Commons Chamber

Wednesday 29th October 2025

(began 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:34
None Portrait Q1. What discussions she has had with farmers in Wales on the potential impact of planned changes to Inheritance Tax relief on the agricultural sector. (905986)
-

Question number one, Mr. Speaker.
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
None Portrait Q2. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on increasing economic growth in Wales. (905987)
-

Question number two, Mr. Speaker, sir.
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
Jo Stevens Portrait Rt Hon Jo Stevens MP, The Secretary of State for Wales (Cardiff East, Labour)
-
-
Select Committee is absolutely right. Our Pride in Place programmes, the Local Growth Fund, the City and Growth deals, the investment zones and our freeports are all the result of having two Labour governments working together for the benefit of everyone across Wales and taken together, they will boost the economy, drawing further investment, create thousands of jobs and raise living standards across Wales. They demonstrate this government's commitment to growth. Practical, visible, long term investment that empowers local communities and delivers real

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benefits for them. And David. Question number four, please,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speaker. Mr. speaker, overhead lines are much cheaper to build. much cheaper to build. Undergrounding costs an estimated four and a half times more than overhead lines, according to the overhead lines, according to the Institution of Engineering and Technology. Overhead lines are also quicker to build, cause less environmental damage and are much environmental damage and are much easier to maintain. The cost of building this infrastructure is borne by electricity bill payers borne by electricity bill payers and provides policy on undergrounding will not only increase bills but suffocate the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

increase bills but suffocate the economic potential of Wales's green industrial revolution. David John.
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
None Portrait Q5. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the adequacy of accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales. (905991)
-

Rebecca Smith number five.
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
None Portrait Q6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve cross border rail connectivity between Wales and England. (905992)
-

party's government. Catherine Fookes Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The sixth Minister.
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Please, Mr. Speaker. destruction emerging from Jamaica are truly shocking. Both the Foreign Secretary and I have been in close contact with Jamaican counterparts in recent days to offer the UK's full support. Mr. speaker, I can update the House that HMS Trent and specialist rapid deployment teams are pre-positioned in the region and we stand ready to provide humanitarian support. Mr. Awaab Ishak died five years ago from a respiratory condition caused by exposure to black mould in his flat in Rochdale.

He was just two years old. No child should grow up without the safety and security of a decent home. For far too long, millions of people have lived at the mercy of rogue landlords and insecure contracts. Labour is ending that. Despite the best efforts of the Tories and Reform who voted against it, our renters' rights Act is now law, including Arabs law, fighting for working people. That's the difference a Labour government makes. And on that issue, Mr. Speaker, this government has secured the biggest deal to manufacture typhoon fighter jets in this country for almost 20 years.

We secured that deal because the UK is back as a leading and trusted member of NATO. A timely reminder for the Green Party, whose policy is to take us out of NATO, the Putin friendly Reform Party would have no standing with NATO. And for the leader of the opposition, you don't win NATO deals by not turning up to NATO summits. Mr. speaker, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House. I shall have further such meetings later

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Nick Smith Mr.
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:20
Gavin Robinson Portrait Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Gavin Robinson Mr. speaker, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deep understanding of policing in. Northern Ireland. And the importance. Of it. He knows about the on going national security threat. Indeed, he knows about the additional costs of dealing with the legacy of our past. dealing with the legacy of our past. And he knows that the PSNI has been underfunded. He knows that the Northern Ireland Executive have Northern Ireland Executive have rightly brought forward a stability programme for them. He knows that they are under strength because New decade, New Approach in 2020 suggests that there should be 7500 police officers in Northern Ireland.

Today there are 6200. But does he know that the Treasury did not look favourably upon a request to draw favourably upon a request to draw upon the reserves for a data breach cost of £120 million? Does he cost of £120 million? Does he recognise it in Treasury terms? That incident was unpredictable. It That incident was unpredictable. It was unforeseeable. It's unaffordable. It matches the criteria that the Treasury have to criteria that the Treasury have to set aside that money. An year would be 10% of the overall PSNI budget.

be 10% of the overall PSNI budget. It is not affordable. Can I ask him engagement with The Chancellor to think about this issue again, and think about this issue again, and to ensure that our Police Service of Northern Ireland and the national security threat that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

face is not hampered by in-year financial rules? Well, can I thank him for raising this important issue? And I know it is a real concern to him. Can I reassure him that I am in Can I reassure him that I am in regular contact with the Chief Constable, John Boucher, and the PSNI on this very issue, as he PSNI on this very issue, as he would expect? As he's aware, we provided a record settlement for provided a record settlement for the executive £19.3 billion per year on average.

We also invested £113 million in additional security million in additional security funding for the PSNI to help address specific security challenges. Now, whilst it's for challenges. Now, whilst it's for the executive to set the PSNI budget, I want to reassure him that our commitment is to keeping people our commitment is to keeping people safe in Northern Ireland.
12:22
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Alan Strickland thank. on behalf of my constituents, Shannon and Tyler, who lost their two year old son, Hudson, earlier two year old son, Hudson, earlier this year. Worried about their son and calling one on one, they were told he had gastroenteritis. In told he had gastroenteritis. In fact, Hudson had a twisted bowel and a few days later, after being rushed to hospital, tragically died. rushed to hospital, tragically died. Mr. speaker, Shannon and Tyler are full of praise for the NHS medical staff who worked so hard to save staff who worked so hard to save their son's life.

They just just wish they'd been offered an in-person appointment sooner, which in-person appointment sooner, which might have given a more accurate diagnosis. They want Hudson's legacy to be better access to face to face NHS appointments for children under five, so other families don't face this tragic situation. And their online situation. And their online petition on this matter has gained over 80,000 signatures. Will the Prime Minister join me in sending Prime Minister join me in sending the best wishes of this House to Hudson's family? And will he ensure they meet a health minister to they meet a health minister to discuss their courageous campaign here? Can I thank him for raising this, this tragic case? And I'm sure I speak for the whole House in saying we send our sympathies and thoughts to Hudson's parents, Shannon and Tyler.

And I'll make sure that they get the meeting that he's asking for. This is exactly why we're working to improve access to face to face appointments for those that want one, and to enable that, we've delivered the largest cash uplift for GPS in a decade, put over 2500 GPS into general practice, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we're upgrading 1000 surgeries to deliver 8 million more appointments. James McMurdock thank you. Mr. Speaker.
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:40
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the actions to be taken to secure the elimination of Hamas from Gaza and the preservation of the ceasefire
-

Right. Right. We Right. We now Right. We now come Right. We now come to Right. We now come to the Right. We now come to the Urgent Question Dame Priti Patel.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, to ask the Secretary of State for Fcdo if she'll make a statement on the
12:40
12:40
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
Minister. aware of events over the last 24 hours in Rafah, including reports that Israeli strikes took place last night. Estimates of the death toll vary, but suggest that up to 100 people in Gaza have been killed. We understand these strikes followed an attack yesterday afternoon where responsibility remains unclear. As the Prime Minister said earlier, we echo the Americans and calling for urgent de-escalation and on all parties to keep the commitments they have made in the ceasefire agreement.

We are clear that Hamas must release the bodies of all remaining Israeli hostages. The immediate priority is to ensure unrestricted flow of aid into Gaza. The Israeli government must urgently lift restrictions on aid entering, and international NGOs must be permitted to operate in Gaza to provide the scale of support that is needed. Civilians cannot wait. This government is working closely with our partners to do everything we can to support the transition from the ceasefire to phase two of the peace plan.

This includes the disarmament of Hamas, the deployment of a ceasefire monitoring mission, an international security force, and the implementation of transitional governance arrangements in Gaza. We are clear there can be no role for Hamas in the future governance of the strip. In recent days, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordination, Tom Fletcher, the Egyptian Foreign Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister, about the importance of opening more crossings and removing restrictions on aid.

And as I told the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, both she and I will be heading to the region shortly. On the 13th to 15th of October, I co-hosted with the Egyptian government and the Palestinian Authority the first conference to look at how we can leverage sustainable support to Gaza's reconstruction. Britain will continue to play our full part in support of the ceasefire and the wider peace initiative. There is not a moment to lose to get relief at scale to those in need, and to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make progress on the pathway to a lasting peace. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The situation in Gaza is fragile and we all want the ceasefire to hold and
12:42
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
all want the ceasefire to hold and endure and for it to be to transition into a sustainable end to the conflict. But that requires the terms of the ceasefire being adhered to. The scenes of masked Hamas gunmen carrying out summary executions is sickening. Their continued hoarding and disruption of aid to starve Gazans is shocking. Their refusal to disarm is disturbing, and their failure to return bodies of the deceased hostages is distressing. They and their families deserve the dignity and deserve dignity of a proper burial.

