exploitation charity, the SWG. We are gathering views to ensure their perspective. Their perspective remains central. We must avoid delays, as were seen in the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and are progressing as swiftly as thoroughness allows.

Misinformation undermines this process. Allegations of intentional delay, lack of interest or widening of the inquiry. Scope and dilution are false. The inquiry will remain laser focussed on grooming gangs, as Baroness Casey recommended.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This scandal arose because young, mainly white girls were systematically gang
12:47
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
white girls were systematically gang raped and this was covered up by those in authority because the perpetrators were mainly of Pakistani origin. So it's all the more shocking that when calls for a national inquiry became public in January, the Prime Minister smeared campaigners as jumping on a far right bandwagon. Comments like that are a disgrace and are what led to this scandal being covered up in the first place. Months later, just two days before facing a vote in Parliament, the government finally agreed to the inquiry.

But it's clear the government never wanted this inquiry. They were forced into it. Perhaps that is why, months later, the government has said nothing substantive publicly and their inquiry is descending into chaos. What we have heard publicly is that victims and survivors on the liaison panel have no confidence in the government and no confidence in the inquiry. In the last 24 hours alone, two have resigned. Fiona Goddard resigned from the panel, saying this. The secretive conduct and conditions imposed on survivors by the government has led to a toxic and fearful environment, with a high risk of people being silenced all over again.

And hours later, Ellie Anne Reynolds also resigned, saying the remit of the inquiry had, and I quote, been widened to downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse. The minister shakes her head. That is what Ellie Anne Reynolds says. Fiona also raised the issue of Savva. Kaisa, who has been acting as a liaison officer on behalf of SWG. Just two years ago, Miss Kaisa described calling out the fact the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage as, and I quote, destructive, distracting and irresponsible given those frankly appalling views and the complaints about them by survivors, by survivors.

Will the Minister ensure Miss Kaisa plays no further role? Victims and survivors have also questioned the suitability of former police officers or social workers to Chair the inquiry. They do not believe people from the professions which failed them so badly are suitable. So will the Minister accept this feedback and appoint a judge to lead the inquiry? Will the Minister confirm the scope of this inquiry will not be diluted, as both Fiona and Leon say is now happening, and confirm it will focus on the cover up of the rape gang scandal because the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani origin.

Finally, Fiona said this yesterday I won't be gagged and controlled by the government while they turn this inquiry into a cover up. So will the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister apologise to Fiona and to Ian? Mr. What I would say to the
12:50
Jess Phillips Portrait Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)
-
-
honourable gentleman in his is that he didn't listen to my remarks at all, because what suggesting that the government has silenced anybody is that the government has not handled this process. It has been handled by a grooming gang charity, of which he cites of which he cites are names a victim of crime. And look what I will say to the honourable gentleman, which he would know if he had done anywhere near the level of work that I have done, is that not all victims and survivors are of the same opinion.

They are not one homogenous group of people who all think the same thing, who all want the same exposure, who all want their identities known. And so what I would say is that I have spoken to Fiona Goddard many times, and I will continue that relationship with her, should that be what she wishes. And are every single survivor who has been engaged with, of which there have been many, will have different feelings on this subject with regard to him requiring a judge, Baroness Casey said to this House in the Home Affairs Select Committee she did not want a traditional judicial led inquiry.

She was explicit and if anyone in this House can find me an institution that didn't fail these girls over the years, including our courts, who took the children away from the grooming gang victims who criminalised some of them. There is no institution in our country that hasn't failed. We will continue. Today. I will meet with many of the victims and get their feedback, and I will continue to progress. With that in mind, I will engage with all the victims, regardless of their opinions, and I will listen to those that have been put in the media that are put in panels.

I will always

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listen and I will speak to all of them. Ma'am. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Oldham has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Oldham has stepped forward to take forward a local inquiry, and it's been waiting to understand what the move to the
12:52
12:53
12:53
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:02
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:10
13:11
13:12
Jess Phillips Portrait Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank the honourable gentleman, because he is in somewhat of a unique category of always asking a question that is genuinely asking a question that is genuinely like it leads me to further questions that I think are pertinent, how the inquiry will report into here, whilst it is ongoing, is not necessarily something that usually happens, but if there, I will take that away and if there is an appetite. But all I can say is there is no institution in the country, this one here that doesn't have skeletons.

Do I think all politicians wouldn't be robust in this? No I don't, I think some would, and I can guarantee that I can point at people, the honourable gentleman included, who would show absolute rigour even against his own, and that that that is. But there isn't a single light with Excel. We had a judge was leading, sir. They lost the confidence of the victims. Three people lost the confidence of the victims. It took two years. Like so. There isn't an institution that didn't fail these girls.

That's the whole point. There is no clean skin. But there are people. Brilliant people. People who whistle blow. People who tried in every one of those institutions. And so that that is essentially where we are left with this. But I promise rigour the same way that when I saw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what things happening in here, I certainly was rigorous in breath. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:28
13:28
13:28
13:29
Jess Phillips Portrait Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

So to the first question, I have every power to intervene in the process of how that that panel. But process of how that that panel. But the decision that I made was that it should be independent of me and it should be independent of my offices, and that it would be better handled by experts in this field. So but, you know, when I speak to them, I of course, I can raise those and I can make decisions about how it goes forward.

I very much hope that we will be coming, drawing to a conclusion, and that actually my involvement in it soon will will be much lesser, actually. And to his other question. But victims and survivors of this crime all have different political opinions. All have different views on the substantive. They have different views about whether it should be called grooming, whether it should be called groups. They have different views on all of these things. I will not stand here and say that I would eliminate any victim or survivor based on their political, but that any victim or survivor working on this.

I will continue to say that as it is because of their views, because many of them don't like me very much. Imagine if I just didn't let the people who didn't like me very much not have their voice heard. Or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

frankly, I'd be guilty of a cover up it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister has made it clear that
13:30
13:31
13:32
13:33
13:34
13:34
13:35
13:35
13:35
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Independent)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. That's a complete point for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's a complete point for the Jeremy Corbyn order. Mr Speaker, could I invite you to examine Hansard column 652 from yesterday during the exchange about Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters travelling to Aston Villa. In reply to my question, the Secretary of State said she agreed with me about the safety of everyone walking the streets. What went on to say? Perhaps he might make that point to the people he now associates with on his left and right, because that is not what we've heard from them in the last few weeks.

I find the suggestion in that that my colleagues have done anything other than, say, everyone should be able to walk the streets safely in our society. And they were concerned about the danger from football supporters acting in a hooligan way and Aston Villa game. I think the Secretary of State should correct what Mr. Jeremy, come on. And all this back you mentioned, you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certainly put it on the record. You certainly ensured that the correction and your view. Is there. Well, it doesn't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, it doesn't. Do is. Continuously debate. And, you know, that is a long standing member of this House has got great respect. of this House has got great respect. And I will leave it at that, because you certainly ensure that we're all aware and the correction takes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aware and the correction takes place. Mims Davies. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Point of order. And following. The.
13:37
13:37
13:39
None Portrait Ten Minute Rule Motion: Cyber Extortion and Ransomware (Reporting)
-

13:40
13:51
None Portrait Legislation: Committee of the whole House on the Sentencing Bill
-

13:51
14:20
14:40
15:01
15:08
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Funding Funding rate Funding rate for Funding rate for those Funding rate for those who Funding rate for those who were unemployed at 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 programs.

And could the Minister inform the House what assessment has been made of this by the government, ensuring access to these pathways is vital if we are to reduce re-offending effectively. We are also concerned that the Bill does not go far enough to support victims of violence against women and girls, which I know is one of the government's key priorities this parliamentary term. Yet without collecting the data, it's an empty promise that will be hard to show they've actually achieved. New clause 36 continues my honourable friend for Eastbourne important campaign to ensure that domestic abuse is treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing, whilst new clause 37 requires an assessment of the introduction of mandatory rehabilitation programmes focussed 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 a aggravating factor. These measures are designed to ensure that victims of domestic abuse and related offences are placed at the centre of the justice systems work, ensuring that such crimes are met with appropriate sentences, and the rehabilitation is specifically targeted at those who commit these serious offences. In line with this approach, new clause 38 calls for streaming for traumatic brain injuries among prisoners at the start of their custodial sentences.

A brain crime study last year showed 80% of women in the criminal justice system in Wales may be suffering with a brain injury. Government data shows that over 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. And that's certainly reflected in probation services and their ability to engage after leaving prison.

Comprehensive screening across the prison population would enable a deeper understanding of the links between trauma, offending and re-offending. New clause 31 calls on the Secretary of State to examine the proceeds generated from the proposed income reduction orders, and consider whether they could be ringfenced to create a dedicated fund for supporting victims. New clause 39 would also allow the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged for certain driving offences, pending the outcome of the trial, as part of their bail conditions.

I know many honourable 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. This is just plain wrong and I know is felt deeply across the House.

New clause 40 addresses the ridiculous doom loop that we find ourselves in, with prisoners on remand, arriving at their sentencing hearing, being sentenced, and then being sent home because the court backlog means they've served their sentence while being on remand and not have not had access to any of the rehabilitative programs, education, therapy and other support. So this new clause would make rehabilitative programs 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.

This will not give public confidence in the system, essentially providing a get out of jail free card for reoffending. I'd 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. This 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. And as my friend for Eastbourne stated at the bill's Second Reading, it was full of hope but falls short of both the Liberal Democrat ambition and that which the government claims to have.

But I look forward to hearing the government response to our questions and encourage members across the House to support our amendments, including new clause 30. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm just going to make a
15:14
Emma Lewell Portrait Emma Lewell MP (South Shields, Labour)
-
-
Chair. I'm just going to make a short speech in relation to new clause 27. In my name and of other honourable members. My constituent, Sophie Hall, after a short relationship, has and continues to suffer from prolonged and relentless stolen campaign from her ex-partner. He was residing illegally in the UK in November last year. He was arrested for these offences but was never spoken to about them as an interpreter could not be found nor risk assessment was done and he was placed in temporary accommodation on bail.

Bail which he continued to breach. In February of this year he was convicted and sentenced under the protection from Harassment Act. He was subsequently deported to his home country of Brazil with a ten year re-entry ban, effective from March. He then made his way to Europe, travelled across several countries and ended 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.

He was remanded in custody after review. The stated no charges could be filed for stalking under current law because the stalking had happened outside of the UK. The perpetrator was not a UK citizen or resident. An existing law does not give the UK court's jurisdiction over stalking offences committed from abroad under these circumstances. This is the crux of my new clause. He was then placed on remand and on the 15th of September this year was sentenced to four years and four months for once again breaching a restraining order.

He is now in Durham Prison and continues to show no remorse or acknowledgement of the harm that he caused. Sophie has been told by her victim liaison officer that he is likely to be deported, and will be permanently banned from the UK, as well as receiving a lifetime restraining order from ever contacting Sophie again. Whether abroad are in the UK, though, he has consistently stalked Sophie, including send her letters when he was in a detention centre because the Home Office failed to transfer information relating to his restraining order.

Sophie does not think she will ever be safe, nor does she feel that the indefinite ban is much of a deterrent. Once in Brazil, no one will have sight of him or manage the risk he poses. She knows that he will try and travel back to her because he always does. I am aware that in correspondence from my honourable friend for safe garden and violence against women and girls, that the government is already looking at the extraterritorial jurisdiction of stalking legislation, and that new measures regarding stalking are going to be coming forward in the Crime and Policing Bill next week.

However, after looking at these measures carefully, they will literally do nothing at all to prevent what is happening to Sophie. Sophie is right that the situation remains that online stalking of UK citizens by foreign nationals, even if it is persistent, harmful and criminal in nature, can go unpunished simply because of where the perpetrator is located. When committing that abuse. This legal loophole gives perpetrators the freedom to act with impunity, as long as they are physically outside of the UK.

Madam Chair, there are sadly lots of us in this place who know that heart stopping fear and worry when we see threats online or in writing, knowing that the person who is making them to us will carry them out and does really mean it. Sophie has suffered this relentlessly. She has been let down by agencies who were meant to protect her, and the law has allowed her perpetrator to continue to torment her. She's not alone, though. Paladin Advocacy Service, who have worked with me on this amendment or support many other victims.

As the law currently stands, the UK has limited powers to prevent foreign nationals convicted of stalking from continuing to harass their victims after being deported. New clause 27 aims to away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First Lady for giving way. And as we move to an ever more digital world than the capacity for people world than the capacity for people to stalk and provide this kind of oppressive actions, or people will oppressive actions, or people will only grow. So just. Madam Chair, just to say how delighted I am, the member is bringing it forward and I member is bringing it forward and I hope we will hear from the Minister and we'll look at this carefully, because this will be a growing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue. Although, as she's shown with Sophie, it's already horrific its impact. I thank the honourable member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for that intervention and I thank him for his support. Simply, I just want no one else to go through what 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 the Minister will give this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hope the Minister will give this proper consideration. Ben Obese-Jecty. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to
15:20
Ben Obese-Jecty Portrait Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to speak today to my amendment new clause six, which directly calls to implement 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. 202 convictions were for causing death by dangerous driving, 150 convictions with causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. 23 convictions were for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.

Two convictions were for causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured, and three convictions were for causing death by driving while disqualified. Fewer than 1% of those drivers were given a lifetime driving ban. 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 1348 convictions for causing death by dangerous driving, 1314 convictions for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, 158 convictions for causing death by careless driving, one under the influence of drink or drugs 17.

Convictions for causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured. 11 convictions for causing death by driving while disqualified. Nearly 3000 convictions for causing a death through negligence or recklessness of the driver. Thousands of lives lost. Husbands and wives who've lost their partner. Children who've lost a parent. Parents who've lost a child. Thousands more lives impacted tragically. Lives forever changed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shattered. And will give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. And he's making a very powerful speech with some very shocking figures. Just last Friday shocking figures. Just last Friday in my constituency surgery. Sarah, Amy came to talk to me about her husband, Jason, who seven years ago husband, Jason, who seven years ago he and his colleague, after a work dinner were killed by a 17 year old dinner were killed by a 17 year old driving high on cannabis well above the speed limit.

He was given £120 fine and a few hours of community fine and a few hours of community service has subsequently reoffended 27 times, including a dangerous 27 times, including a dangerous driving offence. Does he agree with me that the. In my family she had three teenage children at the time. three teenage children at the time. Sarah and her children deserve justice and this man should never be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to drive again. Yeah, I thank the. Member for her contribution and I wholeheartedly agree. There are so wholeheartedly agree. There are so many tales just like that from all of our constituencies that really indicate just how lenient we have indicate just how lenient we have been on those convicted of dangerous driving, particularly those who've caused the fatality. And it's precisely the reason why I brought this amendment today. I do believe that families like that really do deserve justice and deserve that deserve justice and deserve that closure, knowing that those people won't go on to reoffend under section 163 of the Sentencing Code, any court may impose a driving disqualification for any offence committed after the 1st of January 1998, the minimum period for disqualification for causing death by careless driving is just 12 months.

The sentencing guidelines for 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 the guidelines consider life to be as cheap as is reflected in the current guidelines, the minimum period for disqualification for causing death by dangerous driving is five years. Consider that the threshold for dangerous driving is high. It is excessive speeding, drink driving, dangerous and erratic overtaking manoeuvres. This is a type of driving that leaves you horrified.

Now consider that if the outcome of that driving is that someone is killed, the minimum of 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 the reluctance to do so is currently priced into the guidelines. They state lifetime disqualifications will be rare, in particular because of the increased risk of breach and the possibility of hindering rehabilitation prospects. Lifetime disqualifications would generally be inappropriate unless there is psychiatric evidence and or evidence of many previous convictions indicating that the offender will be a danger to the public indefinitely if allowed to drive.

Why are we so reticent to permanently remove killer drivers from the road? Increased risk of breach if you're caught driving while disqualified. Having been banned for driving for life, for killing someone? Perhaps we should be sending those people to prison. Those who know me will know that I'm far from being anti motorist. I'm no fan of low traffic neighbourhoods. Blanket 20 mile an hour speed limits, terribly designed cycle lanes. But whilst I've been a car enthusiast for many years, I'm also a cyclist and these days very much a mammoth.

I've been knocked off my bike twice by cars that didn't see me. I've been doored. I've been close past at 60 miles an hour. I ride with cameras on my bike, so there's evidence of being knocked off and some of the driving. I could show you clips on Twitter. Jeremy Vine from ever riding a bike in London again. I've been lucky. My golf wasn't lucky. Mike was known in Huntingdon for his passionate advocacy for road safety. He too, is 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 couldn't be revived. Mike was pronounced dead at the scene. If you walk along the Brampton Road today, you'll see a white ghost bike. Now marks the site. The tribute to Mike. The driver received the 12 month sentence, suspended for two years and a two year driving ban. As it stands, we'll be back on the road before the next election. Mike's relatives have said how they did not believe the sentence reflected the seriousness of what has happened, or the catastrophic impact of 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. Our grief is immeasurable. It is with these events in mind that I tabled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my amendment to the sentencing bill. And will be back.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And will be back. I thank the honourable gallant member for giving way, and he speaks really strongly about it. There may really strongly about it. There may be reticence to support his new clause because of the implications clause because of the implications on rehabilitation, but he has already spoken about the huge impact already spoken about the huge impact on families and individuals of the taking of life. Is he able to just give a little bit more reassurance give a little bit more reassurance about balance and the difference between that ability to rehabilitate through custodial sentences, for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through custodial sentences, for example, but the lifelong impact on families of the incidents of the moment. Ben Obese-Jecty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ben Obese-Jecty. I thank the member for his contribution, and I think it's a really valid point. I think the really valid point. I think the element of this is to remove the chance of those people re-offending further down the track. I think the custodial element of this remains custodial element of this remains unchanged. And so the ability to be rehabilitated through the prison system, to reduce that rate of recidivism will still exist. I think recidivism will still exist. I think the issue here, and as the honourable member for Twickenham pointed out as well, this is to give pointed out as well, this is to give as well families that closure, that those who are guilty of committing these crimes won't be able to go on these crimes won't be able to go on to, to re-offend.

New clause six proposes a lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences. Those are covered at the beginning of the speech. Having spoken to Mike's widow, Hazel and his daughter Kim, it is sobering to listen to somebody recount the story of the day they had to attend the scene of where their husband and father had just been killed. Selfishly, it is sobering to also think about how easily it could have been me. I ride the same roads as Mike did.

It wasn't an error or avoidable on his part. The drive was solely at fault. It was his casual negligence that caused Mike's death. His daughter, Kim recounts on the 27th of 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 whilst we have lost our dad, husband, friend, granddad lived the last 18 months encompassed in a whirlwind of grief.

Even after sentencing, he continues to live his life just for the 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'll 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 to. I would ask anyone in the chamber to think how they might feel if they were to get a phone call today informing them that their partner, their parent, their child had been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

killed in a road traffic accident. From work. My friend's giving a very powerful speech. I like him, I'm a cyclist and had subject to dangerous driving, but I'm also a driver and driving, but I'm also a driver and I'm I'm a. There would be few of us, I don't think. Who wouldn't feel that at some point or other that that at some point or other that they had driven carelessly, and therefore has my honourable friend given thought to whether the bar of saying anybody who ever has caused death through who through carelessness, that a lifetime ban carelessness, that a lifetime ban would always be appropriate in all circumstances, because I'm not yet convinced.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ben Obese-Jecty I thank my honourable friend for his contribution. It's a valid point. I do come on later to talk about do come on later to talk about whether or not it is too draconian. I think there is. I think the issue here is one of finality. I think no here is one of finality. I think no matter how unlucky you may have been, and I'm sure we've all had narrow or close shaves whilst narrow or close shaves whilst driving a car.