Their loved ones have already been through terrible, terrible pain and suffering. No more coffins should be released with the wrong remains. And this is a disgusting game that has to end immediately. So, can the minister explain what pressure is being exerted on Hamas by the UK government? So they comply with the full terms of the agreement and release all deceased hostages? Yesterday, it was reported that Hamas gunmen killed an IDF soldier violating the ceasefire, leading to the targeted IDF action in response.

What is the minister's assessment of the threat Hamas poses, and what practical steps is the UK taking to support the disarming and elimination of Hamas and the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza? Yesterday, the Secretary of State said and told the House the UK has been proposing different ways to help in the process of decommissioning and disarming Hamas, using expertise we've built up over many years. So can the minister now say what is Britain's specific role, as? This is a unique situation that we see regarding Hamas with terrorist infrastructure and threats funded by Iran across the region? What action is the government taking to rebuild its relationship with Israel, given the important partnership that we have with Israel and on aid, what steps are being taken to increase getting aid into Gaza? And given the remarks by the US Secretary of State about Unwra and its role in Gaza, what discussions have taken place with the United States administration about UNRWA's future and the implication for the UK, following the government's decision to give it to millions of pounds, despite knowing some of these risks.
12:44
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would say at the outset that we track events in Gaza incredibly carefully. I do not intend to give the House a running commentary on each and in each and every individual incident that takes place. The situation remains very volatile and very messy. I hope not to disappoint honourable members if I avoid giving very specific answers on very specific instance. There are structures now being put in place, including the Cmcc, the Civilian Military Coordination Centre, which is playing a role in seeking to verify the facts on the ground where we can.

That work obviously takes some time. The UK is making a contribution to it, but I won't wish to get ahead of that process from the despatch box. What I will say is we have been absolutely clear on the threat that Hamas pose to Palestinians, to Israelis and to the wider world. That's why they're sanctioned as a terrorist organisation here. We are taking a range of measures with our partners to work through the very complicated but necessary steps, whether it's about transitional governments in Gaza, the security arrangements that need to follow the international security force and a whole range of other questions.

I can assure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we are deep in those discussions. We have been having them over the last few days, and we will have them in the region, too. This is an incredibly complex piece of work and we remain very focussed on it. Mr. Speaker, just very quickly on aid, I would like to inform the House that there has been what appears to be quite a of a in particular through Kerem Shalom, which is very welcome. Therefore flow in the volumes that we would wish to see them, and we continue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to work with all our partners to try and see them reopen. Blackburn Mr. speaker, welcome. The.
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:49
12:49
12:50
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:57
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
Madam speaker, since the ICJ advisory opinion that's been referred to, I wouldn't want the House to have the impression that the British government has done nothing. We have. At the centre of that advisory opinion is the question of the status of the occupied Palestinian territory. We have been clear subsequently in recognising the state what the status of that territory is. He raises important questions about the trade with goods, trade of goods, with settlements. We do not accept trade with settlements on the same basis that we do trade with Israel.

It is where British companies are doing so. They are in breach of the trading arrangements. HMRC will take an interest they need to ensure that they know who they are trading with and in which territory. It is obviously difficult as a whole range of nations and states have found to ensure that if in settlements, people wish to falsely label where the thing is produced, it is very difficult for others to then be able to determine. And I know he follows these issues very closely.

He will no doubt be interested in the efforts of the Irish government in order to try and pass exactly the kind of legislation that he is describing and the very many difficulties that they have encountered in so doing, we are not in breach of our international obligations. If the honourable member would like to pass me to some point, me to some legislation which does what he says, which is in operation, I'd be grateful to see it. But I think this is one of those questions where we need to continue to work with our partners to ensure that the status of the occupied Palestinian territory, part of a Palestinian state, is understood by all Greg Smith.
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:01
13:02
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, if you permit me, I might just say a little bit about the wider evacuation operations they have continued, including on Monday and continued, including on Monday and Tuesday of this week, when both students, as my honourable friend, has been so doughty in pursuing, but also those children who are highly medically vulnerable and who can benefit from UK support that work. Indeed, alongside my colleague from the Health Ministry continues, we have been able to help many people get to the UK to transform their lives, to get the vital medical assistance and educational opportunities, which I hope will provide for all of those people to make a real contribution to the future of Palestine.

These have been incredibly complex operations, not least given the closures of getting people in and out of Gaza. Under the most recent period we have, I'm afraid, very strict limits on how many dependents anyone can bring out. We have made an update to our policy in relation to those students who are fully funded, in which we can support a very small number of dependents to leave. I know many in the House with an interest have engaged with me directly on these questions.

I would, I'm afraid, reiterate that these operations remain incredibly complex. I'm happy to talk to all members with an interest. There is not a there is neither infinite capacity in the UK to support, nor is there, even with our partners, unlimited capacity to get people out. So we have made an announcement and I pay tribute to the work of my honourable friend and many others across this House on those questions, but I wish to keep people's expectations suitably focussed on the very many constraints that remain on these operations.
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:24
13:25
13:26
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:30
13:31
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the planned use of MoD barracks to house asylum seekers
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Urgent Question Angus MacDonald. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you.
13:31
13:31
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker. The use of hotels to House asylum seekers is a disgrace as members on all sides will know, it is a practice that became widespread long before this government entered office, and it is one of the clearest indicators of the shambles that we inherited last summer. People across the country are frustrated, if not furious, and we wholeheartedly agree. And that is why, since the general election, we've been working to address the chronic issues that have been allowed to build up in the asylum system over several years, at peak, under the previous government, there were 400 hotels in use.

Now this number is around 200 and this reduction has been achieved despite what the Home Affairs Select Committee has called a dramatic increase in demand. Under this government, decisions on asylum applications are up, as are asylum related returns. Meanwhile, system costs are down. However, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made clear, we must go further and faster. That means moving at pace to fulfil the government's commitment to close every asylum hotel. Work to facilitate this exit is ongoing and the Asylum Accommodation Task Force is working across government to deliver alternative asylum accommodation.

And I can confirm to the House that plans are underway regarding the temporary use of Ministry of Defence sites at Cameron Barracks in Inverness and Crowborough Training Ground, East Sussex, for the purpose of asylum accommodation. Under these plans, a total of around 900 people will be housed across both sites. These two sites are among a number of options being looked at as we seek to alleviate the pressure on the system and to drive down hotel use. And while this is a complex and fast moving operating environment, there is a strong understanding within the Home Office about the importance of local engagement.

My officials have been engaging directly and regularly in advance of this with the Scottish Government, with the relevant councils and with local service providers, and will continue to do so. Whatever decisions are made regarding specific locations, we are clear that the impacts on communities must be minimised. The safety and security of people living and working in the surrounding areas is paramount. Madam Deputy Speaker, a crisis of this scale we were left with was always going to take time to correct. But we know the British people are impatient for change, as are we, and do whatever it takes to end hotel use, fix the broken asylum system and secure our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

borders. Angus MacDonald. Thank you and thank you Minister,
13:33
Angus MacDonald Portrait Mr Angus MacDonald MP (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you and thank you Minister, for that. I got a call yesterday at 710 in the morning from the BBC and 710 in the morning from the BBC and they said, what is your comment on the Cameron Barracks being taken over to use housed migrants? Now, I know that place well because I was based there in the army. It is residential. It is surrounded by housing, very, very close. And what's more, it's only ten minutes from the Inverness city centre. I asked for a briefing from the Home Office and got one, which was wonderful.

What I learned is there's going to be up to 309 males. They're single, there are single asylum seekers and they'll move in at the end of November. I have a few questions from that. Why was I not engaged in any sort of discussion about this? Why was the Scottish Government not engaged in conversation, and why were the Highland Council and other authorities just informed they were not engaged? Which word? You you used? The second question I have is there the Home Office officials actually consider the fact that it was a city centre before they agreed to take it on.