The fact of the matter is that if you have killed somebody that is final, and talking about the grief of the families that about the grief of the families that I've spoken to and the stories that I've heard from other members of the House as well, I think you cannot House as well, I think you cannot underestimate just how much of an impact it has, not only on the lives of the family, but also on the of the family, but also on the friends and the colleagues of those people, and how the opportunities that those people will never, ever get.

Beyond that unimaginable pain. Think how they might be left feeling far from being an unavoidable accident. It was, in fact, caused by the reckless action of somebody playing with their phone, speeding, driving like a boy racer or drunk. The feeling of injustice when that individual is sentenced, when they receive little more than a slap on the wrist, the driver killed Mike was given a two year driving ban. Two years. Hazel will never get to see Mike again. They'll never have the opportunity to live out the rest of their lives together.

Kim said the long term impact of our family 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, is unable to reduce her working hours. She's 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. A tabled new clause six because of Mike, because of the conversations with Hazel and Kim, because victims like him need justice.

Just as that. As things stand, they will not receive. How can we put a tariff and being directly responsible for someone's death that is so incredibly low. The option to ban a driver for life is at the court's disposal, and yet appears not to be the preference of judges. That leniency suggests that life is cheap. The 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? So 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, but it doesn't leave room for rehabilitation, that it won't work as a deterrent.

New clause six isn't supposed to be a deterrent. This is for the courts to decide whether the conviction should result in a custodial sentence, and thus what degree of rehabilitation, and therefore recidivism, should occur thereafter. New clause six is not too draconian. It is robust. You take drivers who have killed permanently off our roads. It would 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.

I was moved recently by the story of one family. Claire O'Neill recently spoke to Sky news following the conviction of the driver and their story. It was a normal Saturday morning. It was quite busy. We were going to go home via the school fair and we got to the school crossing, which was behind the school. We pressed the button and waited for the cars to stop. She took a couple of steps out in front because she was responsibly crossing, and I was encouraging her brother to catch up.

And then in front of our eyes, he ploughed into her massively fast and he carried her off on his wing mirror. And I got this very clear image of her being swept off her feet, and then she tumbled off. By the time I got to her, it was almost like she was gone. Alex died a few days later. She was nine years old. Life had been red for seven seconds when he overtook cars to speed through the pedestrian crossing. Kadir Hussain was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

He was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison. He was also disqualified from driving for ten years and two months. He'll be out in four. Clare's victim impact statement illustrates the devastating effect of tragedies like this. I feel blinding, chest crushing, white hot rage is unlike any emotion I've ever felt before. She wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time. You were. You knew all along. I'm helpless to express my anger that you stole everything from her. I table this amendment today because I believe that as a nation, you do not take the necessary steps to make our roads safer.

We do not punish those responsible robustly enough. Should this amendment go to the vote today? I believe the support for it, acknowledged by the government, shows that more robust measures are possible. Victims and their families deserve justice. And while the issue of sentencing for these crimes is a wider discussion, ensuring that those responsible for destroying so many lives do not drive on our roads again, it's an issue we could address in this House today. This amendment will never bring back the victims who have been lost, nor heal the pain felt by those left behind, but it may offer some closure that this is a place where crime does not go unpunished, where causing a fatality does not occur with impunity.

I thank those who supported this amendment, and I would ask everyone to vote in favour of it this evening.
15:33
Sarah Russell Portrait Sarah Russell MP (Congleton, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, Sarah. And I'd like to start by thanking the member for Huntington for speaking to his amendment. Although I don't support the amendment because, for instance, causing death by careless driving, the minimum requirement for that can be simply a momentary lapse of concentration. Now, of course, where he's talking about a death, I'm not suggesting for a moment that that should go unpunished, but potential full lifetime driving ban. If someone's made a momentary lapse of concentration at 19 and still couldn't drive at 55, doesn't feel proportionate.

But what I absolutely agree with him about is that we should be looking much, much more closely at all driving related offences. All offences relating to juniors driving, careless driving and particularly causing death by dangerous driving and because these are horrendous crimes and I've met with families who've been briefed in this way, and it is some of the most impactful conversations I have ever had in my life, and the impact on their families simply cannot be overstated. So I certainly will hope that the Minister and I know we are expecting road safety strategy imminently, that these will be taken forward on a cross-party basis and looked at very sensibly, because there is a really, really important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

topic. Yes. Just to her point, I, I totally understand what she's saying about a understand what she's saying about a momentary lapse in concentration, but that momentary lapse in concentration has cost somebody concentration has cost somebody their life. And were it to be anybody sitting in this room right now, I think that will be a devastating consequence, not just devastating consequence, not just for them, but for everyone in this room, for all their families as well. And I recognise what she's saying, that it doesn't feel proportionate, but I would say that there is nothing more final than losing your life.

And to that extent, I do believe it's proportionate, simply because driving is actually a privilege and not driving is realistically only an not driving is realistically only an inconvenience, whereas the repercussions of somebody living their life without rest of their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

family is vast. And I thank the honourable member for his comments. As I say, I for his comments. As I say, I broadly agree with him on the overall topic here that we should be looking at whether or not these offences are being dealt with with sufficient severity. And I agree with him that the impact on people's families simply cannot be families simply cannot be overstated. But to move on and make some progress, the clause that I am some progress, the clause that I am most proud of in this bill is clause six, and I want to speak to six, and I want to speak to amendment 31.

And I know clause six was the work of cross-party work between the member for Eastbourne and our frontbench, and I think it needs to be really, really given the prominence it deserves. So what this amendment, sorry, what this clause will allow is where domestic abuse was a factor in an offence that that will start to be recorded and tracked for the first time. The amendment that I have supported in respect of this is amendment 31, about there being the ability to call evidence as to whether or not there has, in fact, been domestic abuse.

Now I am start from a fundamental position in relation to domestic abuse that you should believe women, and it is predominantly female victims, although by no means exclusively. But I also strongly, strongly believe in the rule of law and the importance of having evidence. And that's the reason that I have supported this amendment as put forward by my honourable friend the member for Hammersmith and Chiswick. Moving on to new clauses 28 and 29, these will be addressed more thoroughly, I am sure, by my honourable friend the member for Stoke-on-Trent South, but they are about gambling treatment, being treated on a par with treatment for drug and alcohol in the courts.

Those on the opposition benches have suggested that in some way, those on these benches are anti punishment. We are absolutely not anti punishment. I absolutely believe that crime should be punished, but I also absolutely believe that rehabilitation services are critical to preventing the recurrence of crime. And when 80% of criminal offending is re-offending, we have to look really seriously about how we're going to break those cycles of offending. So I absolutely welcome and applaud these clauses put forward, as I say, by my friend in Stoke-on-Trent South, gambling is creating significant social problems in our society, and when that extends to crime, then we need solutions for that.

The next clause is that I want to speak to our new clauses 15 and 24, both of which address the potential abolition of the Sentencing Council, the language in which those have been addressed by the opposition benches have been a bit more circumspect today than some of what we've heard said about the sentencing council in this chamber by them previously, our judges in the UK are some of the best judges in the world. The independence of our judiciary is an absolutely fundamental premise of our democracy, and we treat it in the way that it has been talked about recently with with complete disdain.

It terrifies me. Actually, I think this is one of the most important principles that our country stands upon. The member for Bexhill said that that we still respect they still respect the independence of the rule of law. But I've had members on those benches refer to leftie activist judges as if somehow the judiciary in Britain was populated by radical Marxists. This is not the case. I am a lawyer. I spent 13 years in practice. I have never met a judge who was anything but genuinely committed to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apolitical upholding of the law. Yeah. It is incredibly important that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is incredibly important that we continue to recognise these principles and promote them. And I say this partly as genuinely an say this partly as genuinely an ideological position, partly out of genuine experience. But also in genuine experience. But also in Britain, we have exported £9.5 billion of legal services in the billion of legal services in the last year. And one of the reasons that we have had that level of success is because there is genuine success is because there is genuine belief in our judiciary, the people across multiple jurisdictions across across multiple jurisdictions across the world trust that our judges will hear our disputes impartially.

And when we talk about this in a when we talk about this in a criminal context or a civil context, we damage not only our institutions, we damage not only our institutions, but also our economy. We have to understand the importance of British rule of law, and we need to promote rule of law, and we need to promote and uphold it at all costs. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those who do not damage our country. Yeah. Yes. Sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Sir. I'll ask the member opposite whether, for example, she thinks it's appropriate for an immigration it's appropriate for an immigration judge to support an advocate for an anti asylum charity where the charity was actively trying to stop asylum laws being implemented. Should an immigration judge be that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I don't know the details of the case to which you refer. Sorry, apologies. I shouldn't be using the apologies. I shouldn't be using the word you, but I do not know the case to which the honourable member refers, which makes it impossible for me to give an informed comment by return. But nonetheless, I can say very genuinely from experience of 13 or 14 years practising as a solicitor before I came to this solicitor before I came to this place and a lot of time spent in the Labour Party and meeting leftie people, that the two didn't really people, that the two didn't really overlapped, they just didn't.

I will give one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady for giving way. Does she accept that? Actually, in a democracy, it is important to in a democracy, it is important to be able to hold everybody to account, including judges? And does she accept. That we need to be able she accept. That we need to be able to check that they're making good decisions on behalf of everybody?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sarah Russell, the honourable member appears to be ignoring an entire recruitment process for the entire recruitment process for the judiciary, which is fundamentally, absolutely at its heart, emphasises the independence of those people from political interference. That, and the fact that applying the law and the fact that applying the law is something that should not be subject to political interference in this place, that is that is absolutely fundamental, that the judges are not just getting up every morning and just coming up with ludicrous lefty positions.

The position that's being painted sometimes from the opposition benches is just fanciful. It bears no relationship to my experience of engaging with the actual judiciary on an ongoing basis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I think the I will give way. I thank the honourable member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giving way. Would she agree with me that it is outrageous that members of this House should hold up a judge's wig at a party conference so much that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at a party conference so much that that those judges are therefore have got increased security. Risks? Sarah Russell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sarah Russell. But the members of the judiciary that I have spoken to have very, very genuine concerns about their very genuine concerns about their personal security, particularly immigration judges. In fact, they are genuinely frightened of doing their jobs. It will be affecting judicial recruitment, and we absolutely need immigration judges to be able to stand up, serve the to be able to stand up, serve the judiciary. Many, many judges take a pay cut in order to become judges. And when they should, they deserve And when they should, they deserve our genuine respect.

They work very hard in a system that has been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grotesquely underfunded for 14 years. Their. So lastly, I would just like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So lastly, I would just like to very briefly mention new clause 40 put forward by the Liberal put forward by the Liberal Democrats. I know that I've referred to cross-party working elsewhere. I understand that it may not be the exactly right format for the government to take forward today, but I do hope that the Minister will look at how we are going to deal with the issue of 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 at Justice Select Committee about what work is being done with people on remand, particularly in respect of domestic abuse offences, where we are missing an opportunity for people to, in my opinion, without accepting any sort of guilt, potentially engage in services irrespective of whether or not their original offence was in fact related to domestic abuse, that that many people would benefit from having considered their their general behaviour.

And all of us, in fact, could could benefit from those opportunities for reflection. People have a lot of time in prison, and at the moment it is not being used as effectively as I and many others would like to see. And that brings me back to my original point on these benches. We absolutely believe in punishment, but fundamentally we believe in rehabilitation. And emphasis on that within this bill is very much to be welcomed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Liz Saville-Roberts, I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Liz Saville-Roberts, I will speak to my amendment, new clause, foreign probation capacity, a new clause 17 on the devolution of probation to Wales. I note that I support new clause two, the new Cos three, and also new clause 19 and nucleus 30, which relates relate to IPP sentencing. But firstly, let me commend diligent work of my commend diligent work of my constituent, Rhiannon Bragg, and fellow activists who helped place vital victim safeguarding measures vital victim safeguarding measures on the face of this bill, particularly in relation to restrictions on conditions and restrictions on conditions and clauses 16 and 24.

I have questioned and subsequently written to the Secretary of State for further
15:45
Liz Saville Roberts Portrait Rt Hon Liz Saville Roberts MP (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Secretary of State for further clarification for details on these measures, and I look forward to his response, which will help provide those vital assurances to Rhiannon and other victims and survivors. Of course, what we are doing here is putting the restriction conditions around the perpetrator rather than around the victim, and I think that is a major step ahead in our approach to looking after victims. There's no escaping that this bill will heap extra pressure onto the probation service, which is slowly coming from the position which it found itself on its knees following the rehabilitation of the transformation of rehabilitation under the last government.

And last week, I had the honour of addressing the annual conference of Probation Officers Union Napo in my capacity, which I would like to put on record as co-chair of the Justice Union's parliamentary group. Speaker after speaker of the conference, including the Chief Inspector Martin Jones, warned that probation officers are under unprecedented pressure and simply cannot cope with current workloads level levels. Staff are genuinely worried that this bill will make this already acute problem worse, and will risk destabilising the service further, which of course will lead to greater risk to public protection.

That is why an independent assessment of whether probation has the capacity, capability and the capacity to take on additional work is vital as new clause four proposes new clause four, which is fully supported by Napo, seeks the inspectorate's approval before extra pressure is placed on our overstretched probation service. Under this bill, it also empowers the inspectorate to trigger special measures for probation delivery units or entire regions if thought appropriate, my amendment would empower the inspector to trigger a prioritisation framework, which would give probation officers more flexibility to focus on high risk cases and drop the non-essential and low priority tasks that take up so much of their time.

And the one thing that I would say is that we have seen since those years when there was so much pressure on on probation, is the willingness of probation officers to take responsibility for risky decisions, which we are going to require them to do. They have actually been effectively penalised for doing that. So if we are to enable probation officers to do their work more effectively, we must give them the capacity to be able to be, to think through what those risks are, in order to be prepared not to go ahead on the safest possible route.

Currently, only regional probation directors have the power to ask their regional unit to put into the prioritisation framework. The criteria for which I am told is based solely on the number. Only the number of probation officers. Not properly this criterion to be wholly inadequate, as it does not take into account the numbers, not the numbers of the stock, but the grade of the staff or the level of workloads, and it must be broadened out to look at the actual reality of the level of work that probation officers are dealing with from day to day.

And, of course, resting such powers as directors. Also, disincentivise is the triggering of special measures because it leads to accusations of being allowed to mark their own homework. If the inspectorate had the power. Instead, there could be an objective, holistic assessment of the full capacity of that area, which would include a much broader criterion than is presently the case. So I sincerely hope the government will listen and support the spirit, if not the specific text of this amendment. I'll now turn to my Second Amendment new clause 17.

This does what so many have called for so long, which is to devolve probation and offender management to Wales by amending the Government of Wales Act 2006. This is not a political ask. It is an operational one and it comes from within the service. When Apple executive Sue McConnell gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee in May, not only did she provide on the ground insight into the realities of probation service in Wales, but she also made clear that the UK government is ignoring expert advice by refusing to turn away from its failing centralised approach to probation.

Locally based and community centred probation is desperately needed and it is loudly advocated by probation staff in Wales and experts and academics alike. For example, the Chair of the Thomas Commission so rightly said following a question from my colleague and the other place, that it would be useful to know why what was recommended unanimously by a completely apolitical group of experts is thought to be wrong by the UK government. I add to that the recommendations of a list, the Silk Commission report, the Gordon Brown Report and that of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, Gordon Brown.

This was a former Labour Prime Minister who made this recommendation. And while these reports recommend the devolution of justice to Wales and various degrees, the devolution of probation is an undisputable commonality it is asked for by all of these. This is not an ill prepared amendment. It is rooted in years of evidence, years of data, years of analysis and mountains of the same. This is what the experts say need to be done in the situation with Wales where we have the jacket out, devolution and so many of those critical services are all ready to vote.

This is different to any region of England, and for it to work more effectively. The devolution of probation is the first step in bringing these all together. And if my amendment made it into law, there is a wealth of knowledge at our fingertips waiting to be used, such as the now disaggregated Justice data for Wales, finally published again after years and years of demanding it. And I will mention particularly the diligent work of Cardiff University's doctor, Rob Jones, in helping secure this data, and I look forward to his analysis of it.

The point is that if probation were finally devolved, this data could inform our services and our practices in the specific context of Wales, addressing the structural issues which we see, in which we experience and integrate it with those areas crucial to the inhabited habitation that have already been devolved for over a quarter of a century, namely health, housing and social policy. And that is what people on the front line actually want. Probation officers are crying out for reorganisation. A Welsh probation system, uncoupled from the prison Service and informed by and responsive to our communities that they know is what will work for them.

Them on the front line, not for the executives at the Ministry of Justice or for private companies. This will work best for communities and Wales. So instead of ideologically clinging on to a centralised England and Wales service and exploring what we understand the government intends to do, exploring the prospect of devolving probation, this Labour UK government should just get on with it. Labour and Wales agrees with Plaid Kettering and they agreed that when the conservatives were in government that justice should be involved and full when the conservatives were in government.

Labour and Wales pushed for this. But now it seems that those expectations, now that we have Labour and power at both ends of the M4, what we are experiencing is a watering down of those ambitions for Wales. What was said before is not being said now and that is deeply disappointing. So to close with so many of our social policy levers already devolved, full devolution will provide Wales with the opportunity to create and implement a cohesive, holistic justice and rehabilitation strategy that works for the people of Wales and our specific communities and our specific needs.

So I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to these arguments that I have set up with both of these amendments at the close of today's debate, and I hope to see his government act on the actual calls of probation staff who are dealing with these issues on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

front line, as these are what they are. Doctor Allison Gardner. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Allison Gardner. I'm speaking today to amendment new clause 28 gambling treatment requirement and amendment new clause requirement and amendment new clause 29 gambling addiction support for offenders. I thank the Minister and the Department for justice, the NHS,
15:53
Allison Gardner Portrait Dr Allison Gardner MP (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
-
-
the Department for justice, the NHS, the DCMS and the DHSC for their sustained engagement and understanding on this topic. These are probing amendments and I do wish to withdraw them. However, I do 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 very quickly escalate, and some sadly spiral into problem gambling. Once an addiction takes hold, disordered gambling can break down families, caused 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, and problem gambling is associated not only with acquisitive crimes, but also with street violence, domestic abuse and neglect.

This, of course, leads to many harms for the person themselves, their families and the victims of their crimes. Whilst the link between problem gambling and crime remains relatively under-researched, the available evidence illuminates several concerning trends. Problem gamblers are very or over four times more likely to be in prison currently, whilst there are examples of good support specific to problem gambling, there is 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 these options treat the very specific and complex issues related to problem gambling and crime. Without this, people risk entering a cycle of re-offending, with harms escalating each time with 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. And in another case, a man in prison was not offered any treatment in custody at all and experienced a rife culture of gambling.