Why is it OK to close town centre migrant hotels in the south of England, yet planned to House 300 migrant men in army quarters in Inverness city centre? It's effectively the same thing. And would the minister meet me to discuss the Home Office halting the plan to utilise Cameron Barracks to House migrants? Thank you.
13:34
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
Thank you. honourable gentleman conveys there. I am sorry that he heard in the way that he did. I, of course, will have that meeting with him. It can be difficult to sequence this correctly. We live, as all colleagues know, in an age of mis and disinformation and trying to sequence who hears what and when is or can be sticky, but nevertheless he should not. He should not have heard in the way that he did. And similarly I would recognise, because of course, you can't take part in these proceedings.

The Right Honourable Member for Sussex Weald, whose duties as Deputy Speaker preclude her. But also the same is true for her, and I would recognise the strength of feeling that she has conveyed to me in no uncertain terms about her views and the views of her constituents and their opposition, and I will continue to engage with him. I will continue to engage with her, and I would encourage her local authority to to also do so. I recognise the strength of feeling on his other questions and of course, that consideration has been made.

We're looking at all sites in that regard, be they a hotel, be they dispersed accommodation always. The local context is considered. I would gently say that, of course, both sites would have been used recently for the Afghan resettlement scheme. So there is, you know, there is a clear understanding across government of the capabilities of those sites and of course those locations as well. But I want to be very clear what's at stake here, because the honourable gentleman talks about closures of hotels. Now, we know that hotels are an exceptionally challenging issue in this country.

Too many people come to this country being sold a dream that they will be housed in a hotel, and they'll be able to work illegally in our economy. Today, we have announced that we have had our best ever year for illegal work raids, with 1000 people deported as a result. But we have to break the model that says you'll get to live

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in a hotel and work illegally. And this is a really important part of that. Shadow Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Minister. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. Since this government came to
13:37
Matt Vickers Portrait Matt Vickers MP (Stockton West, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since this government came to crisis. Has. worse. On every front. The number of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The number of. People arriving. In the country illegally is up. up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

More than. 50% when compared to the same period before the election. Before the election, the number of the election, the number of migrants staying in hotels had fallen by 47%. It's now gone up and less of those people breaking into this country illegally by a small boat are now being removed. We are now in a position where the government is putting forward a proposal which, when in opposition, the described as an admission of failure. A defence minister is unable to say whether the plan will save us money or cost us more.

Also, we hear this proposal will involve accommodation on a site directly next to the homes of provided to families of our brave armed forces personnel. Have they consulted these families on this plan? It demonstrates that we need much stronger proposals than the weak efforts the government are presiding over. That is why we have put forward the borders plan, which goes beyond tinkering with the system. If we want to stop the use of this accommodation, we need to completely change how we approach this problem and ensure that all illegal immigrants are removed within a week.

This is a comprehensive plan based on our proposals to leave the ECHR, reform our asylum system operates and remove the blockages which have stopped the removal of illegal entrants. This is a proposal which is not only practical but fair, as those who come to the UK illegally should not be housed at the taxpayer's expense in ever greater numbers. People need to know that if they break into this country, they will be detained and they will be deported. That is how we solve this crisis.

Therefore, I finish by asking the question. We are all wondering when will the asylum hotels close? Will the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commit to closing all asylum hotels within a year? Minister thank you, Madam Deputy
13:38
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What an optimistic effort by the honourable gentleman who invites us to believe that a system invites us to believe that a system that he and his colleagues broke over a period of 14 years, they have worked out how to fix in 14 months. I think the British public saw through that last July. I July 2024. I suspect they will see through it again. He talks about removals of removals are up now over 35,000 since we took office.

But of course, when it comes down to the to why we have hotels in the first place, where is the original sin? Of course the original sin is that colleagues opposite stopped assessing claims. That's why we have hotels. That's why we've made the efforts we have to shift that backlog. The reality is it's a broken system. We have a very simple equation. There is a complicated issue with a simple equation. We are a very popular country for people to want to come to.

Of course, we are the greatest country in the world with our brilliant institutions, but it's also because people are sold a dream that you can come here, live in a hotel, and work illegally until and unless you do, you attack those two fundamental truths. Nothing will change. But we know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that the party opposite do not oppose our plans today because after all,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they did two military sites of their own. Wow, Chris Murray. Thank you.
13:40
13:41
13:42
Max Wilkinson Portrait Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Max Wilkinson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We share the. Minister's concern about the approach of the. Official opposition. Clearly,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Official opposition. Clearly, they left us with this. Mess and now. They feign outrage. Madam Deputy. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It appears. This government's. Proposal, however, is to decant. Asylum seekers from. One kind of unsuitable and. Costly accommodation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accommodation. should. Be tackling. The real issue. Speeding up. Asylum decisions so those with no right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no right. To stay are. Returned and. Those with a valid claim can work. Pay, tax. And integrate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pay, tax. And integrate. I will pick. Up the Minister's. Point about the difficulty of sequencing communications. As a Member of Parliament who's had an Member of Parliament who's had an asylum hotel opened in his constituency, I was informed several weeks in advance. I actually offered a much better form of accommodation alternative somewhere else nearby. I found out that the Home Office was determined to open a hotel because that alternative was not taken up. It would have been more appropriate and my constituency feels let down now.

The government has promised to end the use of hotels by 2029, yet has put forward no credible plan to achieve it. The Lib Dems have set out a plan for ending hotel use in just six months by declaring a national emergency and setting up Nightingale processing centres to bring down the backlog. So will the Home Secretary match the Lib Dem plan by declaring that national emergency today? And will the Minister confirm whether the plan that he's put forward means speeding up decisions and returning those with no right to stay? Or does it mean simply shifting large numbers of asylum seekers from one form of accommodation to another? Will the Minister share what assessment has been made of the relative merits of army barracks in or next to urban areas, as opposed to those in rural areas? And finally, will the will the minister concede that cutting overseas development spending will drive more people away from conflict zones? To seek safety in Europe and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

onward onto boats unsafely in the English Channel? Minister.
13:43
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I recognise the the spirit with which the honourable gentleman and his colleagues speak and I share, his colleagues speak and I share, and indeed I think we can demonstrate through our actions our zeal with regards to speeding up decisions. That's why we've made such a significant increase into decision making. Similarly, I think it is a matter of record that our, our our commitment to speeding up removals. That's why we've seen so many people with no right to stay, well over 35,000 now removed since we took office.

What I gently say to him is that in doing that, you still have a situation where there is a significant cohort of people. As we deal with the backlog left by colleagues opposite that that will that need to be housed and accommodated while their claims are processed. Similarly, there is an attraction. We see that, of course, in the numbers who seek to cross the channel to come here and until and unless you address that element, that alone. The suggestions from the honourable gentleman alone will not make that deterrent.

What we offer today is a significant and real deterrent to break that pull factor. And on the point on overseas development, of course, the honourable gentleman will know the commitment made by the Prime Minister. We want to return that to 0.7% as soon as we can, because it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

makes a huge impact across the world, and we want to continue to do that. Chi Onwurah thank you, Madam
13:45
13:46
13:46
13:47
13:47
13:48
13:48
13:49
13:50
13:50
13:51
13:51
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:55
13:55
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:58
13:59
13:59
14:00
14:01
14:02
14:02
14:03
14:04
14:05
14:05
14:06
14:06
14:07
14:07
14:08
Luke Pollard Portrait Luke Pollard MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your permission. I would like to update. The House on. The. UK Turkey deal to buy 20 British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK Turkey deal to buy 20 British built typhoon fighter jets. On Monday, the Prime Minister travelled to Ankara with the Defence Secretary, where he Defence Secretary, where he finalised an agreement with President Erdogan for Turkey to purchase 20 British built typhoon fighter jets. This is a deal worth £8 billion and is our biggest fighter jet export contract since 2007. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a massive boost for our defence industry, for our economy and for our country. It confirms that defence is an engine for growth.

This deal will support 20,000 jobs across 330 British companies UK wide. And in particular, our deal supports jobs in Lancashire, Bristol, Luton and Scotland for many years to come. It includes nearly 6000 jobs directly supporting typhoon program at BAE systems sites, particularly at Warton and Salisbury. More than 1100 jobs in the south west, for example at the Rolls-Royce facility in Bristol, producing modules for the Ej200 jet engines that will power these new typhoon jets and over 800 jobs in Scotland, including at Leonardo in Edinburgh.