Whilst 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 are contributing to offending and re-offending. Problem gamblers often struggle with alcohol or drug misuse, mental health issues, or underlying trauma. And secondly, thank you. I'm grateful to the honourable member for giving way. And she's making a very powerful case on a topic that I support wholeheartedly. And the details that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you are outlining in terms of the real problems that gambling addiction causes, but also. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Trauma that also that often leads to such a gambling addiction really to such a gambling addiction really shows how important rehabilitation is, in my view. And we've heard much is, in my view. And we've heard much from the opposite opposition benches today about how everybody should be today about how everybody should be punished. And this bill is a soft option. But does my friend agree with me that actually requiring people to really drill down into the causes of their offending is causes of their offending is actually far from an easy option? It's not only not only a very difficult thing to ask people to do, difficult thing to ask people to do, but it's essential that we give them the support that they need to really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the support that they need to really look at their lives and turn it around. God. I thank my Honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my Honourable friend for her intervention and I wholeheartedly agree that there's prison should be rehabilitative. Any prison should be rehabilitative. Any offence should have that support. So if we prevent re-offending, it is right for our society in this right for potential new victims, and it is right for the offender who often result in criminality due to very severe personal circumstances and trauma. Gambling disorder is recognised as a mental condition leading mental health assessment tools such as the DSM five and the Who's ICD classifies 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. And there is the link the criminal justice system recognises psychological impact of drug and alcohol dependency, and drug and alcohol dependency are mitigating factors with sentencing guidelines. Treatment pathways and rehabilitation requirements are set

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out in the sentencing at 2020. Certainly will do, you know. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Honourable lady for giving way. She makes a. Very. parallels. Between gambling addiction.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Between gambling addiction. And drug and alcohol abuse. the. Public. Accounts Committee, I. Questioned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Accounts Committee, I. Questioned the government officials about. The endemic use of drugs in prisons. The Carol black.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report back in 2020. Looked at this. Or do I just need to please. And how long have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how long have. You been in the chamber? Have we. Just walked in? Just walked in. I listen to two.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listen to two. I just make sure your intervention is short. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I just wanted to. Make. The point. That a lot. Of drug users are. Repeat offenders. As the. Honourable lady was.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Honourable lady was. Saying. About gambling. Addiction and how this shift to community provision might enable people to get the rehabilitation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people to get the rehabilitation that they need for these types of addiction, whether it. Be drug or alcohol or gambling. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, you can. I thank. You for her intervention and I do agree with her point. And again, I will reiterate that to break the cycle of reoffending or recidivism, rehabilitation must be at the heart rehabilitation must be at the heart of all sentencing and punishment or rehabilitation or community or custodial or otherwise. So within the Sentencing Act 2020, and individuals suffering from drug and alcohol addiction receives targeted support through the alcohol treatment requirement and drug rehabilitation requirement 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. But whilst problem gambling is associated with depression and a heightened risk of suicide, the mental health treatment requirement does not directly treat gambling disorder. There is at present no specific requirement that directly addresses disordered gambling.

Amendments and new clause 28 sought to resolve this by establishing a statutory gambling treatment requirement for those serving community orders or suspended sentences for those facing a custodial sentence, most leave custody without treatment. They do not recover from their addiction and are at an increasingly high risk of reoffending after losing their homes, jobs and experiencing family breakdown. And prisoners themselves, incidentally, are often a hotbed for gambling activity, and treatment is absent. 10% of men report gambling regularly whilst in prison, and 41% of people on probation report gambling more than once a week.

Gambling disorder should therefore be recognised throughout the criminal justice process, where gambling disorder is a causal factor. As with drug and alcohol treatment, courts should be empowered to impose community orders and suspended sentences that include referral to specific gambling groups and disorder treatments. Where custody is imposed. Prison should provide access to gambling treatment and peer support equivalent to the available to that available for drug and alcohol addiction. Amendments NC 28 and NC 29 therefore sought to establish a statutory parity, ensuring that treatment based sentencing options are available and continuity of care in both custody and open release.

There are good examples of good practice already. Gambling offer incredible support and their model shows what works. Treatment, peer support and family support and the West Midlands Gambling Harm Clinic offers free, evidence based specialist psychological therapies to individuals harmed by gambling. Trained psychological professionals provide CBT in a variety of formats, including Silver Cloud and a confidential online platform. Online support could follow people if they are moved on, whether in custodial or community sentences, ensuring continuity of support. And I wish to thank learn and the West Midlands Gambling Harms Clinic for working with me.

And I also wish to thank Sarah Page and Staffordshire University, whose research has been instrumental in highlighting the challenges faced by problem gamblers in the criminal justice system. To close, whilst I have withdrawn both amendments, I believe that we must break the cycle of reoffending and make a difference to individuals, their families and their victims out statutory recognition and parity with drug and alcohol addiction. People in recovery are being held back, their families are destabilised and prisons are left to manage untreated addiction without dedicated provision.

I acknowledge again the positive engagement thus far with the with the Minister and I support the government's government's bill, and I do look forward to further discussions as to as to work being done to provide appropriate rehabilitative treatment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for those convicted as a result of their problem gambling. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank Sarah Pochin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I speak in favour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Chair. Today I speak in favour of the eight reform UK amendments. Simply put. This bill is motivated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This bill is motivated. By the desire to. Free up prison spaces and not. By what.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the best way to. Administer justice. Its primary function is not
16:04
Sarah Pochin Portrait Sarah Pochin MP (Runcorn and Helsby, Reform UK)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

the protection of the. Public. Or the protection of victims. Of crime. Or abuse. In fact, the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or abuse. In fact, the. presumption. Of. Suspension of a custodial sentence of. 12 months or less.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

12 months or less. We propose. An. Amendment to remove. Clause one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause one effectively discourages the Magistrates Court from imposing a custodial sentence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from imposing a custodial sentence. There are circumstances. When a. Custodial sentence of. 12 months

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Custodial sentence of. 12 months or less is. Entirely appropriate, and this is tied in the hands. Of. The magistrates, who will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The magistrates, who will be under. Pressure from the clerks not to impose prison. For example.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What does. This. Mean for those. article.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Namely a knife, which currently. Attracts a mandatory six month

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prison sentence? Is the minister. Now suggesting,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the minister. Now suggesting, clause. That. Those offenders found. Guilty of carrying a. Knife will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Guilty of carrying a. Knife will now have their sentence. Automatically suspended? And if so. What does.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This mean for knife crime. On our streets and the protection. Of the public. Community?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sentence options. Are also. Often limited due to defendants claiming. Anxiety and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anxiety and. Depression. Meaning that. Unpaid work. For example, is not an option. Tagging may. Be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be. Limited in these circumstances, because. So many. Defendants are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Claiming universal. Credit. And we want to close.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Credit. And we want to close. amendment. To abolish. The Sentencing Council

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Sentencing Council altogether. The Sentencing. Council was introduced to give statutory.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was introduced to give statutory. Guidance to the judiciary to avoid inconsistencies in sentencing decisions. However, we believe this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

However, we believe this. Council's work. Has become prescriptive.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And politicised. As per clause 19, we live in an era of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Two tier justice. Let us not forget. Let us not forget. Not yet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not yet. Let us not forget that it was the sentencing. Council in March of this year who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

year who. Proposed treating ethnic. Minority offenders. More leniently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

More leniently. Than white offenders. The justice, the Justice. Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Had to step in and overrule. The Sentencing Council. In order to stop this madness. For these.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For these. Reasons. The. Sentencing Council. Should be abolished and sentencing powers should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lie solely in. The discretion. Of the judges. I will give. You. I think my friends are giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Committee. And earlier this year we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And earlier this year we prison. Systems and all the sorts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Systems and all the sorts. describe. As restorative justice. And the facts are that our prisons are absolutely overflowing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prisons are absolutely overflowing. They're not making anybody any around. They don't. Provide restorative justice. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Provide restorative justice. And as I know, to my own costs, it costs four times more to keep a prisoner

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in prison for a year than it does to send the boy to Eton. Sarah Pochin. Thank you. For that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For that, Eton example. Really? Right. Let me move on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right. Let me move on. Clause 20. I'm sure that the resonate very well with my residents in Runcorn. Clause 20.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 20. I will. Just the honourable lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. Just the honourable lady agree with me. What we do if. There isn't enough prison places is build more prison places, not let people out of prison. That's what we should be doing. Remember, this is a should be doing. Remember, this is a government that confounds all and told amounts of money to House illegal immigrants. We need to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

illegal immigrants. We need to do do. Agree with the honourable lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agree with the honourable lady. Let me move on. Please let me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move on to clause 20. Clause ten, point of order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Really? Point of order. Lee Anderson is it an actual point? What it's supposed to be?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of order. Lee Anderson I'm not sure of his name of the honourable gentleman here just swore at the Honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lady here. I can see the member nodding. I assume.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That no swearing has actually taken place. Can the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member confirm that? So please continue. Thank you. Madam Chairman. Clause 20

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Chairman. Clause 20 amendment. Was to remove. This clause altogether. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This clause altogether. This bill. Proposing to reduce the. Time served of a custodial sentence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From a half. To. A third in. Order to free up prison capacity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order to free up prison capacity. This means that dangerous criminals possible. Offences. Including paedophiles,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Offences. Including paedophiles, could be let back into the community after serving. Only a third of their sentence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Behind bars. Only the most serious offenders of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of. Rape, will serve. Half their. Sentences in. Jail, reduced from two thirds. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. Ask the member is laying out the reality. Members opposite are reality. Members opposite are chuntering and suggesting that isn't true. So may I just point out that the Libby briefing says absolutely the Libby briefing says absolutely clearly sentences of over four years for a violent or sexual offence, which are currently released at two thirds points of sentence, would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thirds points of sentence, would be released at the halfway point under the new provisions. That is a fact. I thank my. Group for. Supporting me. In that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In that point. I move on to clause 24, 36 and 37

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I move on to clause 24, 36 and 37 with respect to licenses. All these. Clauses give. Powers to the probation service

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Powers to the probation service to reduce the length of the community order imposed by the judge community order imposed by the judge or magistrate. The probation service is underfunded and overstretched already, and the risk.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already, and the risk. The real risk, is that. Offenders will. Have. Their. Requirements reduced by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Their. Requirements reduced by probation officers in order to free up. Capacity within the service. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

probation officer. Already has. The discretion. On the number of days. Of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of. Rehabilitation, that is, that. Is required. It is a. It. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. Dangerous to give any. More quasi judicial.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Power to the probation service. And now I'm going to make some progress. I've given way a lot. progress. I've given way a lot. Moving on point of clarification, with respect to clause 26, 27 and 28.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

28. Recall, the current system allows. For ft. R a 14.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Days for custodial sentences less than 12 months and 28 days for custodial sentences. 1 to 4 years. S r.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Standard recall. Standard recall serve the rest. Of their sentence. Can the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of their sentence. Can the Minister confirm that this. Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is introducing f t r and s r a 56 days for all custodial sentences less than four years, with the less than four years, with the exception of terrorists, such that offenders who have committed serious offenders who have committed serious crimes, including assault, robbery and. Possession of knives or other offences offensive weapons.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offences offensive weapons. Could be out again. In two months and that this is not protecting. The public.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The public. I welcome the fact, however, that for. Domestic violence. Offenders who have breached their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Offenders who have breached their licence conditions and gone on to reoffend, the presumption of 56 days recall does.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recall does. Not apply. Clause 42 foreign criminals. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 42 foreign criminals. I propose to replace clause. 42 and to move a new. Clause. Which. Would apply an.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would apply an. Automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months imprisonment or a least six months imprisonment or a six month community sentence. The Secretary of State wrote to MPs Secretary of State wrote to MPs Members of Parliament, claiming he had strengthened the government's ability to deport foreign criminals. He said in this letter that it would be the duty of the Home Secretary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to. Deport foreign offenders who receive at least a 12 month. Custodial sentence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Custodial sentence. And yet, in the same letter he states and I quote, this is subject

**** Possible New Speaker ****

states and I quote, this is subject where. To do so would be. A breach.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A breach. Of a person's ECHR rights or the UK's obligations. Under the Refugees Convention. So in other.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in other. Words, nothing will change. No one will get deported. Madam Chair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one will get deported. Madam Chair. My final. Amendment would have been an addition to the bill referred to as criminal Case Review public criminal Case Review public petition. Whereby if it appears to. Any British citizen aged 18 or over, Any British citizen aged 18 or over, that the sentencing of a person in a crime court has been unduly lenient crime court has been unduly lenient or unduly harsh, that's British citizen, i.e. The petitioner. May citizen, i.e. The petitioner.

May refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commissioner for it to be reviewed to for him to review the sentencing of the person sentenced. This would give a platform for This would give a platform for defendants like Reese MacDonald and Chris Taggart. In my constituency of Chris Taggart. In my constituency of Runcorn and Helsby, who received an average of 30 months for an ill advised tweet to have their sentence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appealed. Thank you, Catherine Atkinson. John McDonnell. Thank you. It's nice being a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. It's nice being a substitute. I'll be I'll be very brief. Like others in the in the brief. Like others in the in the chamber, I remember the justice Unions parliamentary group, and I just wanted to talk very briefly just wanted to talk very briefly with regard to new clause three and the justice unions group, as many members know, comprises the
16:14
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
members know, comprises the probation officers, Napa Prison Officers Association and PCCs and acts as the voice of the frontline workers in Parliament. From those particular unions. There's a specific concern about the there's no overall welcome for the bill from the unions themselves, which which is good. But there is a specific concern that's been raised with us with regard to the development of unpaid work and the community service, and how that's managed in the future. The history of this, as many members will, will know in terms 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's another issue altogether. It's been a historically, it's been a way in which people have been able to avoid prison sentences by working within the community and making reparation for the damage that often they've caused within that community. It's been relatively successful. I think in most of our constituencies we can report that, but there has been, unfortunately, in the past, experiments with privatisation, both in terms of the management of the service itself, but also the discussion and debate about whether or not this could be unpaid Labour for private companies in London.

We had a specific experience in 2013 when community service was privatised to Serco and it was an absolute disaster, a lack of supervision on site, lack of workers, lack of delivery of tools. Sometimes as well, there was an exposure of the offenders being crammed into vehicles which are unsuitable and unsafe. So as a result of that, that privatisation collapsed. We then had the last government under the title Trans Transformation of Rehabilitation, a wholesale privatisation of probation, including unpaid work and community service.

And again, what we found from that the even the last government had to accept that it would need to be brought back in-house because of the combination of incompetence, the profiteering that was taking place and the failure to go for, well, realistically effective rehabilitation as well. During this period, the National Association of Probation Officers, Napo, expressed its views to the government about its opposition. They took action by referring the matter to the International Labour Organisation. Under the eye of those Convention on Forced Labour, and the ILO found in favour of the Union.

It said basically this it defined it defined the judgement in this way, said all work or service which is exacted from any person under menace of penalty, or for which that person is not offered to himself or herself voluntarily, is to his forced Labour. They made an exception, and the exception was this it was work as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. But it then said that must not be lived or placed at the. This must not be hired, the person must not be hired or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations.

So what the union is seeking is the assurance from the government that they abide by the ILO convention and do not therefore, as a result, use this forced Labour within private companies, which will enable a private company to profiteer from those individual workers, but also actually would prevent others who want a job being hired legitimately as well. And they're also asking for this disaster of privatisation that has occurred in the past to be prevented. What they are concerned about is that if there is an increase in community sentences, obviously, as have been said, there's adequate staffing involved and through the probation service, but also there has to be a recognition of the failures of the private sector to manage this process in the past.

And the union wants to remind members about actually, at the moment, what's required very, very specifically is the supervision is adequately staffed because there is there is a risk, there is a concern about the nature of the placements that will be and that will be put into unpaid Labour and supervised in the future. Already there are concerns about what's happening at the moment. We're dealing with cases that people have been convicted of, nice knife crimes, domestic violence, stalking. But there are issues around the mental health of some of the offenders that the supervising and the drug related issues.

So there's a fear of the potential of a heightened risk. Specifically if the privatisation is brought through again and the private companies then are offering placements as well within private companies for profiteering. So all the all new clause three is seeking is the assurance from the Minister that, preferably on the face of the Bill, that unpaid work will only be undertaken for non-profit organisations as it has happened in the past. So social enterprises, voluntary organisations and yes, local authorities working with local community initiatives and that the private sector will never be allowed to profit from this role in the future.

The certainly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you and I welcome the honourable gentleman, getting clarification on this point, that it clarification on this point, that it would still enable charities to be able to provide this a have a fantastic charity in my constituency fantastic charity in my constituency called Up Cycle, and they do maintenance skills currently within prisons to help rehabilitate, but prisons to help rehabilitate, but obviously with more community sentences. That sort of charity doing work to give people the skills doing work to give people the skills and meaningful work in the community.

So just to clarify, this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

community. So just to clarify, this is not about excluding charities. That's exactly in the tradition of community service as it was founded and developed over the founded and developed over the years. But the experiments for privatisation have been a disaster. But also, I think there is an But also, I think there is an argument that one should start using the private sector, those individual offenders, as an America, become offenders, as an America, become economic units for exploitation and profiteering. And I think there's a profiteering.

And I think there's a warning from the from the justice unions group is that we do not want to venture down that path as a as a to venture down that path as a as a result of the historic failures, but also the vision of what's happening in other countries when the private sector has been able to use offenders in that way. And again, it's just I think it's what this new clause is about is returning to the clause is about is returning to the tradition of the community service approach that we've had in this country that, as I say, was relatively effective.

But now, as this new sentencing bill goes through, which we welcome will be expanded on a scale maybe not envisaged in the past system, was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that certainly. The member outlined at the start of his speech? He's well known for support for the Prison Officers support for the Prison Officers Association, very long term support. I wonder, while he's on his feet, if he might commit to supporting our new clause 16 to close that loophole for the whole life? Orders for the murder of prison officers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

murder of prison officers. I am to play an interest. I'm an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association, and I think this is about the only time I've disagreed with them. So I will not be supporting that. Although I can understand where that's coming from. understand where that's coming from. And I understand there may well be a review of the sort of sentencing that goes on and what is taken into that goes on and what is taken into account when these actions occur, tragically, do occur.

But to have a tragically, do occur. But to have a mandatory form of sentence like that, I think most probably would not be appropriate. Although he's quite right. The Prison Officers Association have argued argue strongly for it, and I respect I respect their wishes. I just want to respect their wishes. I just want to say one final point, which is not related to clause three, but in relation to the proposals and amendments brought forward from my amendments brought forward from my honourable friend, from from Hammersmith, which is with regard to the naming of shaming of offenders, the naming of shaming of offenders, and this idea that offenders photographs will be publicised locally.

My honourable friend from locally. My honourable friend from Hammersmith has simply suggested his amendment, that there should be a much wider consultation on this issue and the probation service members, the probation officers are saying exactly the same thing, and what they're concerned about is in their role with rehabilitation, a lot of their rehabilitation is making sure people have connection with their families once again. And the naming and shaming does have an effect on the family overall, and particularly on the children.

And sometimes sometimes, you know, the family actually serve as serves the sentence alongside the offender as well. And as a result of that, we would not want to see any actions, which again increases the stigma for family members of offenders themselves. Therefore, if the government is going down this path, there is a need for a more detailed and widespread consultation and discussion. Thank you Stevenson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair. Last week I met with one of my constituents, I met with one of my constituents, Tracy Hansen, in Parliament to honour the ten year anniversary of the tragic loss of her son, Josh, the tragic loss of her son, Josh, who was murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in Hillingdon, west
16:23
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
London, in October 2015. We spoke about the tireless work she's put into campaigning for victims rights, and I heard more about how the law she wants to introduce Josh's law would ensure that the rights of victims and their families to appeal under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme are clear and equal to the rights of offenders. So I'd like to speak today specifically to new clause 12, which was tabled in the name of my honourable friend, the member for Bexhill and Battle, the beautiful Bexhill and Battle.

And after cruelly taking the life of Josh Hampson, 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. Following unclear information about victims families rights under the unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, Treacy has spent years campaigning to ensure no other victims face what her family did.

Unfortunately, far too many victims and their families are facing the same problems because simply they're not being made aware of their rights to appeal sentences. They're also concerning a number of cases where clerical errors. In one case, I've heard of an email stuck in a barrister's outbox, the leading to the Attorney General running out of time and missing the deadline to appeal a sentence. Whilst 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 driving force in bringing criminal cases and played a central role throughout the process. It wasn't until the 19th century that there was a significant shift towards state led prosecutions, with the victims role in criminal cases significantly diminished. The focus is only started to shift back towards the victim with the very recent introduction of the first victims charter in 1990. I believe that we must recapture more of this focus from the state and divert it back to those who most directly impacted by crime.

The lives of Tracey and her family will never be the same again. It is only right that they should have been a central focus in the criminal case, and received equal rights and information about their rights to appeal 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 sentencing scheme. Excuse me, new clause 12 will require the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims or their next of kin within ten 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 which would also be extended, giving victims a better chance of benefiting from the unduly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lenient sentence scheme. I will give way a bold. Case on behalf of victims, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Case on behalf of victims, and I hope he'll agree that the more we agonise about the circumstances of the guilty, the more we displace the guilty, the more we displace consideration of the effects on the innocent. And over the whole of my innocent. And over the whole of my lifetime, that focus on the circumstances of wicked people has had exactly that effect, and unfortunately, it permeated so much. The establishment, including the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The establishment, including the judiciary, that sometimes sentences are inadequate for that very reason. I thank my honourable my Right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable my Right honourable friend for that intervention. And I think the justification for not changing this justification for not changing this approach over many years as being an argument about the finality of sentence giving the offenders the sentence giving the offenders the finality of sentence. Well, I'm afraid I don't think that stacks up today. And I think we need and we today. And I think we need and we afford victims more rights and more sensitivity within the system. And I sensitivity within the system.

And I was coming on to my final, final point before I wrap up this amendment, I believe, is totally amendment, I believe, is totally common sense, and I think it should it should be supported by members it should be supported by members across this House. It puts puts victims at the heart of sentencing and does not compromise the need to have finality in sentencing. It pushes the date back, but it does not change the status of finality in sentencing. So on that point, Madam Chair, I would encourage honourable members from across this House to support new clause 12.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sotto. Thank you, Madam Chair. With your. new. Clause five and five and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause five and five and amendments 22. And. 23 tabled in my name. This government's commitment to tackling never.
16:28
Jess Asato Portrait Jess Asato MP (Lowestoft, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

never. Just a. Pledge. Never just. A slogan. It has always been about action. About changing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About changing. victims. Everywhere for. The better. And we have seen that time and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time again under this government. 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 drag victims through the tough and costly family Court process. This bill,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

too, moves us forward in our mission to halve in a decade. As Chair. Of the APPG for Perpetrators of Domestic Abuse, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Domestic Abuse, I. Have always. Argued that we must focus on tackling perpetrators behaviour. So tackling perpetrators behaviour. So instead of asking why doesn't she leave, we must ask why doesn't he stop? I therefore welcome the new restriction zones this bill brings in, which will limit the movement of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perpetrators rather than their victims, and the increased use of see.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

see. The new. Judicial finding of domestic abuse, which will revolutionise our understanding of sentencing for understanding of sentencing for domestic abuse and ensure that we can exclude perpetrators from future

**** Possible New Speaker ****

measures which put victims at risk. I know I'll make my progress. Thank you. The expansion of specialist domestic abuse courts is also incredibly exciting. I am concerned, however, by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provisions which allow for. The automatic rerelease of record perpetrators after 56 days and fear perpetrators after 56 days and fear that they may play some victims at serious risk of harm. Those who serious risk of harm. Those who perpetrate crimes like domestic abuse and stalking know everything about their victims, where they about their victims, where they live, where they work, where their children go to school, their regular routines. And we know how fixated these abusers can be. Although I welcome the exemptions of those managed under Mappa categories two and three, I must note that this will not capture the vast.

Majority of domestic. Abusers by the point of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perpetrator is sentenced, it is likely that their victim has. Already been subject.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Already been subject. To abuse for years. Safe Lives Domestic Abuse charity has found

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that victims will live with domestic domestic abuse for 2.5 years. At the highest risk.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the highest risk. They will just be beginning to rebuild their life when their perpetrator is released from prison. If they go on to harass their victim, the perpetrators probation victim, the perpetrators probation officer may decide to recall them to prison. But after 56 days they will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prison. But after 56 days they will be released again, potentially. To harass or abuse. They may again be recalled and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They may again be recalled and then again released 56 days later. There are no provisions in the bill There are no provisions in the bill to prevent this cycle that I can see, and it is a cycle that could see, and it is a cycle that could end in serious harm or the death of a victim. It is right that breaches of depots or other orders may send perpetrators straight back to perpetrators straight back to prison. However, the sad truth is that victims may not always that victims may not always recognise breaches of an order, or they may be too scared to call it in.

And even when they do, very few are acted on by the police. Record is an important tool in ensuring that victims are safeguarded in the short term. But we cannot create a system whereby there is a cycle of ever increasing risk. As a result, I have tabled amendments 22 and 23 and new clause five, which seek to address this by ensuring that any offenders. Who are recalled on the basis of contact with their victim are not automatically released after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

56 days. But are instead holistically risk assessed and. Held in custody until. Their.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Their. Risk to the victim. Has been reduced to the extent that it can be managed in the that it can be managed in the community. By breaking the cycle. These amendments will also address some of the concerns raised by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some of the concerns raised by senior police and probation. Officials regarding. The resource pressure of recall.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The resource pressure of recall. And holding in custody. We know what the Tories.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did to address the prison overcrowding crisis. Absolutely nothing. And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nothing. And. the. Party opposite. But in clearing up their mess and avoiding the collapse of our criminal justice system, we must ensure that system, we must ensure that safeguarding victims is our first priority. I look forward to working with the government and with with the government and with colleagues across the House to ensure that we can do just that. Finally, I was interested to hear about amendment NC 38, moved by the honourable member for Chichester on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable member for Chichester on screening for Traumatic Brain researchers. On.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On. Their early research on screening. And do you hope the minister looks closely at this vital amendment? Thank you for John Hayes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam speaker, I hadn't intended to start this way, but I will. Following Honourable ladies last Following Honourable ladies last remarks about acquired brain injury, I'm chairman of the All-party group on acquired Brain injury, and we've
16:33
John Hayes Portrait Rt Hon Sir John Hayes MP (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
-
-
on acquired Brain injury, and we've recently held a session specifically on the relationship between acquired brain injury in the criminal justice system. She's quite right to emphasise that. I'll say no more in detail about it, except to refer to the minister to that, to the report that we published, which includes a section on criminal justice and acquired brain injury. What I wanted to talk about, however, beyond that was the fundamental consideration of this bill. And I want to read I want to talk about the facts, the reasons for them that are facts, and the alternative very much in the spirit that my right honourable friend spoke earlier in moving her amendments, and I particularly want to recommend the amendment she's tabled almost without reservation.

They they are a bold attempt to rescue this bill from the damage it might do. Now, I don't claim that that damage is intentional. I don't think anyone in this House intends to do harm. We wouldn't be here if we did. But nonetheless, I do think as the my honourable friend on the front bench said, the harm will be the result, unintended or otherwise, of this legislation, and it is undeniable. I'm afraid, that the government presents to the House of paradox.

One hand, they say this bill is necessary because of practicalities. The number of prison places. And that is a plausible argument that the prison population has grown. As we heard earlier in the debate, and we simply don't have enough places to accommodate all those who might be sent to prison. But on the other hand, they say it's a matter of principle that short sentences don't work. They tell us. And in doing so, they concede to the rehabilitation test argument, which has pervaded criminal justice thinking and criminology more generally for the whole of my lifetime.

I'm studying criminology at university. There was indeed exactly that. That narrative. There were other academics who challenged it, for I remember Philip being the criminologist who wrote a definitive book called Rehabilitation and Deviance, where he made the case for just retribution. And the public certainly believe the criminal justice system should be retributive because they accept my, my friend, probably a good way. As he was, he was moving in my direction. I couldn't tell whether he wanted to intervene, but I have always happy to give way to him.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Talking about. Addictions in their position. Isn't there another contradiction that they, the members opposite and that they, the members opposite and the ministers in particular, talk about the volume of people that are going to be released as a result of going to be released as a result of their measures, but when they're ever confronted with examples of the actual offences and offenders and the sorts of people are letting go, the sorts of people are letting go, they always say, well, it wouldn't apply to them, it wouldn't apply to them.

They can't have it both ways them. They can't have it both ways either. A lot of people are getting out of prison, including some of these people, or they're not, and they have to make up their minds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they have to make up their minds. It's certainly true that a very significant proportion of criminals are repeat offenders. There are are repeat offenders. There are people who choose to live a life of crime. There's not an illness to be treated. It's a malevolent choice to treated. It's a malevolent choice to be dealt with through punishment. And we need to punish people for doing harm. It's that's not doing harm. It's that's not complicated. It's what all our constituents would take as read.

And yet we seem to, as I say, agonise yet we seem to, as I say, agonise about that perpetually. I give waste honourable lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable lady. For giving way. Referring to my earlier comments, the data is that 1 earlier comments, the data is that 1 in 4 prisoners have a drug users and have a drug and alcohol problem, and have a drug and alcohol problem, and they constitute many of the offenders. Given that data, does he not agree with me that we should be rehabilitating and medically treating those addictions so they are not caught up in the criminal justice system?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perverse choice leads to other consequences. When people become involved in drugs, it often leads to involved in drugs, it often leads to all kinds of other horrors. So that's certainly true. And the key thing, therefore, is to stop people getting involved in drugs. And the successive governments, including successive governments, including this one, intend to do that. We through a series of measures, we try to both deter people from to both deter people from involvement in drugs, deal with drug dealers and all the other things that you won't allow me to speak that you won't allow me to speak about, Deputy Speaker, because I would be deviating from the content

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be deviating from the content of the amendments if I did, sir. Well. One tempest oneself, Mr. Hayes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One tempest oneself, Mr. Hayes. The I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm extremely grateful, Madam Chairman. I have a league of way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

league of way. Very much still on topic, the challenge with the arguments that members on that side put forward members on that side put forward around rehabilitation. It presupposes that all you need to do is put someone on a drug is put someone on a drug rehabilitation course once, and then they'll stop offending, and it's all fantastic. The evidence is completely the opposite. Even the very best drug rehabilitation courses that money can buy in The Priory have a long term success rate of about 50%.

So in reality, whatever you do, some of these offenders are down a path from which they will not be turned for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

significant amounts of time, and prison. Well. I do agree with my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do agree with my honourable friend I just stepping back a moment, I was mindful of the only moment, I was mindful of the only female speaker we ever heard who once famously declared, call me madam. So I will from now on call madam. So I will from now on call you Madam Chairman rather than you Madam Chairman rather than anything else. So indeed. So it's certainly true that we need a war against drugs and drug dealing and against drugs and drug dealing and all its effects, but it'd be quite wrong to separate that from the wrong to separate that from the public desire to see people who do bad things dealt with appropriately.

bad things dealt with appropriately. And when those bad things are at their extreme, as my right honourable friend pointed out, and honourable friend pointed out, and we are speaking of extremes, acts of violence against women, against minors and against men, let's face minors and against men, let's face it, needs to be dealt with with severity. There's no there's no nothing wrong with saying that nothing wrong with saying that because it's what most people intuitively feel and it's right that intuitively feel and it's right that they do.

I think Grotius, the jurist, once said, the criminal justice was about an ill suffered for an inflicted, and that sense that punishment must fit crime rings true now, as it did when he made that observation. So. So this Bill Wilson needs to explain whether this bill is about practicalities or whether it's about principle. And I've yet to really determine which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position the government is in. I happily give way to Honourable lady. For giving way. I just want to highlight the fact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to highlight the fact that you can both believe that offenders need to be punished as as I do, and I, when I was an officer, was part of delivering that was part of delivering that punishment. But you can also simultaneously believe that rehabilitation should be a part of the prison system as well. And whilst I also agree with the remember on the front bench that some offenders are not ready to some offenders are not ready to begin the journey of rehabilitation, that doesn't mean we shouldn't stand ready to provide it for those that ready to provide it for those that are, because that ultimately drives down re-offending and reduces victims, which should be at the heart of everything we do.

So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heart of everything we do. So punishment and rehabilitation need to work hand in hand. Yes. The honourable lady makes a valid

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable lady makes a valid point when I attack the rehabilitation as kind of dogma. I of course believe that we should try of course believe that we should try to save souls and the best way of doing that, of course, is to address doing that, of course, is to address people's fundamental problems in the way that I think many have said across the chamber during the course across the chamber during the course of this debate. But it might be about ensuring they've got adequate learning.

It might be about the learning. It might be about the acquisition of a skill she will know from her rich experience in these matters that often someone could get a job when they leave prison, they're much less likely to re-offend. But their inability to get a job is usually a result of the fact that they don't 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. And I've seen that in prison myself, meeting both people who run them and the people who are in them.

So she's right. But I'm really speaking about something in a sense more fundamental than that. And that's a willingness to recognise, as she did, by the way, in her brief intervention, the punishment matters and a reticence to ignore that or to avoid it, or an unwillingness to declare it as openly as I have, is at odds with the what I described earlier, the instincts of the vast majority of our constituents. It's perhaps a product of a society which has lost its moral compass, where right and wrong has been, has been eroded through a kind of moral relativism.

Perhaps it's become some sort of quasi Freudian need to kind of explain crime in more complex terms than perhaps it warrants. Simply, it's a question of someone wanting something they can't get and using force, violence, some other means to get it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. He makes a very passionate and principled speech passionate and principled speech about punishment, but we're dealing here with practicalities. And again, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee who looked at the prisoner state capacity, there was a pledge under the previous government for 20,000 additional prison places. 20,000 additional prison places. Just 6518 of those were actually built. So I don't understand what built. So I don't understand what the honourable gentleman, in practical terms, if you were to pursue this line of saying everybody pursue this line of saying everybody needs to have a punishment without rehabilitation, where are you going? Where is he going to put people?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Where is he going to put people? I agree with Honourable lady, actually, and I remember visiting actually, and I remember visiting the previous Justice Secretary, no longer in this House. Former longer in this House. Former Cheltenham Alex Chalk, with my right honourable friend, the member for Fareham, and we told him that we Fareham, and we told him that we wouldn't vote for it if that government brought forward a measure to let people out early. And so my to let people out early.

And so my position on this has been entirely consistent. I wouldn't have voted for a Conservative. Measure that led for a Conservative. Measure that led left prison early any more, that I vote for this measure tonight. And I suggested to him three things. One, suggested to him three things. One, that he dealt more robustly with foreign national offenders who who, again, our constituents would argue, were they in fact, they'd be they would be astounded and appalled if they realise just how many foreign national offenders are in our prisons.

I guess most of them don't even know. Yeah. The second thing I suggested was building, taking emergency measures to provide prison places we built. After all, during Covid Nightingale hospitals, I suggested he build fry prisons named after the Tory prison reformer Elizabeth Fry. That won't be lost on the historians amongst those here in the chamber. And I don't see why that couldn't be done. We should certainly explore closed prisons, prisons that have been closed in recent times, actually under Conservative governments and Labour ones to see what which what of which of those could be used, perhaps temporarily, perhaps on a more permanent basis.

There's a whole range of measures that we could take. Not easy. And I say to the minister, I know what it's like being a minister. None of those things are easy. And I'm not pretending they are, but are. All things worthy of further exploration rather than the effects of this measure. I said, I talk about those, which is to let out very large numbers of people from prison. I mean, some of the figures are alarming. We could see over 40,000 people released early.

We could see thousands of violent offenders released. I appreciate what they release on licence. I refer to this earlier. I appreciate our our measures. You can take to the probation service and the police to try and limit the harm they might do. But the reality is there have already been a 36% increase in recalls. And my estimation, I guess, for us to call it, Madam Chairman, a prediction is that number will rise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as a result of this measure. If we pass this bill and it becomes an act, I think recalls. Will soar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will soar. And I think the police and probation service will struggle to deal with that. And I wouldn't be surprised. Minister comes back to the House as my honourable friend predicted, with some amendment to this legislation to deal with that emergency. So that is what it will emergency. So that is what it will come, and it will be a profound emergency for those people affected by those who are released and commit by those who are released and commit crime as pain, because they will not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crime as pain, because they will not all be petty offences. But I happily give where. My right honourable friends talks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friends talks about the number of people who are going to be released. From prison. I earlier spoke about the number

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I earlier spoke about the number of people who won't even be going to prison. All in all, it will be tens of thousands of people not in of thousands of people not in prison. Does my honourable friend agree with me? When the public finds this out, they will want that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this out, they will want that government gone. Well. It may be a Michael Right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It may be a Michael Right honourable friend says with her typical clarity and passion. It may typical clarity and passion. It may be that the government will bow to that public pressure, because there will undoubtedly be public pressure of a kind, she described. Because we are speaking about people who have done serious harm or will be about sex offenders of the most extreme kind. We're talking about violent repeat offenders. These are not people who have done, who have committed minor indiscretions.

They are very serious criminals and the public will resist that and protest about it. And it may well be, as I said, the Minister will feel obliged, as I'm sure he's a man of, of principle to return to the House and to amend this legislation when its effects are truly and fully seen. So my judgement would be this, that the reasons for this the facts speak for themselves. Thousands of people let out of prison. There certainly shouldn't be.

The reasons are, as I described them, practical, but I think there is an underlying sentiment that I tried to articulate, which is this fear of punishment, this unwillingness to recognise the retributive nature of criminal justice, the effects are likely to be, as my writer friend set out far more eloquently, live occurred devastating for our constituents, for communities across this country. And bear in mind, it will happen in every part of this country. Every constituency will suffer as a result of this.

Each one of us will, as good constituency MPs cope, have to cope with some of these effects and the alternative is to take some of the measures that I described in when responding to learning from dementia, to look at every possible means of accommodating people in prison who deserve to be incarcerated, because that's what it's really. In the end, I am coming to my exciting finale, but I will happily give way on on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the way to it. I thank the honourable member. For giving way. Does he agree with his honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he agree with his honourable friend, the for member Forum and Waterlooville, that the Conservative government's record on prison building was shameful? And we've had the former Minister for common Sense nodding along to the fact we need to build more prisons certainly sounds build more prisons certainly sounds like common sense, but why on earth did your government not do that? Sorry, the honourable members government not do that. Apologies,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mum. Well. To give you the figures. So you've got.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you've got. Yeah on a on a, on a, on a purely technical point, my right honourable friend is right honourable. I'm friend is right honourable. I'm right on the and so is the for member Fareham and Waterlooville, but I but let's put that to one but I but let's put that to one side. I it's a matter of public record, but I almost never disagreed with the member for Fair and with the member for Fair and Waterlooville. So the truth is she's right that we should have built more right that we should have built more prisons much earlier, and we could anticipate that these things can be modelled after all.

Government, by modelled after all. Government, by the way, are actually quite poor and modelling very often. I saw that modelling very often. I saw that throughout my time in government, surprisingly poor. But we should surprisingly poor. But we should have modelled this given the growth. Given the trend change in the prison

**** Possible New Speaker ****

population, which. Was drawn to. Such honourable friend. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. If it might be helpful to give some of the numbers for the number of prisons that. So three prisons of prisons that. So three prisons were built, 8500 delayed because of lockdown, and another three prisons are on the way. If that is helpful to the opposition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the opposition. Today. I noted those figures earlier and my honourable my right honourable friend is right that more honourable friend is right that more prison places were added. But there's two things about that we there's two things about that we read in a script as well, by the way, and I just didn't disagree with way, and I just didn't disagree with the words she said earlier. What we didn't really take necessary account of was the effect of sentencing policy.