Manufacturing cutting edge radar systems. These are high value, well-paid, good, unionised jobs, the kind of jobs that puts money in working people's pockets, that help revitalise communities and that help deliver on defence as an engine for growth. This deal also preserves our sovereign skills which underpin our national security and prosperity, so they can be handed down to new generations. But mandatory Speaker. This deal goes far beyond the procurement of typhoon jets alone. It represents the leading edge of our enhanced strategic partnership between the UK and Turkey.

This agreement between our two countries is emblematic of a growing defence and industrial partnership, and will serve as a springboard for deeper collaboration in the future. Turkey is a key NATO ally in a strategically critical part of the world, and the gatekeeper to the Black Sea by equipping it with the top of the range typhoon fighter jets, the best fourth generation all round fighter in the world. This deal strengthens NATO's collective deterrence in a crucial region. It boosts interoperability between our air forces and makes us all safer and more prosperous.

This deal comes weeks after Norway chose the UK to supply it with at least five type 26 frigates in a £10 billion deal, the biggest ever warship export deal by value in our history. That contract alone secured 4000 jobs, including more than 2000 in Scotland, and supports over 400 British companies right across our supply chain. Both deals, worth a combined £18 billion, are proof positive that other countries want to invest in Britain by allies choosing our capabilities that directly leads to greater interoperability and invests back into our technology to achieve warfighting readiness.

And there are clear evidence that this government's defence industrial strategy is delivering, because here's what we are doing differently. This government is going further and faster to back British industry, British jobs and British innovation. We're working more closely with our allies around the world to strengthen our collective security. We're bringing forward the biggest sustained increase in UK defence spending since the Cold War, to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. £5 billion extra in the defence budget this year, 2.5% of GDP by April 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament.

And we're making defence an engine for economic growth for the next decade and well beyond driving renewal and opportunity up and down the country. And as we set out in our defence industrial strategy, our armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. We are fortunate in this country to have a world class industry and a world class supply chain, but we're making it even stronger by opening up defence to innovators, by overhauling our procurement system, cutting contracting time and by increasing foreign direct investment in our defence sector by more than eight times over the past year.

Last week, before I visited BAE systems in at Warton and Salisbury, I launched a consultation on an offset policy which will ensure that every pound spent on defence will make our armed forces stronger and our British public better off. These proposals means that when the UK buys from international partners, the winning contractor will be required to create jobs, know how and investment opportunities here in the UK. Strengthening the UK economy. But Madam Deputy Speaker to the workers, managers and apprentices I met last week at Warton and Salisbury.

But to all those as well in Bristol, Edinburgh and across the UK, let me say this this government promised that we would have your backs and we are delivering on that promise with this deal. Your hard work, dedication and commitment helped deliver this deal just as much as diplomacy and negotiation. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The UK and Taqiyah may be positioned at opposite ends of Europe, but our partnership is helping protect the continent at a time of rising threats.

And the deal we've announced this week only reinforces that partnership for the future. Work on the new typhoon jets begins immediately. The first new British built typhoon for tequila will be delivered in just five years time, so the benefits will be felt immediately. Two more jobs for working people, more investment in the supply chain. More confidence in the UK economy. Defence as an engine for growth, security at home, strength abroad. And that is what this government is delivering. And that's why I commend this statement to the House.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The shadow. Secretary of State. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm grateful to the Minister for providing advanced sight of his statement. I strongly welcome this very important news for UK fighter production and combat. Air has historically been the largest component of UK defence exports. Few nations can hope to sustain such an advanced industrial base such an advanced industrial base purely on domestic sales. I stress. Throughout my time as Minister of Defence Procurement the critical importance of exports and this deal is very positive for the workforce in Warton, but also, as the in Warton, but also, as the Minister said, in Bristol, Edinburgh and elsewhere in the UK, for the wider SME supply chain, for for the wider SME supply chain, for our NATO ally Turkey and for the Royal Air Force, which requires a domestic base of highly skilled domestic base of highly skilled workers to maintain our ability to deliver sovereign competitiveness in the air domain.

Now, Madam in the air domain. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the very well attended GCap event in Mr. attended GCap event in Mr. Speaker's estate rooms, I said then that defence exports were like a baton passed between administrations. The biggest deals take years to pull off and require teamwork within and across teamwork within and across administrations. As with Norwegian Norwegian frigates, there was a massive and concerted effort under the previous government to engage constantly with Turkey in support of typhoon exports and in my time as a minister, typhoon exports were a top priority in the Mod, and I chaired a weekly cross-government committee focussed in particular on persuading our German allies to change their long standing position of opposing typhoon sales to Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

That work irrefutably helped pave the way for this deal. Now noting how the Trinity House agreement with Germany, which I welcome, builds on the proposal I initiated from scratch to restore large calibre barrel production to the UK. Does the Minister agree that Germany's change of position on typhoon exports underlines the strength of our bilateral relationship with them, and the welcome stiffening of their military disposition? More broadly, given the common threat we face, of course, we should also recognise the important role of other long standing defence export partners in this announcement.

I
14:17
James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
note that the deal involves Qatar and Oman, giving Turkey what has been reported as up to 24 existing been reported as up to 24 existing typhoons. Can the minister confirm if either will be buying replacement typhoons, noting the replacement typhoons, noting the option on 12 which Qatar has, which I understand is still is still outstanding in terms of KSA, can outstanding in terms of KSA, can the minister update us on progress with typhoon exports, which of course brings in the very relevant course brings in the very relevant matter of GCap, the programme which develops typhoons? Successor.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have previously Deputy Speaker, I have previously spoken of how GCap is effectively like Aukus two pillars, the Tempest platform being pillar one and then pillar two. The critical elements such as loyal wingman and electronic warfare with significant potential benefit to the RAF's potential benefit to the RAF's immediate lethality. Appreciating the complications in inviting new nations to join pillar one and nations to join pillar one and giving strong and given strong hints about the German position in relation to their partnership with relation to their partnership with France, has the Minister considered inviting Germany to be a pillar tomb partner of GCap, and does the tomb partner of GCap, and does the deal include any movement on complex weapons for integration into typhoon, given our own into typhoon, given our own industrial strength in that area? Now, Madam Speaker, on our own RAF typhoons, the Mod has now retired.

Some 30 RAF tranche one typhoons. Does the Minister plan to order any further typhoons for the RAF to replace those, and if so, when on ECHR radar led by Leonardo in Edinburgh for the RAF's typhoons, this has now been successfully developed, but no production orders have been placed. I've previously urged ministers to accelerate this procurement to boost the lethality of our existing typhoon fleet. When will E7 radar be in service for the RAF? The typhoon needs an associated electronics upgrade, known as P4, to fully exploit the capabilities of Eastbourne radar, but I understand no contract for that has been placed yet either.

So when is P4 intended to be on contract? Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be wrong of me not to welcome the Minister to his newly named position as the Minister for defence, Readiness and Industry. Now, personally, I think it's a shame that there is no longer a minister for Defence Procurement. But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised given how little procurement is going on in the Mod, because isn't the reality that for all the boasts about defence spending right now, Labour are prioritising penny pinching in the Mod and forcing a deep freeze in procurement.

So specifically, can he confirm or deny reports from the Telegraph that he is demanding that the armed forces make in-year

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cuts this year of £2.6 billion? Yeah. Minister.
14:18
Luke Pollard Portrait Luke Pollard MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I was nearly going to say I've warm welcome for all the honourable gentleman's remarks at the end. I'm afraid that the good news has to be tempered with a little bit of partisan attack. But let me, first of all, welcome his welcome for this deal. It shows, I think, that when there is good cross-party work, we can achieve things. Well, I'm very proud that it is this government that has landed this deal. We know that when we took office, there was a substantial amount of work required to improve the export offer that the Mod had, and we have undertaken that work.

It has shown benefits in the Norway deal and now the Turkish deal, and we are working on a number of other contracts with our allies that I hope will produce similar type of good news for workforces up and down the country in due course. The hon. Gentleman asks about the approvals from our allies, and I can confirm that all Eurofighter nations have indeed signed off this export, including Germany. It's right that he raised Trinity House. The agreement that was signed between this government and Germany that provides a huge amount of opportunity.

And last week, marking the one year anniversary of the signing of that deal, Boris Pistorius and our very own Defence Secretary were in a jet flying from RAF Lossiemouth, underlining the commitment that we have for German P-8s to fly from Lossiemouth and for German air crews to be participating with our RAF jets in a really important international mission that flies from Lossiemouth. GCap is an essential part of our future combat air offer. It is something that was reinforced in the Strategic Defence Review that we published earlier this year, and this typhoon order for Turkey helps fill a gap in the production line between our typhoon orders that currently exist and the production of GCap platforms.

In the future, he will know that all our spending announcements will be made as part of the Defence Investment Plan towards the end of this year. I would say to him, I think the radar that he mentions is an incredible piece of technology and it's not only a benefit potentially to the RAF, but also to other typhoon nations as well. And I would just gently point out to him that since taking office a year, just over a year ago, we have signed 1000 major deals as part of the Mod.

We continue to procure not just traditional aspects, but cyber drones and other capabilities for our armed forces, and we'll continue to work with our allies because the change that we need in our armed forces is not just renewing the kit and equipment for our forces, but buying equipment alongside our allies, cutting R&D costs, increasing interoperability, moving towards interchangeability, and strengthening our warfighting resilience. But I welcome his support for this deal, and I hope he will also join me in thanking all the workers for their tireless effort in supporting our national

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security and those of our NATO allies. Jayne Kirkham. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
14:21
14:21
14:22
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Calum Miller. advance sight of his statement. So let me begin by warmly welcoming the announcement of this deal. It will generate jobs for a skilled and dedicated workforce here in the UK and much generate much needed growth, while it will also contribute to the security and deterrence capability of the NATO alliance, the government is right to see Turkey as a key strategic partner on the Black Sea and as a NATO member and an essential partner in our collective efforts to contain Putin's imperial ambitions, defending our eastern flank.

Yet, even as we recognise our shared security interests, we must be clear on Ankara's actions when they depart from our values and standards. The continued detention of Istanbul's mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu, widely believed to be politically motivated, remains egregious and speaks to an alarming trend of democratic backsliding in Turkey. So can the minister confirm whether he or the Prime Minister raised concerns about Mayor Imamoglu's continued detention while concluding this deal? And if not, will the Minister call on the Foreign Secretary to raise this with the Turkish counterpart at the earliest opportunity? This deal speaks to the strategic imperative of deepening ties with our security partners across Europe and our alliance network.

In May, the government trumpeted its new security framework with the European Union, a move which the Liberal Democrats welcomed. However, five months on, it's not clear what progress, if any, the government has made to flesh out the substance of this framework. So can the Minister please provide an update on what steps have been taken since May to strengthen security ties with the EU, and in particular, will he commit the UK to membership of the European Defence Agency to support a joined up approach to collective rearmament with our European allies?
14:24
14:25
14:26
14:27
14:28
14:29
14:29
14:30
Andrew Snowden Portrait Mr Andrew Snowden MP (Fylde, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew Snowden. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And ever since I've been elected, pushing for securing been elected, pushing for securing typhoon orders at the site has been absolutely critical. Part of my work, given not only the impact it would have on jobs across Fylde and Lancashire, but also in our sovereign capability to build our. Own military aircraft. So I massively welcome this announcement and the work that has gone on, on both the government benches and on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the opposition benches, from from. Former ministers. I was very. Touched that the. Minister did actually invite me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister did actually invite me to join him on his visit. To BAE systems last week. The Prime Minister, however, didn't seem to Minister, however, didn't seem to want to invite me to the announcement yesterday in my own constituency. Maybe he's been taking my PMQs too personally. We don't know. But it is a welcome deal. But what it does leave is the deal. But what it does leave is the fact that we are now the only major partner in the Eurofighter project partner in the Eurofighter project that is not ordering the aircraft that we are trying to sell to other countries.

We are trying to sell countries. We are trying to sell aircraft abroad that we ourselves are not buying. And it would be, are not buying. And it would be, I'm sure, a great aid to future export deals to get that extra 20 over the line further down the line, over the line further down the line, to look at Saudi and other places where we're trying to sell these, but equally to maintain and but equally to maintain and continue to boost our own sovereign capability in military aircraft jobs right across our country.

If jobs right across our country. If we place that order for the RAF for some more typhoons, and I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some more typhoons, and I will happily heap praise on the Minister should he do so. I thank him for that. I am
14:32
14:33
14:34
14:34
14:35
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
Mark Pritchard Portrait Rt Hon Mark Pritchard MP (The Wrekin, Conservative)
-
-
risks. We don't grant those export licences, but I'd encourage him to take up those matters. He's raised further with DBT colleagues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. I welcome today's. Statement. Of. Course, and. I it's always.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I it's always. Very interesting. news. But has to be dragged to the House when.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House when. Perhaps it's less good news, but nevertheless it is welcome. News and a real boost for defence jobs and a real boost for defence jobs in. This country. He mentioned earlier that some of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

earlier that some of our Eurofighter allies. Had signed this. Off and. Were happy. With the deal. I wonder whether you'd like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder whether you'd like. House. Is happy. With this deal. And of course. Anything that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anything that. Weans Turkey away from the. complex. And supply chain. Is to. Be welcomed, as outlined.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By. My right hon. Friend the member. For Maldon earlier, but I. Wonder when the Prime Minister. Met with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Met with. The Turkish president on Monday. In Ankara. Did he also discuss Turkey being. Weaned off.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Weaned off. Russian oil and gas and being used as a conduit for Russian oil used as a conduit for Russian oil and gas going into some parts of the European Union? I think up at the European Union? I think up at 36% at the moment, which of course is funding the Russian war effort
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:49
Richard Holden Portrait Rt Hon Richard Holden MP (Basildon and Billericay, Conservative)
-
-
that I am sure that he meant inadvertently misleading, to just want to thank you. Point of order Richard Holden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Very much indeed, Madam. Deputy Speaker, the. Cabinet. Office guide to. Parliamentary Work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliamentary Work. Is very clear that, and I quote, approached. With a predisposition. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give. Relevant information fully. There should. Be. provision. Of. Information and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Answers to written questions and information given under the Freedom of Information Act. If information would be released under FOI, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should. Be also. Released in response to a written parliamentary question. written parliamentary question. That position was confirmed by the then Leader of the House in October last year, who stated that if information would be released under Freedom of Information, it would also be released in response to a written parliamentary question. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, this guidance also appears to have been breached in relation to questions about representations of the about representations of the government's plans to hike up parking fines.

In the answer of the parking fines. In the answer of the 10th of July to PK 6564 511, the Transport Minister. The Honourable member for Nottingham South refused member for Nottingham South refused to publish the material. On the 19th of August, the Department 19th of August, the Department released the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, explicitly referencing the unanswered parliamentary question. When asked again to publish the released material in an answer. In an answer to the 16th of October to PK 7765 one.

The Transport Minister, the honourable member for Wakefield and Rothwell, once again refused to do so. We now have a situation where Parliament is being treated with contempt, where information is being provided to members of the public under FOI, but is being withheld from members of this House. This is a direct breach of the government's own guidance and of the principle of accountability to this House. May I ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you would consider communicating to the Leader of the House and to the departments that such inconsistencies are wholly unacceptable and the information which would be released under FOI must also be released to Parliament? And shouldn't the two ministers now correct this affront and place the House?
14:51
14:52
14:52
Nigel Farage Portrait Nigel Farage MP (Clacton, Reform UK)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg. To move that leave be given to bring in a bill to make provision bring in a bill to make provision for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, and to make further Human Rights, and to make further provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom withdrawal of the United Kingdom from that convention. In many ways, from that convention. In many ways, this is unfinished business. On June 23rd, 2016, in the biggest June 23rd, 2016, in the biggest democratic exercise in the history of these islands, the British of these islands, the British people, despite being told by all the businesses and all the trade unions and much of the press and unions and much of the press and most of this House managed, despite most of this House managed, despite everything, children be quiet.

Managed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Managed. Managed on. I will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Managed on. I will be responsible for maintaining order in this chamber. Nigel Farage. Yes, madam. I'm sure you will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, madam. I'm sure you will allow me the opportunity to continue to try and say something without such constant interventions. without such constant interventions. And I thank you for that. And we voted. We voted clearly by a massive margin for the British people to bring back the sovereignty. And by the way, what makes me laugh about this isn't just the sovereignty of this country, it's the sovereignty of this very chamber and the people within it to bring power back to this very place.