So if you sentence more people to incarceration perfectly properly, that changes the trend. We certainly could have dealt more certainly could have dealt more effectively with foreign national offenders than we did. And that was offenders than we did. And that was another growing problem. And furthermore, we over a long period of time, some prison places out. So of time, some prison places out. So while we were adding into places, we were taking places out. So you think about the number of prisons to close.

So, so, so my was absolutely right that we did. It's not what we did. Nothing. Far from it. We did many good things of the kind she's described. And if you set them out for me here, I went for a moment. But but unfortunately not enough account was taken over a long enough period. And it does not actually, it's not largely about the immediate policy of the previous government. It goes back much further than that. It's a series of governments, actually, of both parties, both major parties over a very long time indeed, because the kind of modelling I'm described, I've described is decade long.

Lovely. You can you have because getting permission, planning permission to build a prison is an extremely difficult business. And the last government struggled very often with resistance to having a prison built in a locality or prison, expanded adaptability. And it's usually local politicians, MPs, the kind of people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you can imagine sort of Liberal Democrat types who. Who, who. Who come here and say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who come here and say. One thing, come. I said types. Of legislative. Type, who come here and say one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Type, who come here and say one thing, then go back to their constituency campaign against opening the prison. With that, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opening the prison. With that, I give way to Honourable gentleman. That's. I mean, to me, can I say to Right honourable gentleman and many members.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many members. Of this. House that the prison population is a supply led industry. If you is a supply led industry. If you build more prisons, you'll just get more prisons. It does not address the issue. All history tells you the issue. All history tells you that look at America. We imprison more people in this country than they imprison in Europe. And yet we they imprison in Europe. And yet we have a higher rate of criminality. They imprison more people in America than they imprison here.

And America than they imprison here. And America has a higher rate of criminality. It's a fool's errand. Building

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prisons. Really. The thing I most admire about the Honourable Gentleman is his Honourable Gentleman is his sartorial style, and I gloss across the earlier, I gloss across malaria, the earlier, I gloss across malaria, and I was going to say to me as I left the chamber, I love your suit. left the chamber, I love your suit. What he says I very rarely agree with, and I think we come from very different perspectives, and it's in a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sense. And I don't mean to be unkind, by the way, his view is part of the the way, his view is part of the problem. And the problem is that there is this persistent idea that putting people in prison is cruel putting people in prison is cruel and nasty. And 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. And so I do be nastier than it is.

And so I do think our difference of opinion is never going to be reconciled. In a few brief exchanges. But what I few brief exchanges. But what I would say to is this that it is very would say to is this that it is very important to note that a range of sentences are available to the sentences are available to the courts, not just prison. And the key thing about which we actually would thing about which we actually would agree is those sentences need to be fitting, fitting to the events, fitting, fitting to the events, fitting to the effects of the crime, and fitting to the interest of the victims.

As my little friend said in victims. As my little friend said in moving his amendment earlier. So to move, to move to the well, I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way once more, once right honourable gentleman. For giving way. I also thank him. Some time. Ago for his sartorial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ago for his sartorial appreciation of my green suit. When he went on to ask whether I won. It at a village fete. I'm glad.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You I did not. But I want to make is maybe one we can agree on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we can agree on. He spoke about. The challenges that governments have had when it comes to modelling prisoner numbers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prisoner numbers. And the prison population. Would he therefore agree that with David. Gauke.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gauke. Who recommended in his. Report. There should. Be an independent. Body that do that modelling, and is he.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Disappointed that there isn't a. Feature of that. In this bill? No, I think I think there was 1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, I think I think there was 1 to 1 and I congratulate the gentleman using the word appreciated gentleman using the word appreciated in exactly a dictionary definition in exactly a dictionary definition term. I did appreciate his his sartorial style. And but that's not to say, of course, that I either

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to say, of course, that I either admired or approved it. So. So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In respect of David Gauke, David's former colleague, of course, David's former colleague, of course, and commissioned to produce that report. And I don't actually, in report. And I don't actually, in essence, agree with David Cork's report. I'm more inclined to agree with the shadow Justice Secretary and my right winger friends analysis. I think that there is a huge mistake. In assuming. The incarceration is not of itself. Yeah. Beneficial. Yeah. Because dealing with just the simple issue of recidivism, people can't do harm when they're locked up.

By far the best way of dealing with recidivism, the most straightforward way, is to take people out of harm's way. And by that I mean to take them out of doing harm. And so, for example, if someone's committed a very serious crime, a right, a murder, a very violent assault, locking them up means they won't do it again, releasing them too often, and the statistics speak for themselves means that they will. And so if you want to really deal with recidivism, do three things.

Increase the number of whole life sentences. Raise the minimum sentence for a whole range of crimes. Raise the maximum sentence to. And to do that you have to build more prisons. So my mission to the government is jettison this bill before it does harm. Think about how you can devise and deliver alternatives to that, and be bold in making a case for retributive system of criminal justice in a way that so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

few people have for so long. And I just. Thank you. Madam. Chair, as. A member of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A member of the. Justice Select Committee, it's. Actually a privilege. To be able to speak today in support. Of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the bill. And I welcomed the much needed. Reform that it. Will bring to our courts and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prisons system. I wish to speak in particular in support of clause one, amendment 36. Relating.
16:59
Warinder Juss Portrait Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

To sentences of 12 months or less, tabled by my honourable friend the member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the member. in. This House. Of the disastrous. Situation our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the disastrous. Situation our prison system was left in by the previous government. And I am proud. That. This government is now. Confronting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Confronting. Confronting the crisis head on. We're not committed to just having short term fixes, but long term reform. The bill will actually tackle the root causes of the issues that lead to the crisis in the first place, and to rebuild a system, a justice system that delivers fairness, safety and accountability to all in society. The clause one, amendment 36, will do more than not just reduce the pressure on our prison system, but it will represent a vital cultural shift, placing rehabilitation and reintegration at the heart of our sentencing system.

Madam Chair, since becoming an MP, I have visited several prisons and one thing that has become really clear to me 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. They have no home, no connections, no job, and 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.

We have already heard this afternoon that 80% of offenders in prison are offenders. The prison environment can have a hugely detrimental effect on prisoners. We know, for example, that last year there was one prison where 21% of the prisoners developed a drug problem only after entering custody. These prisoners are stripped of an opportunity to have a second chance. Again, the whole House agreed early this afternoon that everyone deserves a second chance. Our justice system is then just compounding the very problem it is trying to solve.

Yes, Madam Chair. Justice is about having punishment and retribution. But let's be clear, justice is not just about punishment. It's not just about building as many prisons as possible. Our focus on a justice system must also be on preventing further harm and supporting rehabilitation programmes to enable people to build a better life and help them to make the right choices. Suspended sentencing and community sentencing recommended by the amendment, will help our courts to focus on what works.

They will not just help reduce prison overcrowding, but also provide overall net benefit to our society. Community sentences allow offenders to access mental health or addiction support, whilst still continuing to maintain their lives so that they can get rehabilitation and reintegrate back into society as responsible citizens. The financial case is equally compelling. Re-offending is estimated to cost over £18 billion every year, and it cost the taxpayer over £50,000 to imprison just one person for a single year.

If we break the cycle, we can redirect those resources to our crucial public services. I agree victim protection must be at the heart of all decisions made in the justice system, and I am glad that whilst this bill introduces a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less, this is simply a presumption, which means that judges will still have the option that will always have the power to send dangerous offenders or prolific lawbreakers to prison.

Furthermore, the presumption will not apply where an offender has breached a court order, including any violence against women or girls, related protective order, or where the offender has reoffended in breach of a previous suspended sentence, or where the prisoner poses a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual, or where there is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of. Course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Course. I think my Honourable friend frigate Moore is making a very powerful point about this amendment, powerful point about this amendment, and it's really important because it's imperative that when we look at improving the system as a whole, improving the system as a whole, that we understand the pressures that we are placing on our courts, such as Snaresbrook Criminal Court, which is in my constituency. So would he agree with me that it's imperative that in all of the amendments that this is a facet of,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments that this is a facet of, of the changes that we hope to bring about. Noble friend for his intervention, I have actually intervention, I have actually visited Snaresbrook Crown Court, and I do understand exactly what he's saying, and he makes a very valid saying, and he makes a very valid point. The pressure is on our court system, on our prison system, and they're all are interlinked. It is they're all are interlinked. It is very important that victims get the justice that they deserve, and the justice that they deserve, and 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 recognise that short term prison sentences all too often do not work and instead merely cause a disruption to people's lives and kickstarts a cycle of re-offending. Where the court believes that justice is better served through community rehabilitation, we must empower them to do this. And amendment 36 would require judges to also consider if a community sentence is better than a prison sentence or a suspended prison sentence. I am proud to support this bill because it does centre on victims and allows them to protection and dignity that they deserve.

Whilst the bill and amendment also allows those on trial a proper consideration for rehabilitation and an opportunity to make amends to have a better life. So I urge members to support this bill, to support clause one, to support amendment 36, and to support this bill at the Third Reading. Madam Chair, it is a vital and crucial step forward for our courts, our prisons, our communities, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for a fair justice system that works for all. Paul Kohler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like. To speak to the government's new clause one, which seeks. To strengthen the deportation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To strengthen the deportation. those. Given a suspended sentence. I would urge the House to pause before would urge the House to pause before we simply nod this new clause through. It may be a politically attractive to say we're toughening
17:06
Paul Kohler Portrait Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

deportation powers. In practice. This change. Risked blurring the. Distinction between offenders who pose a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Genuine threat. not. A suspended sentence is imposed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A suspended sentence is imposed precisely where the court believes the immediate past is not necessary for justice or public safety to 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 by today's whole House Committee, layering new powers on top of a system that already fails to use those that it has effectively. Instead of focusing on headline grabbing amendments, which should be fixing the operational chaos within the Home Office, that allows people to slip through the cracks in the first place.

As we have seen in my constituency, where the notorious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wimbledon power has recently been released but. Not deported. Despite the Home Office vowing to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Despite the Home Office vowing to do so. He was sent down in 2019. So can I ask the Minister what assessment has the government made of the likely number of offenders that we deported under this? This that we deported under this? This expanded definition? And how will the Home Office ensure the deportation decisions made under deportation decisions made under this broader power remain compliant with article eight rights and do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could. Delay the removal of genuinely dangerous offenders?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you. Julie Minns Kim, madam Chair, I'm
17:07
Julie Minns Portrait Ms Julie Minns MP (Carlisle, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Julie Minns Kim, madam Chair, I'm going to speak in favour of new clause one, but before I do so, I just wanted to take the opportunity just wanted to take the opportunity to place on record the conservatives record in government, because a lot has been made this afternoon about the prisons that were built during the last government. So let's just place it on record that between 2010 and 2024, there was a net addition of 482 prison places.

If that's a record the conservatives are proud to stand on, I will happily give it to them. The second point is that a lot has been said about leftie lawyers, and again, I would like to draw to the chamber's attention that almost two years to the day the then Conservative Lord Chancellor, presumably a well known leftie lawyer, spoke about suspended sentences and said and yet those were on suspended sentences. This is when comparing it to those who have served a prison sentence of less than 12 months, where 50% of those who've served a prison sentence less than 12 months go on to commit further crimes.

The then Lord Chancellor said. Yet those who are on suspended sentence orders with conditions for them the figure is 22%. So I think it's important. I think it's important that we just understand what we're talking about when we're talking about suspended sentences, and it is a point that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relevant to the honourable member way. I did I did try to explain in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I did I did try to explain in my speech that there is a difference between association and causality. You're comparing two different cohorts when you match with the cohorts when you match with the members, comparing two different cohorts when you when the member matches the cohorts properly, the re-offending rate difference is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

re-offending rate difference is nothing like that. It's more like 3 or 4%. I think. It's a correction that he's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a correction that he's making to the former Lord Chancellor, because those indeed are his words. And I am sorry that the Conservative Party has moved so far Conservative Party has moved so far in two years that you wish to disown the work of the Lord Chancellor, who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the work of the Lord Chancellor, who stood here just two years ago. And this means. Miss means, please. You wish to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Miss means, please. You wish to discern I'm not contributing right now, Miss Minns. I really do apologise. Sorry. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I really do apologise. Sorry. I wish to move on to speak about new clause one, which I do support. I think it seeks to strengthen our think it seeks to strengthen our approach to the deportation of foreign criminals by amending the definition of the period of imprisonment in two key pieces of legislation the UK Borders Act of 2007 and the Nationality and 2007 and the Nationality and Immigration Act of 2002. The amendment is about ensuring that the law reflects the seriousness of 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. Having met with my honourable friend, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, to discuss the deportation of foreign criminals with suspended sentences, I very much welcome the closure of this loophole. It's not an abstract policy change. It is a necessary correction to a real and pressing issue. New clause one ensures that suspended sentences of 12 months or more are treated with the gravity they deserve. When considering deportation, it sends a clear message serious criminal behaviour will not be overlooked simply because the sentence was suspended.

This amendment 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, and by passing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

new clause one, we are saying I will. Give way. I'm grateful to. The honourable lady forgiving.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable lady forgiving. Way, but would she not accept that most victims of crime would say sentence?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. No. It is nevertheless a suspended

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sentence. It is. It is. But by passing new clause one, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But by passing new clause one, we are saying that serious offences, whether the sentence is served behind bars or under conditions in behind bars or under conditions in the community, carry consequences, including the possibility of removal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from the UK. I will. Honourable lady tell. Us why.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Us why. The judge would suspend the sentence. I'm not going to pretend to be an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in the judiciary or the actions of individual judges. actions of individual judges. Nevertheless, I think it's important that we recognise that a suspended sentence and a sentence that places sentence and a sentence that places an individual in prison are still sentences of punishment. And what we're talking about here with new clause one, is how that relates to whether or not a foreign criminal whether or not a foreign criminal should be removed.

From this country. So, Madam Chair, this 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. And I urge colleagues from across the House to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support new clause one. Sir Ashley Fox. Thank you. Madam Chairman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Chairman. The Gauke review was a thorough exercise carried out in good faith. It was intended to fix some of the It was intended to fix some of the problems that persist in the justice system, particularly aimed at easing system, particularly aimed at easing the burden on the prison state. As a member of the Justice Affairs Select Committee, I had the opportunity to
17:13
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-
Committee, I had the opportunity to question the former Lord Chancellor and was struck by his thoughtfulness and expertise. But despite that, I do have reservations about parts of this bill, particularly those around early release of certain prisoners. Amendment 24 by my honourable friend the for member Bexhill and Battle, seeks to add an extra protection within the Bill to combat this. This amendment ensures that the most violent and dangerous offenders,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those guilty of crimes like rape. And grievous bodily. Harm. Child sex abuse and causing death

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Child sex abuse and causing death by dangerous driving do not benefit from automatic sentence reductions. from automatic sentence reductions. We all agree that rehabilitation has a place in our justice system, but a place in our justice system, but that is not its only purpose. The public expect criminals to be public expect criminals to be punished for their wrongdoing and to be protected from those criminals be protected from those criminals causing future harm, and I fear, Madam Chairman, that there are Madam Chairman, that there are Labour members opposite that don't know the consequences of this bill, know the consequences of this bill, which is that violent and sexual offenders will be released from prison early, and they will then go prison early, and they will then go on to commit further criminal on to commit further criminal offences, and we will have to deal with those consequences in the years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with those consequences in the years unamended. Yes. Those who commit the most serious crimes should serve the full sentences handed down by our courts. Early release should never be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Early release should never be a lives. Beyond repair. Ben and I have been practising live in my constituency. In 2022. Their daughter Bethany was killed by a drunk driver who then fled the scene. When arrested shortly afterwards, he admitted his guilt and said, quote, I hope I killed someone. Oh well, you know what? I will get three, 4 or 5 years. Hopefully I killed them, unquote. This person has already received a one third discount on his sentence for pleading guilty in the first place.

Can any member of this House. Say it would be just that his sentence be now reduced even further? This amendment protects trust in justice. It ensures that victims and their families are not forced to see their attackers walking free halfway through their sentence. It sends a clear message if you commit crimes of sexual violence, if you abuse a child, if you cause grievous harm or death, you will face the consequences of your actions. We owe that to victims, and we owe it to communities who need to know that the justice system stands on their side.

I also support new clause nine, also by my honourable friend the member for Bexhill and Battle, which would introduce a clear and practical duty to collect and publish sentencing data. This includes information about nationality, visa route and asylum status within 24 hours of sentencing. This amendment is about transparency, accuracy and trust. At present, we simply do not have a full picture of who is committing offences in our country and without reliable data, we cannot make informed policy decisions on border control, integration or criminal justice.

Collecting this information will allow Parliament and the public to see whether our systems for managing migration and visas are working as intended. It will also help to identify where there are genuine issues and give the government the evidence needed to respond proportionately and effectively. We already collect detailed data on age, gender and offence type, adding nationality and immigration. Immigration status is a logical next step. It will help policymakers target resources where they are most needed, while maintaining the fairness and integrity of our justice system.

We've all seen how quickly rumours spread online about the background or immigration status of offenders in serious cases. The best way to combat this is more transparency. This will protect the police and the wider system from accusations of complicity in cover up. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Both amendments I spoke in favour of today would serve to increase trust in the justice system, and I would encourage parties, colleagues from all parties to consider what they can do to repair the confidence that has been damaged in the last year.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Johnson. I'm ready.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Johnson. I'm ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to speak in favour of my amendment to speak in favour of my amendment and two NC 18 and NC 22. 14 years of tourist charity has left prisons in crisis. They are severely overcrowded and understaffed, with significant challenges on the
17:19
Kim Johnson Portrait Kim Johnson MP (Liverpool Riverside, Labour)
-
-
prisoners days, including staffing shortages. HMIP Liverpool expect to see massive reduction in staffing due to the impact of the Skilled Workers 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, Sentencing Review, and I would like to echo concerns that have been raised that without sufficient resourcing and without transparent, clear guidance, the ambitions of this 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 re-offending contributes greatly to the pressures on prison capacity. However, mental health treatment, alcohol and drug misuse treatment and other rehabilitative services bring wider social benefit and protects the public far better than the current system. By tackling the causes of crime. The organisation justice has stated. Without proper resourcing, staffing and funding, these rehabilitative initiatives will remain too overstretched and to be effective.

In August 2025, a. Shortfall of 10,000 probation service staff was recorded. The impact assessment of this bill estimates the need for an additional 500 probation staffers each year. I ask the Minister today to provide us with reassurances that he understands the scale of the task ahead, and to outline his commitment to allocating adequate resources to ensure our frontline services are able to deliver the provisions and vision of this bill. New clause 22 moved by the Honourable Member for Guildford, which seeks to provide leave to appeal where there has been a change in the law, which is material to the conviction and where the applications that before the conviction are spent.

A version of this clause was first moved by the former MP for Huddersfield. My predecessor, Chair of the APPG Miscarriages of Justice, written by Charlotte Henry, a formidable gender campaigner, and I have long campaigned the abuses of the joint enterprise legal doctrine and I want to take this opportunity to recognise the fantastic work undertaken by gender over the past 15 years. The Justice Secretary previously provided commitment to gender, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to support NC 22 today.