And that is what we voted for. And of course, one of the most important subsets, one of the biggest reasons for that vote to happen was the deep alarm at the huge numbers of people coming into our country, the fact that effectively, we had open borders are now making us poorer in every way. Now, of course, our membership of the European Council of the European Convention, and then it's writing into British law in 1998, kind of enshrined this.

And it's what I think Tony Blair wanted us to do. Now, I believe that Brexit cannot be complete. All the while, we're subject to a foreign court and a and frankly, a piece of legislation brought in by the Blair government upon which judges can choose their own political interpretation. We are not sovereign. All the while we are part of the EU. The European Council and its associated court. It's as simple as that. And do you wonder? Do you wonder? It's marvellous to see the intellectual levels of debate in this place.

It really is. Do you wonder? Do you wonder, that out in the country there is growing frustration?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or can I remind members that the honourable gentleman has a ten

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minute rule bill in front of this House and should should be listened to without interruption? Nigel Farage thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nigel Farage thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was talking about fear growing in the country, anger fear growing in the country, anger growing in the country. I sense there's also a bit of that growing there's also a bit of that growing in this chamber as well. We do not believe. I do not believe that it believe. I do not believe that it is right that we should, when it comes to controlling our borders, when it comes to who should be able when it comes to who should be able legally to live, work and settle in this country, or indeed who should not be allowed to stay in our not be allowed to stay in our country.

For this to be under the remit, firstly of judges in remit, firstly of judges in Strasbourg, who, by the way, are jurists, most of them not even legally qualified, and secondly, under the political control of judges in this country who now can judges in this country who now can make their own interpretation of what we have understood for many, what we have understood for many, many years to be British common law. This Bill intends to restore the This Bill intends to restore the power of this Parliament, the power of all of you as MPs, to actually be in control of the things that really matter most to all of your voters, whether they supported you or not.

This bill intends to return British common law and to bring back some ideas, rather than state given rights of birthrights of liberty and freedom. These are things that, over centuries, served our country far better than any other nation in the European continent. This is about liberty. It's about freedom. It's about democratic control. I just think of this whatever election result there is, even if 650 of us wanted to change rules on who can come across the channel and who can stay, we could be overruled.

By convention. We signed up to in 1998. We could literally. Don't shake your heads.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We could literally be overruled. Brexit. Literally be overruled. So this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Literally be overruled. So this is about sovereignty. This is about sovereignty of the country. It's sovereignty of the country. It's about sovereignty of our Parliament. It's about our voters being able to It's about our voters being able to choose the future course and direction of our own country. And direction of our own country. And that is why this matters. And let's just remind ourselves very briefly just remind ourselves very briefly of some of the worst examples of where the ECHR takes away our democratic rights to begin to begin.

And it's really interesting, isn't it? It was the last Conservative government who decided to put in place the Rwanda legislation, in place the Rwanda legislation, in theory, very good. It would act as a deterrent unless you support the criminal gangs. Yes. It was a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

criminal gangs. Yes. It was a very good idea, a very good idea. It was brilliant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was brilliant. The trouble was it couldn't happen. And why couldn't it happen? Well, because you think about the Rwanda deport, the deportation Rwanda deport, the deportation flight in 2022 at 10 p.m. at night, a single judge in Strasbourg, one without any legal qualification, decided on the basis of article three. The flight could not take off. And we go on, of course, to horrendous stories, particularly under article eight, the right to a family life.

Well, whose family? The families of British people or the families of those who have come into Britain, in some cases illegally and then been waved through some of it is disgusting beyond belief. A Pakistani child sex offender dodge deportation on the basis that his removal would harm the children that he'd had in this country. And this goes on and on and on. Brazilian murderers, rapists, many others who claim

**** Possible New Speaker ****

under article eight the right to a family life. Well, what about British families? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. What about their rights? What about their freedoms? What are your about their freedoms? What are your priorities here as members of this place? Now, of course, we'll be place? Now, of course, we'll be told that by leaving this completely outdated 75 year old convention. And by the way, I fully understand why in the 1940s, this understand why in the 1940s, this was signed up to because the other European countries did not have European countries did not have constitutions, did not have democracies, but pretend them against the prevent them going into extremism.

But it's now completely extremism. But it's now completely outdated. We are not Russia. We are not Belarus.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Indeed. Check your countries.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada. Nobody in this room would say they're barbaric or backward countries. They defend freedoms. But I don't defend state freedoms. But I don't defend state given human rights because they can be taken away by the very state that has been given to them in the first place. I've never seen so many liberal Democrats in all my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

life in my. Order, continue. I would ask the Liberal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would ask the Liberal Democrats and others in this place, what is wrong with you? Do you not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what is wrong with you? Do you not believe? Do you not believe. Liz Twist you've. Got. A list for you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A list for you. You've only got ten minutes. Do you not believe this country

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do you not believe this country is good enough to make its own laws? Do you not believe that the country that is Magna Carta has developed the principle of common law and the principle of common law and with its faults, perhaps be the best ever developed by civilised civilisation? Do you not believe civilisation? Do you not believe we're good enough to make these rules, or we stick with outdated conventions preyed on by human rights lawyers in this country? I move this bill will restore move this bill will restore democratic trust and faith in.

This once great nation. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

once great nation. Thank you. The question. The question is. Honourable member, have leave.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To bring. In the bill. Ed Davey up to ten

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minutes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,
15:03
Ed Davey Portrait Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the speech we've just heard totally misrepresents the European misrepresents the European Convention and the proposal's failure to mention the huge benefits and rights the European Convention has brought to millions Convention has brought to millions of British people. Says it all. For those attracted by the argument we've just heard, let me give them we've just heard, let me give them one strong reason to think again. Russia under Vladimir Putin is the only country to have withdrawn from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Now, maybe that's what Rights. Now, maybe that's what attracts the honourable gentleman for Clacton to it. After all, he said that Putin is the world leader. said that Putin is the world leader. He most admires Russia, a country where those who oppose the regime where those who oppose the regime are mysteriously pushed off balconies, and where, if it isn't enough to murder a political enough to murder a political opponent like Alexei Navalny, Putin has even jailed lawyers who dared represent him. Things not allowed represent him.

Things not allowed under the European Convention. But as we've seen, a leading political ally of the honourable member Nathan Gill, imprisoned for taking Russian bribes, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the shouldn't be surprised that the Reform Party is so keen to follow Russia and besides Russia. Madam Deputy Speaker, where else are people's hard fought for rights under attack? Trump's America? Of course, the US isn't part of the European Convention, yet its citizens have benefited from something similar. The US Constitution, designed to check the power of tyrants and protect the individual from the state.

And just like the honourable member's desire to remove people's rights here, his hero Donald Trump is doing the same in America, attacking the courts and the rule of law, even inciting a violent mob against the US Congress to overturn an election. But of course, the honourable member for Clacton has called President Trump an inspiration. So if you want to know the member for Clacton intentions for a British people's basic rights and freedoms, just look at Putin's Russia or Trump's America. Madam Deputy Speaker, that isn't patriotic.

It is deeply un-british and he should be ashamed. Unlike the honourable member for Clacton, I am proud of our country. I love our country. I am proud that Britain helped create the European Convention on Human Rights, championed by Winston Churchill himself. The convention protects the very people who need it most, our elderly and most vulnerable, so they may live and grow old with dignity, our children, so that those facing horrific abuse have better protection. It also upholds our freedom of speech so that the press and public can criticise those in power without fear, and it protects our peaceful right of protest.

70 years ago, Britain became the first country to ratify the convention as a leading voice on the global stage for human rights and the rule of law. That is our history. That is who we are. That is Britain at our best. And yet, the honourable member for Clacton wants us to forget our history, dump British values, undermine the rule of law and roll back on people's hard won rights. I say no to help get over how wrong the honourable member and the Reform Party and the conservatives are on this.

Let me give some examples. Madam Deputy Speaker, when people died because of poor care at Stafford Hospital, their families secured change because of these laws. Yeah. When British troops died in Iraq because of poor equipment, the Supreme Court ruled that the government was accountable because of these laws. And they're also after 96 people were killed in the Hillsborough disaster. And the victims themselves were blamed. And their families finally got the truth because of these laws. And when the Metropolitan Police failed to properly investigate the horrific assaults of John Warboys, his victims were able to take the police to court because of these laws.

Time and again, the European Convention and its British twin, the Human Rights Act, have brought justice for our people, protected them from gross misconduct and unfair treatment. These laws help individuals hold the powerful to account, to hold governments to account. These laws can get justice when the elite and powerful cover up and abuse their power. So it's clear, isn't it? Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable gentleman is about standing up for the individual, for the ordinary person, for the people with no vote.

Voice. Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable gentleman is the friend of the elite and the powerful. Yes. And, Madam Speaker, if we do not defend our human rights here at home, how can we possibly persuade other countries of the importance of human rights for their own people if we do not reform wants. The biggest cheers will come from the Kremlin and from Beijing, from Tehran, from Pyongyang, and from dictators and authoritarian regimes the world over. Yeah, that would be a betrayal of everything our country stands for.

Yeah. And his plan would damage our country's ability to shape our world. Leaving the convention would be another nail in the coffin of Britain's unique soft power, where we have so often in the past, influenced world events for the better by being part of international agreements, by upholding international law, by leading. Now, of course, the honourable gentleman has made his career by damaging our country and our influence. Remember how he led the campaign for Brexit with his Conservative friends? And we know what a total mess that turned out to be.

He and his friends argued Brexit would cut immigration, but immigration has gone up. Just look at how badly he's betrayed the people he claims to speak for. Brexit made the small boats crisis possible before, before, before Brexit, we had a returns agreement with every EU country, the Dublin system a deterrent, a deterrent that worked. Utter tosh. And now undocumented migrants are trying to reach the UK because they know they can't be returned because, thanks to the honourable member, his Brexit ripped up Britain's rights to return people with no right to be here and people who should have claimed asylum elsewhere in Europe.

They may shout they caused it. Yes. Now let's look at one of our closest allies. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Republic of Ireland, and look at a vital part of our country, Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement references the European Convention seven times the guarantee of basic rights and freedoms in the convention was fundamental to securing the Good Friday Agreement, to ending the conflict, to stopping the bombs, to getting peace. And yet he stands here today prepared to risk peace in our country.

How utterly shameful. Madam Deputy Speaker, as we approach Remembrance Sunday, let us never forget the sacrifices made for our freedoms today. And let us never forget the lessons that that greatest generation of British people learnt and passed on to us. I think the veterans will notice what Baroness. Our greatest generation, Madam Deputy Speaker, showed us that we needed these laws to protect people from state abuse, to stop authoritarian government and tyrants, and to defend people's rights.

The post-war generation knew how costly far right wing populism had been for our country and our people. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, for our greatest generation, for British people today and for our democracy, vote

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against this bill here. The question is that the honourable member has leave to honourable member has leave to bring in the bill. As many of that opinion say, I of the contrary, no. opinion say, I of the contrary, no.
15:11
None Portrait Division
-

Seated Seated so Seated so we Seated so we can proceed. The question is, as on the order papers, many of that opinion, say aye of the contrary, no Tellers for the ayes r John Whittingdale and Danny Kruger tell us whether nos. Or Wendy Chamberlain and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bills.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Noble Lord Noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. Is. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. Sorry. Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! the ayes to the right. 96. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 154. the ayes to the right. The eyes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ayes to the right. The eyes the right. 96. The nose the left the right. 96. The nose the left 154. So the nose. Habit. The nose. Have it unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It. Colleagues should leave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues should leave the chamber quietly. Order! Where are chamber quietly. Order! Where are you going? If colleagues want to leave the chamber, they should do so quickly and quietly before we so quickly and quietly before we get on to the next set of business. Question number two on business of the House today. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move. Formally. The question is as on the Order Paper, you know, the question as on Paper, you know, the question as on the Order Paper is mainly opinion say I contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. ayes have it. The ayes have it. I'll give the frontbench a moment I'll give the frontbench a moment to shuffle over. The Clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

day. Sentencing Bill as amended in committee to be considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now we will begin with new clause one, with which it will be convenient to consider the other selected new clauses and amendments as listed on the selection paper. I call Peter Bedford to move new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

call Peter Bedford to move new clause one. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In September.
15:25
15:25
Peter Bedford Portrait Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
-
accompanied by his dog Rocky, was just walking through Franklin Park in my constituency as he usually did when he was targeted and assaulted to death by a 14 year old boy and egged on by a 12 year old girl. Since this horrific event, I've been working with Mr. Kohli's daughter Susan, and I paid tribute to the Kohli family for the dignified manner in which they have had to deal with this emotional and tragic aftermath of such a horrific incident. Susan is not looking for retribution.

She is simply looking to promote justice for families of the victims who at the moment, do not feel as if the justice system works for them. And I would like to pay tribute to Susan, who I know is sat at home watching today's debate alongside Rocky. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have tabled a new clause one and new clause 14 in memory of Mr. Kohli. I would like honourable members across the House to support these amendments today to place greater responsibility on child offenders and the parents of child offenders.

New clause one would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness and use of parental orders throughout the justice system. Parental orders for honourable members that do not know are measures that require parents of child offenders to either pay for their children's crimes or force them to attend parenting classes. Yet, despite these powers being on the statute book, they are rarely being used. In fact, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that they have decreased from over 1000 in 2010 to just 27 in recent years.

This is woefully inadequate. These measures are not designed to punish, but to support, to help families restore discipline and stability, to prevent the next crime before it even happens. Susan put it to me if parents of the two individuals in this case were placed under parental orders, then they would perhaps appreciate the damage and impact that their negligent behaviour has caused. And to think that one of the parents recently asked for their child's tag to be removed so that they could go on a family holiday, really is shameful.

Madam Deputy Speaker. Furthermore, I. I support clause new clause 14 to the bill, which will bring an end to anonymity protections for young offenders who commit the most heinous and serious crimes. I believe in deterrence, and I believe that when an individual commits acts so vile, so abhorrent, that the full weight of justice must be felt, including being named publicly. The boy, 15 years old by the time of the trial, should not be shielded. Our judicial system should not protect those who who have shown such disregard for human life.

They should be named. Just as Axl Cabana was following a court order and as Muhammad Umar Khan was last week, new clause 14 is simple if an individual under the age of 18 commits a serious crime, they will be named no ifs, no buts. Because in my eyes, if you are old enough to commit such an appalling crime, then you are old enough to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

face the full consequences of your actions. The honourable member give way. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. I thank the honourable member for giving way, and he's making an excellent and passionate speech. And does he agree with me that the And does he agree with me that the government should really consider looking at supporting the clause that he's talking about, about reducing the anonymity of people reducing the anonymity of people who commit these serious crimes because they are looking at reducing the voting age to 16? And we should talk about when people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we should talk about when people are an adult in this country and they should not be protected if they do these really serious crimes. Here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. I couldn't agree more. I think government policy particularly, he mentions about the, particularly, he mentions about the, the the rumours that the government is planning to lower the voting age responsibilities. It does seem a responsibilities. It does seem a bit contradictory that we have these two ages of, of. these two ages of, of. Responsibility. Turning to new clause 18, in the name of my honourable friend. The honourable honourable friend.

The honourable friend, the member for Bexhill and Battle. The girl. The girl that was with the 14 year old boy that egged him on did not receive a custodial sentence. A shocking fact that even sentence. A shocking fact that even though she was egging on, appear to commit an assault, quite literally to kill a man, she did not receive a custodial sentence. Sentencing guidelines make it nearly impossible for individuals of that age to receive a custodial sentence. But what can we do in this House about that? Well, the answer is very little, because we have an unelected and unaccountable quango determining sentencing guidelines rather than democratically elected members in this place.

This is wrong and this must change. We must abolish the Sentencing Council and restore democratic accountability within our judicial system, to promote equality before the law and to ensure that serious crimes are treated with a tough punishment they deserve, irrespective of a defendant's sob story. Crime is crime, and that's why I'm also a supporter of new clauses 17 and 19, which will ensure tougher sentences for those who commit sexual abuse or murder. But finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also like to highlight my support for new clause 21, tabled by my honourable friend, the member for Huntingdon.