And I'd like to turn now to my own new clause two, which seeks to provide oversight mechanisms for the huge increase in the use of electronic monitoring. Proposed in this bill, a plan that would create a prison outside of a prison which, while having the potential to ease the overcrowding crisis on the estate, could give rise to significant risks without proper oversight and accountability. Tagging plays an important part in our criminal justice system, and that, used correctly and ethically, it can help reduce crime and protect the public while giving victims confidence that justice is being served.

But there are numerous problems, and these must be addressed before any further expansion, particularly the massive profits made by the private sector companies. We need to analyse the purposes of tagging from public protection to a punishment in itself. This bill also expands powers to ban offenders from specific places or certain activities. When these have no connection with the offence itself. This is one glaring example of where tagging technologies risk leading to greater, unchecked restrictions on our liberties. The failing private sector contracts are at the heart of the problem, particularly Serco and G.

For us now acquired by Allied Universal, who have a murky and well-documented history of overcharging and under-delivering, and have been fined tens of millions of pounds in the past for doing so. And I completely agree with the secondary legislation legislation scrutiny committee in the other place, which last year said it was remarkable that Serco and G for us had been reappointed to provide tagging services after they been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and subject to fines for misconduct and deferred prosecution agreement.

It is not only money, we are giving them more and more control of this 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 your life and out of the hands of failing and fraudulent privateers. The government has promised the biggest insourcing in a generation, and if it fails to enforce these services, it should consider demands by the unions to make the companies that make and provide the tags also fit.

The tags. Pre-release, included in part B and C of my amendment. And I would like to remind you all the appalling case of a dealer, a Just Stop Oil activists in their late 70s who spent extra weeks in prison because Serco couldn't find a tag to fit her. The companies making millions from these contracts should be sanctioned to deliver services correctly, and not be allowed to rely on overstretched prison staff to pick up their work. And I'd like to ask the minister give assurances today on this point.

The current fragmented, privatised system creates huge delays and inefficiency and provides financial challenges for people they supervise, including charging their tags without access to electricity or money to pay. I also support nicotine in the name of my honourable friend, the member for Hammersmith and Chiswick, calling for an annual report detailing the use of tagging, including the number of tags fitted, the number of malfunctioning devices, the rates of compliance and the cost of administrating the system. This is important data that must be freely available if the public and unions are to have any competence in this use of electronic monitoring.

Just as unions and the front line workers they represent are calling for greater oversight, accountability and transparency to monitor performance and for any failures to be addressed immediately, not covered up by profit hungry corporations. And I show that I share their call for the government to commit to a full review, to the feasibility of all tagging to be managed by the Probation Service in the future. Run for public good, not for 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it belongs. Please support my amendments. Luke Taylor much. Madam Chair, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Luke Taylor much. Madam Chair, I would like to start by congratulating the honourable member for Wolverhampton West who gave such
17:26
Luke Taylor Portrait Luke Taylor MP (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
a clear and comprehensive explanation of the flaws of short sentences. I congratulate him for that. It's a shame he's not in his place, but the Right Honourable member for South Holland and The Deepings gave us some insight into why we have ended up in such a mess in the first place, in that the government modelling was not able to reconcile, that removing prison places would remove prison places at the same time as increasing sentencing rules would result in more demand for prison places and the figure given by the honourable member, the writer, the honourable member for Carlisle of 200 482 net prison places since 2010, shows these mistakes to be so utterly damning, and during their their time in government, I'd like to move on to speak specifically in favour of new clause six and new clause 39.

Christmas 2021 Lily Clarke's family were woken by police informing them that Lily had been involved in a traffic accident that morning, Christmas morning, caused by a driver under the influence and speeding at speeds of up to 100mph, and who failed to stop for the police following the accident. Heroic local residents rushed to the scene with fire extinguishers, but Lily sadly died in hospital three days later. Lily's family have campaigned tirelessly since then for Lily's law, which would result in licenses being suspended immediately upon a charge and a lifetime ban from driving.

When drivers are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving. So I speak specifically in favour of new clause six, tabled by the honourable and gallant member for Huntingdon, which would apply the lifetime ban, but also new clause 39, tabled by my friend, the honourable member for Chichester, that applies the suspension of driving licences during bail for driving related offences. So these clauses together would deliver the objectives of Lily's law and would provide both the punishment and the deterrent for those who step into a car, under the under the influence or who do not take care required when driving.

Which let's remember, is a privilege and not a right. I'd also like to speak briefly in favour of new clause 30, and encourage members across the House to support the long overdue ending or resentencing sorry of all prisoners currently held under an IPP, as of the end of 2024, more than 2000 people were held under an IPP, which is an ongoing scandal and a tragedy for those individuals. The government claims that the jail terms are a grave injustice, but they are failing to move quickly enough.

This amendment would force them to act as the Right honourable member for Hammersmith and Chiswick so clearly explains, there is a need for action. I hope he and his colleagues can be persuaded to support the new clause. 30 in the absence of another measure to do so, which is so badly required. And finally, I'd like to mention you clause 40 on providing training during the period a need on remand. We must enable rehabilitation wherever possible, and even if this isn't taken forward today, can I join colleagues and the right member for Congleton to encourage the government to look at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the current situation? Thank you. Very, Franklin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Justice
17:30
Zöe Franklin Portrait Zöe Franklin MP (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair. Justice must be capable of learning from its mistakes. When the law evolves, it much must reach back for those left behind. That is the principle behind new clauses 22 and 23, which I have tabled. These clauses would create a fair route for people still serving. Sentences under laws that have been abolished, have since been abolished, or where the legal basis is materially changed. They would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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, clear mechanism for that to happen, even when Parliament or the courts have recognised that as law was wrong, those affected have no real wrong, those affected have no real way to benefit. Our system can acknowledge injustice, but it cannot acknowledge injustice, but it cannot yet fix it. We see this most clearly. Clearly in the case of Alex Henry, whose sister is my constituent, has campaigned constituent, has campaigned tirelessly on this issue.

She and Alex's mum are in the gallery today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alex's mum are in the gallery today. 11 years ago, Alex was convicted of. Murder after a 42nd altercation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Murder after a 42nd altercation. He did not wield the weapon. He threw a phone one punch and then ran. He was convicted under the now discredited doctrine of joint enterprise, which allows juries to convict. If a defendant merely convict. If a defendant merely foresaw that someone else might do. Two years later, the Supreme Court Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that this interpretation had been wrong for over 30 years. Foresight is not enough for guilt. Intent must be present.

Yet Alex remains in prison, serving a life remains in prison, serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 19 years at night for a crime that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

under today's law, he would not have been convicted of. With my Honourable friend give way. I will give way. I thank the honourable member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for giving way. Alex. His mother, Sally is my constituent in Esher and Walton and she shared Alex's story Walton and she shared Alex's story in one of my surgeries. So I'm very pleased that his story is being considered today in Parliament. The considered today in Parliament. The amendments that my honourable friend is putting forward will help ensure that people like Alex have a route that people like Alex have a route to justice. Sally is battling on behalf of her son against a law behalf of her son against a law which is obsolete.

I think all of us can only imagine how heartbreaking can only imagine how heartbreaking and frustrating that is, and the unfairness of what my honourable friend has described. So I urge members across the House to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

members across the House to support this amendment. So there is a course of justice. I thank the honourable member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for her intervention, and it is indeed. A highly significant issue, which is why. I have put.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have put. Forward this amendment since his. Since his conviction, Alex has also been diagnosed with autism, a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also been diagnosed with autism, a condition that fundamentally affects how he perceives. And. Reacts to social situations. That

**** Possible New Speaker ****

diagnosis raises serious questions about whether it was even fair to suggest that he could have foreseen. A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our highest court has disowned. I want to recognise today joint enterprise not guilty by enterprise not guilty by association, whose members have worked. Tirelessly for more than a decade to support families and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decade to support families and campaign for reform. Many of. Them. And. The families of those affected galleries.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

galleries. And I want to place. On my on record my gratitude for their courage and persistence. In seeking justice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In seeking justice. I would. Also like to thank the honourable member for. Liverpool Riverside for. Her support. This afternoon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This afternoon. New clause 22 would allow people still serving sentences under laws that have materially. Changed to apply for review.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Changed to apply for review. It gives courts discretion to. Read sentence in line. With the law as. It now. Stands, or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stands, or. Make any. Other order. Necessary in the interest. Of justice. This is. Not just about. Reopening every

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not just about. Reopening every case or granting automatic releases. It is about restoring fairness. New clause 23. Complements that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Complements that. By requiring the Secretary of State for justice. To review and report to Parliament. How on how changes in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

criminal law. Affect. Existing convictions and sentences, it ensures that when the sentences, it ensures that when the law evolves, we look back and ask what those changes mean for the people already affected. This is not people already affected. This is not just a moral necessity, it is a practical one. We face a severe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crisis in our prisons overcrowded, understaffed and at breaking point. It makes no sense to fill cells with people serving sentences under with people serving sentences under laws that no longer reflect justice, while those who genuinely threaten public safety waits for space. We public safety waits for space. We need prison places for those who are truly dangerous, not for those who are simply in the wrong place at the are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong law. Madame Chair, the Secretary of State for justice has long recognised the injustice of joint enterprise.

In 2021, he called it a shoddy law, 2021, he called it a shoddy law, outdated and backward, and pledged to change it for families across the country. And many in these galleries country. And many in these galleries remember that promise today. This bill gives him and the government the chance to make good. These the chance to make good. These clauses provide a practical, proportionate and fair way to ensure our justice system can correct our justice system can correct itself when the law gets it wrong.

So my asked today is will the Secretary of State and the government champion from the government benches this these clauses work with me and campaigners clauses 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 but in its capacity to put right its own mistakes. For Alex Henry, for the families in the gallery today, and for everyone still serving a sentence under a law our courts have already rejected, I urge all members on all sides and the government to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support the new clauses. 22 and 23. Thank you, Madam Chair. OK. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Chair. I begin by thanking all those who have contributed to this important debate about sentencing policy and indeed the future of our criminal justice system. And before I turn to the specifics of various amendments, there are two overarching principles which inform this piece of which inform this piece of legislation and the government's position today. The first is about the legacy this government inherited the legacy this government inherited from the party opposite prisons at breaking point, the risk of the most serious offenders avoiding arrest or custody altogether, the need for emergency action to release offenders early to avoid the prison system collapsing.

That was the conclusion of 14 years of Tory conclusion of 14 years of Tory failure, and alongside the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era, this sentencing bill Victorian era, this sentencing bill fixes that mess. Madam Chair, under this government, never again. And secondly, whilst we stabilise the secondly, whilst we stabilise the system so shamefully vandalised by the previous Tory government, we can build a better justice system which build a better justice system which protects the public and reduces reoffending. This government will prioritise punishments but
17:37
Jake Richards Portrait Jake Richards MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Rother Valley, Labour)
-
-
prioritise punishments but punishment that works, not the broken system we have today. That is why we introducing important measures on short custodial sentences, which robust evidence shows will reduce offending, save the taxpayer money and assist with the prisons capacity crisis. Fixing the mess we inherited, Madam Chair, and building a more robust and effective justice system that is at the heart of the bill before the House, let me now turn to the amendments put forward by the Official Opposition and the Shadow Justice team.

Madam Chair, I am simply aghast at the chutzpah of the Conservative Party on justice issues today. This piece of legislation is only before the House because of the mess they left behind whilst they turn their backs on the mounting crisis. This government will not shirk from the challenges we face, however difficult that may be. Madam Chair, amendment 24 would undermine a central purpose of the legislation to solve the Tory prisons capacity crisis. Let me be absolutely clear what victims of crime in our communities fear the most is the situation the Tories left behind where criminals, murderers, rapists, child abusers might not face prison at all because they left our system teetering on the brink without capacity to lock up even the most serious offenders.

We will not apologise for the measures in this bill that clear up their mess and the inspiration for these changes, which the Tories oppose, is the earned progression model from Texas, where crime, where crime has been slashed by improving rehabilitation and cutting reoffending. Now tackling re-offending boost efforts to rehabilitate offenders used to be Conservative policies. Indeed, the shadow Justice Secretary is not in his normal place now used to believe in rehabilitation initiatives to cut reoffending to eight years ago, when I think he was still then a one nation Cameroon, he argued, and I quote, that the statutory definition of the purpose of a prison should include rehabilitation and reform.

Now, he opposes every single measure in this bill, which furthers that cause. He was a moderate. He's now a pound shot populist. One wonders whether he believes in anything other than his campaign to become leader of the opposition. Simply not serious. Madam Chair, the opposition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I will give way on that point. The Minister described it as an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister described it as an earned progression model. I've read out to the House that the library Independent Library briefing note Independent Library briefing note says it won't be earned. It will be automatic. On what basis is he continuing to describe it as an earned model.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

earned model. Within the sentencing bill? And primary legislations are specific punishments for offenders that do not play by the rules whilst they're in prison. That will affect the earned progression model. Further details about exactly how that further details about the functionality of how one can gain credit will be delivered in due course. The opposition and the Honourable Member for Clacton have also tabled amendments to the provisions relating to the Sentencing Council. This aims to Sentencing Council. This aims to abolish the Sentencing Council, and the Tory amendment transfers its functions to the Secretary of State for justice.

Madam Chair, this would for justice. Madam Chair, this would amount to constitutional vandalism, an attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary. The Census and Council holds a pivotal role as a bridge between Parliament and the judiciary. The Council was widely acknowledged to have brought widely acknowledged to have brought about greater consistency to the sentencing process, and even before the council's creation, it was not for the Justice Secretary or the Lord Chancellor to fulfil the functions of creating these guidelines. It is absolutely right guidelines.

It is absolutely 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, Madam Chair, whereby the populists go too far, not just reaffirming the sovereignty of this place, which the provisions at clause 18 and 19 successfully achieve. But trashing constitutional norms for media headlines. I urge this House to reject performative politics such as this. I want to address amendment new clause 12 on the unduly lenient sentence scheme at which the honourable member for Bexhill and Battle was raised, and the honourable member for Mid Bedfordshire, who made a very powerful speech, if I may say so.

Whilst the government understands 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 appeal appeals and held a public consultation, inviting views on the range of reforms to unduly lenient sentence scheme, including extending the time limit. And obviously we'll wait for the Law Commission's response before responding in terms of the communication and the points that the Right Honourable members made, I've heard those, and I'm sure there are processes and functions within the Ministry of Justice that we can take to improve that system.

I will look into it over the coming weeks. I want to move on to short sentences and the amendments put forward by the Right Honourable Member for Chatham. I want to be clear, because her speech simply did not accept the reality clause. One of this bill 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's not soft on crime. There is an important exemption within the legislation for cases where there is a significant risk of harm to a particular individual, whether psychological or physical.

And of course, it will always be up to the courts to decide how to apply the presumption in any given case, the amendments that the Right honourable member has put forward 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. This is not the right direction. The provision also includes an exemption for a breach of a court order. We have strengthened this further with Government amendments two and four clarifying that this includes repeat offenders who commit a further offence while on a suspended sentence.

Government amendments three and five further expand the scope of the exemption, so it also 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, these amendments ensure that repeat offenders do not benefit from the presumption where they are already subject to a court order. But, Madam Chair, where we can do so safely, we should be moving away from short term sentences, putting people in prison for a few weeks, costing the taxpayer huge amounts and leading to further reoffending.

We know that reoffending rates for those serving such short term sentences are scandalously high and rigorous. Research shows that equivalent centres in the community will tackle reoffending, preventing thousands of crime each year. Indeed, that research the rigorous research sits at. The honourable member for Bexhill and Battle has cited that research showing that these measures will cut crime was commissioned by the last Conservative government. They even put the provision this precise provision, copy and paste provision in legislation that they introduced prior to the election, but which never came before Parliament because they know it is the right thing to do.

But now they oppose for opposition sake. It's a good example of how far they fooled the Madam Chair. Simply not serious. I'll now turn to the amendments tabled by my honourable friend the member for Hammersmith and Fulham. I won't be able to speak to all the various amendments he's put down, as I'm sure he'll appreciate. I met with him earlier this week, and I will no doubt meet with him in the committee members of the committee in the weeks ahead. I'm grateful for to him and the fellow members of his committee for their work.

Amendment NC 19 addresses the important issue of the imprisonment for Public Protection sentence. It is right that the IPP sentence was abolished, and the government is 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 from June 2024 to June 2025. I recognise the chair's desire to see the previous Justice Select 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 posed to greater risk to the public.

There are other amendments in relation to the IPP scheme, which the which the Chair of the Justice Select Committee have put forward, relating to details as to review of licence conditions which the government will look into over the coming days and weeks, and no doubt have conversations with him. I also want to briefly address amendment new clause 18 on tagging, which my honourable friend the member for Eastbourne also raised. The government agrees it's important to report on key metrics relating to electronic monitoring.

That is why the Ministry of Justice published statistical reports on the use of electronic electronic monitoring in England and Wales, both quarterly and annually. We expect our next annual report to be published in the summer of next year. This will include key details on key performance indicators that the department uses to hold the M provider to account. My Honourable friend will know that the commercial sensitivities means I am unable to set out what fines have been enforced upon those private companies of the tagging systems.

We will keep holding their feet to the fire, and I hope he can be reassured by that. I now turn to amendments 2223 a new clause five. I understand and sympathise with the aim of these amendments, and met with my honourable friend the member for Lowestoft, who made a characteristically powerful speech, and others just yesterday to discuss this. As somebody who spent many years myself prior to entering this place, representing victims of domestic violence and courts, I know full well the importance of rigorous risk assessments in such cases.

The government believes the current measures are sufficient, a longer record period to ensure that assessment is full and protective measures can be taken, and the domestic abuse Identifier, a key reform that will better enable safeguarding services to remain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

alert to threats posed by perpetrators. Yes. I thank the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister. For giving way and it's been great to work with ministers at the MoJ to help drive that identifier forward. Well, he joined me in celebrating the incredible bravery celebrating the incredible bravery of ITVs Loose Women, many of whom threw their Facing It Together campaign, have spoken out about campaign, have spoken out about their experiences of domestic abuse. And would he or a fellow minister from the MoJ come and meet the Loose Women next week? On Wednesday 1230 onwards, in the utterly Sweet, I'll onwards, in the utterly Sweet, I'll be hosting them where we'll be taking the Facing It Together campaign to Parliament.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm always happy to pay tribute to the brilliant Loose Women on ITV and diary permitting, will be there and diary permitting, will be there at 1230 with my friends. No, their campaign has been serious and has had a real effect and we're very had a real effect and we're very grateful to them. Offenders who pose a greater risk are already excluded from the measures in this from the measures in this legislation, including those record on account of being charged with a further offence.

Importantly, such as in relation to a breach of a as in relation to a breach of a civil Domestic Violence Protection Order and those subject to multi-agency supervision levels two and three, which apply to many sexual violence and domestic abuse offenders. These offenders can only receive a standard recall on the issue of a domestic abuse. I move to new clause 36, brought forward by the honourable member for Cheltenham building again on the work of the honourable 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 this amendment. Domestic abuse is already, however, treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing through the guidelines, which make clear that judges should consider domestic abuse as increasing the seriousness of an offence, allowing for tougher sentences where appropriate. We believe any change to this may complicate the sentencing framework unnecessarily without any real practical benefit. I want to move now to various amendments and new clauses in relation to driving offences. We've heard many powerful speeches.

He's oh, he is here. He's changed. But he has said the honourable member for Huntingdon, looking very dapper. But just as that Second Reading made another powerful speech, I've had a brief conversation with Bob Honourable friend about some of the measures that he's put forward. Whilst we don't support the mandatory ban for careless and dangerous driving which results in death, this is something that I'm determined to look at alongside my colleagues at the Department for transport. I myself am shocked by some of the statistics that the honourable member for Huntingdon and my honourable friend, the member for West Bromwich, have set out at Second Reading and again in meetings that I've had with them since.

I want to get into details on this, but there's certainly more we can do. And I know honourable members as well. I've raised important cases in this regard, so I'm going to be looking at these measures. We can strengthen driving bans on an interim and permanent basis for the most reckless offenders. And again, I want to praise all members who've made such powerful speeches, sometimes on behalf of constituents who have suffered significant tragedies today. I want now to move to new clause 28 and new clause 29, put forward by my Honourable friend the member for Stoke-on-Trent South.

I've met with her twice now to discuss these amendments and the policy aims that sit behind them. I commend her for bringing these forward, raising the importance of tackling the hidden harms of problematic gambling, and for her ongoing collaboration on this topic. I just want to briefly explain the ways in which we already identify and support those with gambling issues, and how we are looking to increase the support we provide. Pre-sentencing reports help the court to identify underlying issues such as harmful gambling, mental health and addiction, which may influence offending behaviours.

Mental health conditions and addictions can be taken into account at sentencing and courts are encouraged to take an individualised approach, particularly where the condition contributes to the offending. Where individuals demonstrate a commitment to address these issues, courts may consider what's called a community sentence treatment requirement and particular mental health treatment requirements as part of the community or suspended sentence order. This can only be undertaken with the consent of the individual, and the amendment, as drafted by my own friends, provides for the treatment to be mandatory, which is an issue.

There is, as I have discussed with her, the issue of the scale of the demand and the current lack of any reliable data as to how this would look in the criminal justice system. That's why I've already committed to work with colleagues at the Department of Health, and indeed have been in correspondence with them just this week to ensure the Ministry of Justice is involved in the developing work on gambling, addiction treatment and use of the statutory levy led by the Department for culture, Media and Support.

Madam Chair, briefly, I want to deal with new clause 25, tabled by the honourable member for Clacton, who didn't bother to turn up for any of the debates. This amendment seeks to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

introduce automatic deportation for foreign nationals, given sentences of at least six. Months.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Months. Whilst the state would be forced to seek the deportation of an individual in such circumstances, that individual would clearly have 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 proportionality, which has been a long held principle in the common law in this country for hundreds of years. Let me be clear. This years. Let me be clear. This government is urgently removing foreign national offenders, with removals up by 14% since we came to removals up by 14% since we came to office, and with new clause one in the bill, we extending the Home Secretary's duty to deport under the UK Borders Act 2007 to foreign UK Borders Act 2007 to foreign nationals, given a suspended sentence of at least 12 months, upholding our values and keeping our upholding our values and keeping our nation safe is a priority, and this amendment 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 is for a period of at least 12 months, it is sufficiently serious to merit automatic deportation. But the amendment tabled by reform would make a mockery of our efforts more generally, putting scant resource into needless litigation and often unnecessary deportations, and not a reform policy that crashes and burns reform policy that crashes and burns on contact with reality. Very, very briefly, Madam Chair, I want to speak about 27 and the story made powerfully by my honourable friend in relation to her constituent, Sophie.

It's an issue that has first come across my desk as part of preparations for this bill committee stage. Whilst the government are absolutely determined to deport foreign offenders for serious offences such as that and the risk assessment in her new clause may inhibit the government's efforts in that regard. This is something I'm going to look at very closely in the coming weeks, and I hope that I can have a meeting with her to discuss the details of that and how we can make this work.

I also just want to very briefly raise the campaign by my honourable friend, the member for Portsmouth North around tool theft, which has been such an important part of the reforms to sentencing and criminal justice policy. Her efforts have been successful. Madam Chair, this debate today for nearly five hours shows the dividing line in British British politics, which is increasingly clear between those that recognise the tough choices facing our country and are willing to make them to clean up the mess left behind by the last Tory government and the unserious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

populist opposition carping from the sidelines. Yes. I'm sure the member will hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure the member will hope that that backbenchers have listened to his speech really closely for what he said, but more importantly what he said, but more importantly for what he hasn't said. I know that the government has been briefing journalists to say that what we were saying about rapists and paedophiles saying about rapists and paedophiles getting out earlier wasn't true, and they've told the same thing to a number of Labour backbenchers. So just to make the record really just to make the record really clear, can the Minister put on the record and answer the question, will any rapist or paedophiles serving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standard determinate sentences be released earlier as a result of this bill? Yes or no? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I see no sentencing decisions for the judiciary. Every single, every single offence in the Honourable member, every single offence in the Honourable members amendment can be given an extended determinate service. And what I've said before, service. And what I've said before, and I'll say it again, Madam Chair, is that what victims of crime fear the most is the situation that this the most is the situation that this government inherited, where we are running out of prison places where the most serious offenders might not face prison at all.

And bizarrely, face prison at all. And bizarrely, earlier in the debate, bizarrely early in the debate, the honourable member, the shadow justice minister, member, the shadow justice minister, said well, if I had been Prime Minister or Chancellor, this wouldn't have happened. Well, you weren't, I'm afraid a lot of you lot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

weren't, I'm afraid a lot of you lot had a go at being Chancellor and Prime Minister, and not if you did. A good job.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me, Madam Chair. You locked and you was addressed to me. Madam. Madam Chair, I don't think you were Prime Minister or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you were Prime Minister or Chancellor. I do apologise. Yet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Chair. The Tory legacy in our prisons was lawless disorder. Not enough prison places to arrest Not enough prison places to arrest or lock up. Even the most serious offenders there. Howling opposition today. Howling opposition today today. Howling opposition today rings hollow in the context of their disastrous legacy. This government is taking action to fix the mess is taking action to fix the mess 2500 prison places in the first year, compared to just 500 over 14 years of Conservative misrule.

But we simply cannot build our way out of this crisis. It requires long term reform for a more sustainable system. This bill ensures we will never face again the impossible never face again the impossible situation that we face last summer. But it goes further. It means we will cut reoffending rates. We will build prisons that produce better citizens, not better criminals. This bill will help keep our streets and bill will help keep our streets and communities safe, and I thank all those who have contributed to the debate.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate. We Esther McVey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I'm deeply dismayed by Chair. Well, I'm deeply dismayed by what the Minister had to say. This bill will make the streets of our country less safe. It will let out both thousands of criminals out of prison, and it will stop thousands of criminals going to prison. It will have a devastating impact on society. If the minister is honest, if he's being truthful about this being emergency, apologies.

OK, not that not truthful, but what I would say is if he's being accurate, if it is really the reason that it's about emergency, it's about a lack of prison places, then why has he not accepted the new clause 62, which is a sunset clause allowing two years for three further prisons to come on board prisons initiated by this Conservative government? He hasn't, because I think we've revealed, exposed that this government is soft on crime and that it is on the side of the criminal and not on the side of the victim.

And as the minister, shocking actually is the word for this bill. So as the Minister did not offer any way forward, has not agreed to a sunset clause, I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move amendment 46 and I will be pushing it to a vote. Yes. The honourable member had already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member had already moved the amendment, but the question is that amendment 46 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question is that amendment 46 be made? As many as of that opinion say. I heard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I heard. The contrary. No. No decision. But But the But the question But the question is But the question is that But the question is that amendment But the question is that amendment 46 be made as many ers of that opinion, say aye of the contrary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. No. The tellers for the eyes are Jerome Mayhew. And David read the Jerome Mayhew. And David read the tell us for the nos Mark Ferguson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Five. Yes, How How do How do you. Answer? Answer? Is?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord, order. Lord, order. The Lord, order. The ayes Lord, order. The ayes to Lord, order. The ayes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord, order. The ayes to the right. 105 the Noes to the left 381.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. All right. the ayes to the right. 105. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ayes to the right. 105. The noes to the left, 381. So the noes noes to the left, 381. So the noes have it. The noes have it unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's. With the leave of the House. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the leave of the House. I shall put a single question on government amendments. 2 to 5. I government amendments. 2 to 5. I call the minister to move amendments call the minister to move amendments 2 to 5 formally. The question is that government amendments 2 to 5 be that government amendments 2 to 5 be made. As many errors of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it.

The ayes have it. With the leave of the House. I shall put the question on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clauses 1 to 5 together. Objection. Objection taken.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Objection taken. Can the honourable member specify which. Closed. Doors? What is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question? What they. The question is that clause one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause one, as amended, stand part of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many ers of that opinion say. I of the contrary. No. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No.
18:12
None Portrait Division
-

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that clause The question is that clause one stand part of the bill, as many ers of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, the tellers for the eyes are Taiwo Owatemi and Mark Ferguson, the tellers for the nose Ferguson, the tellers for the nose OK, OK, OK. OK, OK. I OK, OK. I want OK, OK. I want to OK, OK.

I want to say. I I just. Say Say yes. Thank Thank you Thank you for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whole Whole order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whole order. Whole order. The Whole order. The Ayes Whole order. The Ayes to Whole order. The Ayes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whole order. The Ayes to the right 389. The noes to the left 102. The ayes to the right with 389. The The ayes to the right with 389. The noes to the left 102. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. With the leave of the House. I shall With the leave of the House. I shall put the question on clauses 2 to 5 together. The question is that together.

The question is that clauses 2 to 5 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion, bill. As many as of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. With the leave of the House. I shall put a single question House. I shall put a single question on government amendments. 6 to 11. I call the Minister to move the amendments 6 to 11 formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With me. The question is. That government. Amendments 6 to 11 be made. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments 6 to 11 be made. As many ers of that opinion, say aye of the contrary. No, I think the ayes the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. With the Leader of the House. I shall put the question on clauses six and seven question on clauses six and seven together. The question is that clause six as amended, and clause seven stand part of the bill. As seven stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion, say aye.

I of the contrary. No, I think the of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move amendment 12 formally. The question is that government amendment 12 be made. As government amendment 12 be made. As many as of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

The ayes have it. The question is that clause eight, as amended, stand part of the bill, as amended, stand part of the bill, as many as or of that opinion, say aye, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move amendment 13 formally. The question is that government amendment 13 be made as many as of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

With the leave of the House. I shall put the question on clauses 9 to 12 together. The question is that clause nine as amended amended and clause 10 to 12 stamp part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say aye, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. With the leave of the House. I shall put a single question on government amendments 14 and 15. I call the Minister to move.

Amendments 14 and 15 formally reformulate. The question is that government amendments 14 and 15 be made. As many as of that opinion, say aye, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. With the leave of the House. I shall put the question on clauses 13 to 15 together. The question is that clause 13 as amended, and clauses 14 and 15 stamp out of the bill. As many as or of that opinion, say aye.

I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. But the Leader of the House, I shall put a single question on government amendments 16 and 17. I call the Minister to move amendment 16 and 17 formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We formally. The question is that government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government amendments 16 and 17 be made. As many as of that opinion, say aye, I many as of that opinion, say aye, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very helpful if the opposition whips bench would be quiet. It is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is. With the leave of the House. I shall put the question on clauses 16 shall put the question on clauses 16 to 19 together. The question is that clause 16 as amended, and clauses 17 clause 16 as amended, and clauses 17 to 19 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion, say aye. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to amendment 24 to clause 20, which has been selected for 20, which has been selected for separate decision. I call Doctor Kieran Mullan to move amendment 24 Kieran Mullan to move amendment 24 formally move. The question is that amendment 24 be made. As many as of amendment 24 be made. As many as of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Strain Strain is Strain is that Strain is that amendment Strain is that amendment 24 Strain is that amendment 24 be Strain is that amendment 24 be made. As many as of that opinion, say aye of the contrary. No, no. But tell us, for the eyes are David Reed and Jerome Mayhew the tellers for the noes, Taiwo Owatemi and Mark Ferguson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are you right? And And I.
18:31
None Portrait Division:Page 37 AMENDMENT 24
-

And I. I. I.
18:37
None Portrait Division: Sentencing Bill:Page 37 AMENDMENT 24
-

I. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I for. I, I, I. I, I. I, I. Yes. I, I. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alter Alter order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alter order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alter order. the ayes to the right 182. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 307. The I to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right 182. The Noes to the left 307. To the noes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

left 307. To the noes have it. The nose habits unlock. With the leave of the committee. I shall put leave of the committee. I shall put the questions on clauses 20 to 41 stand part together. The question is that clauses 20 to 41 stand part of the bill. As many the opinion say I, the bill. As many the opinion say I, have come to know. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order! The question is at clause 42, stand part of the bill.

As many that opinion say I, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say I, I. Know the question. Is that clause 42 stand part of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that clause 42 stand part of the bill, as many their opinion say I off the contrary. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No the noes have it the noes have it with the leave of the committee, I will put the question on clauses I will put the question on clauses 43 and 44 stand part together. The question is that clauses 43 and 44 question is that clauses 43 and 44 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion, say aye. I of the country. Now the ayes have it, the country. Now the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I call the Minister to move.

Amendment 19 formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally. The question is that the government amendment 19 be made, as many as I have been and say I. I country. No. The ayes have it, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. No. The ayes have it, the clause. 45, as amended, stand part of the bill as many.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill as many. Of the opinions I why the country? No, the ayes have it. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country? No, the ayes have it. The move. Amendment 20 formally. The question. Is that government amendment 20

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that government amendment 20 be made. As many as that people say I, I country no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. With the leave of the House. I support the question on House. I support the question on clauses 46 and 47 together. The question is that clause 46, as amended on clause 47, stand pass the amended on clause 47, stand pass the bill. As many of the opinions I. I continue. The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

new. Clause one I call the to Minister new clause one formally. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Deportation of foreign criminals. The question is that Nichols will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that Nichols will be read a second time as many of the opinions. I country no. The ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinions. I country no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We come to government. Questions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause won't be added to the bill. It's made that bill and say. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Country no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it depends. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. You mean clause six has been has been selected for a separate decision.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Ben Obese-Jecty to move new clause six formally. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally. Or to. A lifetime driving ban for death

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences. There'll be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Time to question his outfit shortly. The question is the question is the question is the new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause six be read a second time? It's made. That means I. I. Of the contrary, "no" no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Of the contrary, "no" no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Thank you.
18:45
18:56
18:56
None Portrait Division:Sentencing Bill:New Clause 9
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues Colleagues should Colleagues should be Colleagues should be seated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues should be seated. Miss Ferguson. The question is, as on the Order Paper has made that police say high country. No, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

police say high country. No, no. Tell us for. The eyes of Jerome Mayhew and David Reed. Tell us for the nose. David Reed. Tell us for the nose. I'll tell you our Tommy and Mark

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK? OK? OK. OK, OK, OK. Right. Right. OK, Right. OK, I. Don't. Don't. Remember.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. I would like 104. The noes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

left. 317. The eyes strike. 104.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes strike. 104. The nose. The left. 370 to the nose. Have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The left. 370 to the nose. Have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The left. 370 to the nose. Have it. The noes have it unlock. Order it. The noes have it unlock. Order under the order of the House of 60 to September. I must now put the questions necessary to bring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proceedings to a conclusion. New clause 30 has been selected for a separate decision. I call Jess

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for a separate decision. I call Jess formally. Formally. The question is that new clause
19:07
None Portrait Division:Sentencing Bill:New Clause 30
-

30 be added to the bill as made that opinion say I am the country no. opinion say I am the country no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues Colleagues should Colleagues should be Colleagues should be seated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues should be seated. Colleague should be seated. If they are near a bench. The question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are near a bench. The question colleagues should be seated. The question is as on are we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on are we having our own private discussion at the end of the chamber? You can do that outside or be seated. The question is, as on the Order Paper has made, I of the contrary, "no".

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has made, I of the contrary, "no". Tell us, for the eyes of Zoe Franklin and Susan Murray, and the tellers for the noes are Taiwo

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Statement. Statement. Of Statement. Of no. Just Just go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On On the On the order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the order. the ayes to the right were. 77 to the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 390.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 390. The eyes to right 77. The nose the left 390. So the nose habit the the left 390. So the nose habit the the left 390. So the nose habit the noes have it unlock. The question is that schedule won't be the first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that schedule won't be the first schedule to the bill. Schedule two to be the second schedule to the bill. Schedule three be the third. Schedule to the bill, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Schedule to the bill, and schedule four with the fourth schedule to the bill. As many people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say, I have the country no, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We can't. Two government. New schedule one. I call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

New schedule one. I call the minister to move the schedule one formally. The question is that this schedule won't be added to the bill schedule won't be added to the bill as amended. That he didn't say I can't. You know, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minister to move. Amendment 21 formally. We formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question. Miss Harris, I'll be ready. The question is that amendment 21 be made as amended, to say I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are of the country? No, the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. The ayes have it. The question is. That I do report the bill to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That I do report the bill to the House, as many that opinion say. I. I the contrary. No, the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I the contrary. No, the ayes have it. The ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Order! Whip to report. I beg to report that the. Committee has gone through the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee has gone through the bill and directed me to report. The. Same with the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the end of business. I'll allow the frontbench and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ministers to quickly shuffle over. Thank you. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I go on. To motion number. Three on criminal law.
19:22
19:23
19:23
19:25
None Portrait Adjournment: Social housing in South Cotswolds constituency
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this House do now adjourn, and I call Doctor Roz Savage on social. Housing in. South Cotswolds constituency.
19:25
Roz Savage Portrait Dr Roz Savage MP (South Cotswolds, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

South Cotswolds constituency. Doctor Roz Savage. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this adjournment debate on social housing in the South social housing in the South Cotswolds. And I thank the Minister for being here this evening across our towns and villages, from big Stone to Barnsley, Lavington to Hills Leigh, the story is the same. The need for genuinely affordable, safe and well maintained housing has never been greater. Yes, at precisely the moment when that need is most acute, the supply of such homes is being allowed to dwindle away.

In Wiltshire today, more than 3600 households wait on the council's housing register. Families and individuals waiting for a secure, affordable home. Many are in the higher priority bands recognised as being in significant need. Local parish surveys tell the same story. Bid Aston and Waterford Parish Council, for example, has undertaken two surveys in recent years, both confirming a clear and continuing demand for affordable housing. We also have a growing need amongst older residents seeking smaller adapted homes so that they can downsize locally, freeing up family houses for the next generation.

Yet in many villages, those options simply do not exist. I want to make clear that I am not advocating arbitrary housing targets. I'm talking about ensuring that the right kind of homes are built, homes that local families, key workers and older residents can actually afford to live in and want to live in homes that have the infrastructure they need. While the government has set new national housing targets that more than double the number of homes expected in areas like Cotswolds, those figures risked doing more harm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

realities. They give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They give way. I should give away this stereo. I would, the honourable member, agree with me that schemes. Like the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree with me that schemes. Like the new House of Social Housing. In Minehead, which is the first social housing for a generation, coupled with more social. Housing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Housing. In Mid Devon, which is specifically for elderly people who are downsizing from. Their own social houses.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Their own social houses. Is the way forward from the Liberal Democrats and both institutions should be should be recognised for doing a jolly. Good job. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Roz Savage I thank my honourable friend for her intervention and that does indeed sound like an excellent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

idea. Well. I will give way. Jim Shannon. Thank you madam. First of all,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you madam. First of all, can I commend the ability for South Cotswolds repayments for its full term beforehand to get an idea of term beforehand to get an idea of what the committee was referring to. We had a debate in Westminster Hall this morning on homelessness, and one of the things was affordability one of the things was affordability that came through very, very clearly. House prices in some cases can be over ten times the average can be over ten times the average earnings of what people can afford.

And my constituency, and I suspect the noble Ladies saying many young people are coming to me first time buyers, they can't get a mortgage because they can't purchase a House because the House is too expensive. because the House is too expensive. So does the Honourable lady agree when it comes to addressing the needs of some of those who want to buy a House are those who want access to social housing. Government must build more houses and thereby

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bring the price down so people can afford to actually buy a House. Also.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also. I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention and agree that the financial impacts, and even more the financial impacts, and even more so the social impacts of young people not being able to afford their first home and to fly the nest of their parents home, is having a catastrophic effect on our younger catastrophic effect on our younger people. Going back to the South Cotswolds, around 80% of Cotswold Cotswolds, around 80% of Cotswold District lies within a designated national landscape.

The Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and of the remaining 20% of Cotswolds District Council that 20% roughly half is flood plain. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

roughly half is flood plain. So clearly this is a problem. That I will give. I want. To thank. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. The honourable lady is making an excellent speech, and I think she highlights perfectly the. Pressure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

highlights perfectly the. Pressure England. Would she agree. With me that there's a great. Deal of scope. In many.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In many. Towns, and even some larger villages for building on brownfield land, and indeed in Redding we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a number of examples. I'm sure other colleagues would have their. Own examples in their own areas, and this. Can provide.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A very valuable resource to help protect the countryside. I think. I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention, and gentleman for his intervention, and I could not agree with you more that we should be prioritising brownfield sites and also refurbishing existing sites and also refurbishing existing housing. Housing we could very nearly, if not completely, meet the nearly, if not completely, meet the housing target through those means without needing to take space away without needing to take space away from nature or from food production.

Imposing a target of over a thousand Imposing a target of over a thousand new homes a year in the Cotswold district may make a good headline, but in practice it encourages but in practice it encourages speculative development on greenfield sites where services are often poor and the flood risk is high. Rather than building genuinely affordable homes for local people in affordable homes for local people in more appropriate locations. But I want to be clear that this debate is want to be clear that this debate is not about opposing new housing.

It's about ensuring that what we do build reflects local needs, protects our environment, our natural heritage, and strengthens our rural and strengthens our rural communities rather than undermining them. Our infrastructure is already them. Our infrastructure is already stretched thin. Many of our villages have limited public transport, ageing drainage systems and GP surgeries that are full to capacity. Broadband and mobile phone coverage remain unreliable in many places, and with climate change, flood risk is rising. With every winter storm, we simply cannot add hundreds of new homes without first ensuring that the essential services of water, drainage, transport and health care can cope.

Our infrastructure is fragile. Growth must be planned sensibly, sympathetically and in a logical order according to local constraints not imposed from the top down and literally bulldozed through. And these homes must be genuinely affordable. Over the years, many local authority homes have been transferred to housing associations under large scale voluntary transfer in north Wiltshire. That happened back in 1995. Those homes now belong legally to the housing associations, not to the council, but to many of those housing associations are now selling off rural homes rather than refurbishing them and retaining them In some villages, every remaining affordable home could be lost, and once they're sold into the private market, they're gone forever.

They will never again be available at social rent, and that result is devastating for rural communities. Young people who grew up in these villages find they can no longer afford to live there. Teachers, carers and nurses are priced out, older residents find nowhere to go and they want to downsize. So if we want our villages to remain vibrant, living communities, not just picture postcard backdrops, we must ensure that people of all incomes can afford to live and work there.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my constituency neighbour giving way, and she's speaking with a huge amount of common sense and her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amount of common sense and her problems in the South Cotswolds, of. Course, replicated. In North Cotswolds. And the. Problem with increasing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Problem with increasing. Housing numbers, doubling them 501,000. A year. She says.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A year. She says. It's the planning system is not delivering us the. Number of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Number of. Affordable houses, because the developers will argue against building affordable housing, because they can make more. Money out of the executive.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Three. Or 4 or 5. Bedroom houses. So we need to alter the planning system. We need to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We need to. Alter the planning system. So. That we can't allow developers through viability arguments to actually.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exclude building. Social housing in some cases altogether. But my honourable altogether. But my honourable friends and neighbour, for his intervention, and we don't always agree on everything, but we are agree on everything, but we are definitely of like mind on this. I also defer to his his knowledge and experience as a surveyor with a experience as a surveyor with a great knowledge of the building industry. And moreover, those who remain in the existing housing stock are too often living in conditions are too often living in conditions that are simply unacceptable.

One of my constituents lives in a flat with her two daughters. The elder daughter developed what was thought to be asthma, but doctors now believe her breathing problems are caused by mould spores in their damp home. She describes night spent in panic as her daughter coughs uncontrollably. The landlord's response has been seasonal mould washes rather than a proper fix. Getting to the root cause of the mould problem. Some social housing providers have proved difficult for my team to even get a response, let alone a resolution.

Other constituents tell me of homes left empty for months in villages where people are desperate for somewhere to live. Of properties that could easily be brought up to modern energy standards, just left to deteriorate and moulder and of repairs delayed or done very poorly. This is inefficient and frustrating. It borders on the inhumane. To be fair, the government has recognised this issue in principle, for which I thank them. The recent policy paper, Delivering a Decade of Renewal for Social and Affordable Housing, calls on providers to work with the government both to build new homes and to upgrade existing ones.

But the reality on the ground is that policy is not being enforced. Associations continue to sell off rural stock while neglecting maintenance and retrofit. I urge ministers please to pause the disposal of rural affordable housing by Green Square Accord and similar providers until the new policy framework is clarified. It makes no sense at all to sell the very homes our communities so desperately need. We also need stronger enforcements to ensure that housing associations meet their obligations, both to build new homes and to maintain existing ones to a decent standard.

There must be consequences for failure to meet those obligations, and I ask the government to support councils in rebuilding the capacity of councils to own housing stock directly. Wiltshire Council has expressed that ambition and deserves the financial flexibility to make it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a reality. Now I'd like to turn to what we can do to increase. And give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And give way. I look. This way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. In terms.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In terms. Of housing stock. I am. Proud to have been the leader of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Council at Teignbridge District Council, of. Which I'm still. A member of the House's attention. To be. Building council houses for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Building council houses for the first time in 30 years. There are a number of adjustments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are a number of adjustments that can be made that I met with. The former housing. Minister to actually make that easier, such as. Increasing the number.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Increasing the number. Of homes from 200 to 500. Before you need a. Housing revenue account.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Housing revenue account. The previous minister was going to announce that and make that happen, he told me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not convinced. That has yet happened. Does my honourable friend agree with me. That. That's one of the several.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Adjustments that the Minister could. Easily make. To make it easier. For councils.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To build more council houses? I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. This seems like an his intervention. This seems like an eminently sensible plan that I would eminently sensible plan that I would wholeheartedly endorse. Coming back to genuinely affordable housing across the South Cotswolds, there is a planning tool designed for exactly this purpose. The Rural Exception site. These small parcels of land on the edge of villages released specifically for affordable housing for people with a strong local connection.

They're protected by legal agreements so the homes remain affordable in perpetuity when properly supported and implemented, rural exception sites can deliver well-designed homes that keep communities alive. Alongside this, we also need to see community led housing playing a bigger role. Schemes that are initiated and owned by local people, often through community land trusts. These build not just houses, but real communities. The Affordable Homes Programme, which is the government's main grant scheme for affordable housing, has real potential to help.

But it too often works for large urban developments rather than smaller rural ones. It's an urban tool being implemented in a rural setting. It can provide vital funding for social rent and community led schemes. Yet the rules and deadlines are often too rigid for parish level projects. So I urge the Minister to make the programme more flexible and to strengthen the rural uplift so that building a dozen good quality, energy efficient homes in a Cotswold village is just as viable as building hundreds on the edge of a city.

I'm personally inspired by the tradition of almshouses, one of Britain's oldest and most dignified forms of social housing, and I was very encouraged to see an architecture award recently given to some alms houses, actually in London, that show how modern design can honour that almshouse heritage. Small, beautiful and community oriented, with shared gardens and growing spaces. I can just imagine similar developments in our market towns and villages, as we already have indeed in our ancestor, although those of many hundreds of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years old. Yes, I will. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank the honourable lady for. Giving way so graciously.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way so graciously. I wonder if she has anything she wanted to say about. The value of good design principles and linking to the principles and linking to the existing traditional architecture in specific communities? We've had a great. Success in. Our community in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

great. Success in. Our community in Redding. And encouraging. New developments to copy that style and colour and range of style and colour and range of bricks. And I see the honourable gentleman for Newbury is nodding. He the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. Same wonderful array. Of bricks. And sometimes use. Of flints as well. Is this. Something that you'd like to see.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Something that you'd like to see. Highlighted? Encouraged? Doctor Roz Savage, I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention, and I think that this intervention, and I think that this is what we all want to see, that modern housing can be beautiful and modern housing can be beautiful and can blend almost seamlessly with the existing housing stock in a way that existing housing stock in a way that is pleasing to the eye. And it also helps communities to meld together when their housing melds together.

There are certain villages in my constituency, obviously the Celts. The Cotswolds is very much associated with beautiful architecture and that lovely honey architecture and that lovely honey coloured Cotswold stone, and where the development is sympathetic, it really is. It's welcome. But there are other places where the development has been less sympathetic, and it does tend to have an impact on the relationship between the residents in the old village and the residents in the new development. So yes, I would wholeheartedly encourage and endorse wholeheartedly encourage and endorse that.

So I can imagine developments like almshouses in our market, towns and villages, clusters of low energy homes built with local materials, ideally by local building firms, surrounded by shared green space for fruit and vegetables. That's how we build not only homes but communities. So to make this happen, planning policy must reward quality. And see value, not just sheer quantity. Rural exception sites need to be protected and strengthened, and national targets must recognise environmental constraints. We cannot meet housing numbers by paving over floodplains or over protected landscapes.

Public bodies should be required to release small sites near services and bus routes at fair value for social housing. For the convenience. Councils must be able to retain 100% of right to buy receipts with longer timelines, so that they're able to replace lost homes on a like for like basis. And we must also address the pressure from short term lengths and second homes. A distinct planning use class for short term lets, coupled with local powers to limit numbers and apply fare premiums, would help ensure homes remain homes, not vehicles, for investment, and help to keep our villages alive.

So many of our villages are really being hollowed out, with half or more of the homes empty for much of the week, meaning that local shops and pubs and schools really struggle to remain viable. Finally, I ask the Minister to consider, please, a South Cotswolds pilot bringing together Homes England, local councils and housing associations to plan small scale, sustainable, community oriented social housing. It would show and showcase what can be achieved when we design for place, people and planet, not for spreadsheets.

Madam Deputy Speaker, social housing is not a statistic. It's a lifeline. It keeps the nurse in Tetbury, the teaching assistant in Fairford and the young electrician in her ancestor living in the communities that they serve. It keeps our schools open, our shops busy and our bus routes viable. I look forward to hearing the minister's response, and I also look forward to working with her to ensure that every community in the South Cotswolds has the affordable, safe and sustainable homes it needs.

Thank you. Well.
19:43
Samantha Dixon Portrait Samantha Dixon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Chester North and Neston, Labour)
-
-
Call the Minister Samantha Dixon. and I do congratulate the Honourable lady on securing this important debate. And I'd like to thank all of the other members, honourable members who've made contributions to noted. government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Recognises the acute. Housing pressures facing rural communities, and is committed to ensuring the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and is committed to ensuring the homes built reflect genuine local need, are affordable. And are supported.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By appropriate infrastructure. This government is committed to building 1.5 million homes. This Parliament. And social.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And social. And affordable homes will make up an essential part of that. We also acknowledge that not enough social acknowledge that not enough social and affordable housing has been delivered in recent decades. That shortfall is now being.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Felt acutely. In areas like the South Cotswolds, where 80% of the district

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cotswolds, where 80% of the district landscape. And further development. Must be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Carefully planned. Yes, I will deliver. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. I support. The government's ambition to build. 1.5 million homes. This debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This debate. Is referring to more to social housing. And I wonder, whilst at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

housing. And I wonder, whilst at the despatch box, if you could give an indication of that 1.5 million. Can I. Say to. You.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You. If the Minister can give you we exhausting. Apologies if. The Minister could give an.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister could give an. Indication of that 1.5 million homes, how many of those will be for social rent?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I will come to that point for the honourable. Members benefit. So a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Members benefit. So a. Crucial first step in ensuring local authorities plan for the right number of a crucial first step is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number of a crucial first step is. Ensuring that local. Authorities plan for the right number of homes, and this means

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assessing housing need. And then. Identifying how much development is realistically deliverable, taking is realistically deliverable, taking into account land availability. Environmental constraints such as flood risk and protected landscapes flood risk and protected landscapes and other relevant factors. Local authorities can choose to go beyond authorities can choose to go beyond their assessed need to support wider goals such as economic development, growth. Infrastructure investment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

growth. Infrastructure investment. And to accommodate housing from elsewhere. We expect. Local authorities to explore all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

options, including. Maximising brownfield collaborating across boundaries and,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

collaborating across boundaries and, where necessary, reviewing Greenbelt. Yes. On very grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On very grateful. In a recent. Public accounts hearing on. Planning improvements.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Planning improvements. We heard from the Home Builders Federation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That 34,000 social houses currently in England Wales remain unsold. It seems to. Be an absolute.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tragedy when there is such demand for social housing. Could I ask the Minister tonight. To urgently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Look at that? I'd like to thank the honourable member for his. Comments, and I. Will certainly consider that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will certainly consider that. Thank you. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

plans must deliver, where practicable, the. Amount. Type and tenure of homes. Communities actually need. This Communities actually need. This requires a careful balance, enabling necessary development while

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Yes. Thank the. Minister for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She is being very gracious of her time. My district of Cambridge. Has. Had its numbers doubled.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Had its numbers doubled. 40% of team bridges within. Dartmoor National Park. The rest of the area is constrained.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the coast, and. Houses become. More. And more expensive. To deliver. As the numbers go up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the numbers go up. Where, because they're more expensive, they will. Deliver fewer and fewer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Affordable homes. The standard. Method is not. Working to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reduce the House price. Will the Minister reconsider how these numbers are determined. So. That the standard method.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the standard method. Is no longer used to actually. Enforce a. Central number.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of homes, rather than the number of. Homes that. The. District actually needs?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

District actually needs? I note the constraints that the honourable members discussing and raising, and. I will. Certainly ask officials.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Certainly ask officials. To consider that when. We plan as going forward. These

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We plan as going forward. These are not just planning challenges. They're human challenges in developing these local plans. We're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

developing these local plans. We're now living with the cost. Of. More than 169,000 children in temporary accommodation. And more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And more. Than 1.3 million. Households on local authority housing registers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is something that cannot be allowed to continue, and we recognise the shared. Ambition across the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sector to build more, build better and build sustainably. And we know that in areas like South Cotswolds where planning constraints

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cotswolds where planning constraints are real. And community character. Matters. They are essential partners in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They are essential partners in helping councils meet targets and safeguarding what makes places special. Strategic evidence led

**** Possible New Speaker ****

special. Strategic evidence led local planning will ensure. Development happens in. The. Right. buying. In, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In, and. Housing associations must be part of that. Conversation from. The outset. The National Planning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The outset. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sustainable development, including the provision. Of supporting infrastructure. In a sustainable way. Local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In a sustainable way. Local development plans must. Address infrastructure needs and required. And how.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And how. It can be funded and delivered. If this is essential to ensure new homes are not just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

homes are not just. Built but a part of the thriving, Honourable. Lady is set out this afternoon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This evening. The honourable. I'm not going to give way. I'm afraid.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

afraid. honourable. Member has raised very real. Concerns about flooding. Flooding can have a devastating.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can have a devastating. Impact on communities, homes and infrastructure and that's why we take this seriously. The take this seriously. The government's approach is guided by the NPF, which is designed to protect people and property from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protect people and property from flooding. It sets out a clear expectation that inappropriate development in flood prone areas. Should be avoided.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Should be avoided. The sequential test aims to ensure that new development is directed to areas of lower flood

**** Possible New Speaker ****

directed to areas of lower flood risk wherever possible. Where development must occur in. Higher risk areas. The exception

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Higher risk areas. The exception test requires that it delivers wider sustainability benefits and is made

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. These safeguards are in. Place to ensure that new homes are not only safe, but also resilient to future climate impacts. We're also committed to delivering more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through. The planning system. As set out. In our plan for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In our plan for. Change, we are firmly. Committed to delivering the biggest boost. In a generation to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Social and affordable housing housebuilding. To achieve this ambitious target, we need every part of the sector, including councils of the sector, including councils and housing associations, working in lockstep, lockstep and delivering to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lockstep, lockstep and delivering to their full capacity. We're taking. Steps to create the conditions. country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. Can once again deliver a social and affordable housing, housing at scale. That includes supporting. scale. That includes supporting. Councils to update their local plans, locating sites for future development, balancing homes with infrastructure like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

infrastructure like. Schools and health care, and actively. Engaging communities through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Engaging communities through public consultation. Since coming to office, we have sought to engage with the sector at every opportunity. We've listened

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity. We've listened carefully to the views of social housing. Providers and their tenants. About the problems they face and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How. Best to resolve them. But we've not only listened, we've. Acted that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Spending Review, the. Chancellor announced a record package of investment designed to ensure councils and registered. Providers can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Providers can. Ensure can increase development. Of. Social and affordable housing. As you've. Highlighted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a. Step change in our ambition. To deliver social and affordable housing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

housing. Setting out a long term. Vision. For building more homes. Improving quality. And strengthening communities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And strengthening communities. But we recognise that for many, the reality on the ground. Has. Yet to match that ambition and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yet to match that ambition and we're committed to bridging that gap through practical action. Step one of the decade of renewal is being to of the decade of renewal is being to deliver the biggest long term investment in social and affordable housing. In recent times, we've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

housing. In recent times, we've billion. Social and affordable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Social and affordable. Homes programme. During its lifetime. We hope to deliver around lifetime. We hope to deliver around 300,000 new homes with at least 60% for social rent. This would result in around 180,000 homes for social in around 180,000 homes for social rent, six times more than the decade up to 2024. We also recognise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up to 2024. We also recognise. That certain types. Of much needed social and affordable housing. Can cost more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can cost more. To deliver, particularly in areas with environmental constraints or infrastructure gaps. That is why the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

infrastructure gaps. That is why the programme has been designed to be. Flexible, to make sure. It works not just for large urban. Developments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Developments. But also small scale. Rural projects. We encourage. Applicants to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be. Ambitious when coming forward with bids. The programme's full. with bids. The programme's full. Prospectus will be published in the next few weeks and open for bids in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

next few weeks and open for bids in the new year. I encourage all prospective. Providers to review their supply. Pan plans now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pan plans now. Think bigger, be bolder. And come forward. With ambitious plans.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With ambitious plans. I think the honourable. Lady needs to be assured that we understand the scale of the understand the scale of the challenge, but we also know the strength of this sector, which is why we've pledged. To forge a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

why we've pledged. To forge a renewed partnership with the social and affordable housing. Sector to support building. At scale. There are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At scale. There are. Many other points that the Honourable Lady has raised this evening, which I will write to her evening, which I will write to her with my official support to actually respond to her for full points. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respond to her for full points. But I think the important point to stress is that together we can deliver the homes our community. Needs, not just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Needs, not just. For today, but for the generations to come. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The question is, at this House to now adjourn. May I please say aye? I the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order, order! Minister.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page