This new clause delivers a powerful message that if you take a life through dangerous or reckless driving, then you should forfeit the privilege of driving. This amendment prioritises public safety and provides justice to families who have lost loved ones like my constituent Emma Johnson, who lost her parents through the actions of a careless driver. Madam Deputy Speaker, I sincerely hope that the government does support the amendments today. We in this place must ensure that justice is done

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and seen to be done here. Parents of young offenders.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parents of young offenders. The question is that new clause one be read a second time, and I call the Chair of the Justice Select Committee. You're not contributing. Marvellous. I then contributing. Marvellous. I then call John McDonnell. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. I only wanted a couple of sentences in last week's committee, sentences in last week's committee, I tabled a new clause was effectively new. Clause 26 today. effectively new. Clause 26 today. And it was, if I can remind the minister, it was simply the views that have been expressed to us from that have been expressed to us from a number of organisations, including the National Association of Probation Officers, which was to recall the problems that we had on privatisation, particularly with privatisation, particularly with regard to community service and unpaid work in London in particular unpaid work in London in particular in 2013, when that the supervision of unpaid work was privatised to
15:32
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
of unpaid work was privatised to Serco, it was a catastrophic failure both to provide effective work and security for the community overall. And really, I think, left a stain on the old process of of managing community works. And that was reflected also when probation by the previous government was totally privatised and had to be brought back in House. And it was simply asked. The amendment last week in the same this week is simply asking for an assurance from the the government that although of course, we'll want to engage with voluntary organisations and charities non-profit-making bodies, we would not want to see privatisation take place in the community, community service and unpaid work area, and including particular placements of of former prisoners in areas of work where they would be exploited, and also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they would ensure that they certainly, sir. I'm very grateful to and I'm sure that he will join me as well, sure that he will join me as well, that we had amendments, new clause 27, new clause 28. And I think the honourable member for Liverpool honourable member for Liverpool Riverside had an amendment also new clause 25 minor in relation to probation capacity and violation of probation capacity and violation of probation services to Wales. But we had no feedback whatsoever from the Minister at the close of the day Minister at the close of the day when we were last discussing the sentencing bill.

And I do think that these four new clauses do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

warrant a commentary and a response from the Minister, and I hope he agrees it. That's the reason I tabled this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's the reason I tabled this amendment. I didn't want to be a pain in the neck. I just wanted to hear ministerial response, that hear ministerial response, that there had been some acceptance of our there, our understanding of the implications of what potentially could happen, and the concerns that the probation service had overall about a number of these matters. So about a number of these matters. So the reason for retailing is simply to get the minister's view, an attitude of the government on on these particular issues.

And there were a range of issues and amendments, and they largely came from the Justice Union's parliamentary group, of which the honourable members is Chair. I just honourable members is Chair. I just want to be absolutely clear that because the history on community service has always been that it is state, state supervised, working with charities and non-profit making organisations, and at no stage will be would we want to allow private sector organisations to profiteer from this area of service. It was simply to try and get an assurance from the Minister on that.

And again, whatever attitude the minister takes today, I'm hoping he can give us that assurance. But if there's a need for a further discussion and dialogue, I'm sure from the Justice Unions trade union group will be willing to meet him and go through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some of these issues in more detail. It certainly. Making a good point in that it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Making a good point in that it's right that commercial organisations may well be able to run community schemes, but voluntary schemes, but voluntary organisations, it's clear their ambition is rehabilitation, prevention of re-offending and that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prevention of re-offending and that really must be the goal. Of community centres. It's the heart of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heart of this bill. I can only draw upon the experience that he and I had when Serco were in charge, which was Serco were in charge, which was about profiteering, reducing costs largely through reducing staffing. And if, he recalls, there were occasions where we were having reports that community service volunteers were turning up, the tools weren't available for them to tools weren't available for them to do the work. There was a lack of supervision, and in a few instances, we discovered that some of the we discovered that some of the vehicles that they were used being forced into unsafe as well.

So we don't want to get back to a don't want to get back to a profiteering role. And that's why an assurance that this will be managed and orientated by both the managed and orientated by both the state but also working voluntary sector and non-profit, making voluntary organisations and charities, I think would reassure charities, I think would reassure those professionals that have experienced in the past. Unfortunately, to all our detriments, the privatisation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

detriments, the privatisation that's taken place. I now come to the Shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, Doctor Kieran Mullan. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of new I rise to speak in support of new clause 19. In my name and the other clauses in my name and the names of the shadow opposition. And can I the shadow opposition. And can I just begin by thanking the member for Mid Leicestershire for opening the debate for this? And he's drawn attention to an important issue, something that I often ponder.

I'm aware that there are very many aware that there are very many powers available to tackle the involvement of parents in offending, and I just don't ever really get and I just don't ever really get the sense that they're working as well as we would want them to. And his amendment would help us to try his amendment would help us to try and get to the bottom of that. It's a privilege to be able to take part in this report stage debate on in this report stage debate on behalf of His Majesty's Opposition, and to have a further opportunity to continue to do what I can to make clear to members opposite the make clear to members opposite the enormous negative impact on victims this bill is going to have.

As it stands, this bill will fundamentally change how we deliver fundamentally change how we deliver justice for the victims of serious, violent and sexual crimes in this country. Madam Deputy Speaker, as country. Madam Deputy Speaker, as the official Opposition, we tabled amendments and new clauses during the committee stage, but we didn't get to undertake line by line get to undertake line by line scrutiny in a proper bill committee, something we didn't get to do because I suspect the government because I suspect the government know the reality of this bill is so damning that they fear an outright rebellion from their MPs if they can't continue the pretence about
15:38
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
what it does and doesn't do. But nevertheless, we attempted to provide a limited and more acceptable reform of the early measures, early release measures to exclude sexual and serious violent offenders, and Labour MPs rejected offenders, and Labour MPs rejected that. We're now left only with a clause to remove these measures entirely. And why do we persist? entirely. And why do we persist? Because the consequences if we do not, are dire. The government has said time and time again that no said time and time again that no person who has committed what they describe as the most serious offences would be released earlier.

However, we know this to be completely false. The change in automatic release rules apply to automatic release rules apply to all standard determinate sentences, and they apply to every single person who is on one. Firstly, I reiterate to members that the Independent Library briefing note confirms that these releases will confirms that these releases will be automatic. Madam Deputy Speaker, more than 60% of offenders sentenced to prison for rape receive standard determinate sentences as to over 90% of those convicted of child grooming convicted of child grooming offences.

Around half of individuals in prison for attempted murder are also given standard determinate sentences. Each year, hundreds of people convicted of child rape or sexual assault, including offences involving including offences involving victims aged under 13, serve these types of sentences. In total, more than 6000 offenders are sent to prison annually for serious violent sexual offences, and they will get out of prison earlier under this bill. I don't know in how many ways I can explain this to members to overcome the briefing, that it is not true, that it's happening outside of the chamber.

I think I have no choice but to actually take members through the numbers I have here in front of me the sentencing data for those convicted of the rape of female aged 16 or over. In total, on average, 590 men are sent to prison for this offence. Every year, 197 of them would be excluded from these early release measures because they're given extended determinate sentences or life sentences. But 393 would not. That is, 393 rapists, the vast majority being sent to prison every year that will be let out of prison earlier.

And that is without even including those guilty of the rape of children. Many of these will be let out of prison. Earlier. Too many members in this House raised their terrible cases of causing death by dangerous driving. Glenn and Becky Gittins from justice for victims campaign in memory of their daughter, Violet Grace, that was killed at four years old by a drug dealer going at 80mph in a 30 mile per hour zone. A drug dealer that fled the scene and then returned, stepping over her as she lay injured on the pavement to get to their drugs.

Are we seriously going to tell people like them that their perpetrators can get out of prison earlier in future? Because that is what will happen every year. On average, 169 offenders are sent to prison for causing death by dangerous driving. 163 of them are given a standard determinate sentence and will get out of jail earlier. As a result of this bill, some of them will only serve a third of their sentences. I have pages and pages of these offences. Sexual grooming.

Out of 228 offenders sent to prison every year for sexual grooming, 211 serve standard determinate sentences. And under this bill, 196 will serve only a third of their sentence, stalking 475 people are sent to prison every year for stalking, and 458 of them are sent to prison on standard determinate sentences, 427 of them will serve a third of their sentences. Under this bill, sexual activity involving a child under 16 576 offenders are sent to prison for this offence.

Every year, 502 of them will get out of prison. Earlier because of this bill, and 269 of them will only serve a third of their sentence. Madam Deputy Speaker, this morning the Home Secretary said she was glad that the vile child sex offender, as she described him, had Saqib Bhatti is off our streets. She is right to welcome that. Jack Abbott was convicted of sexual assault offences against women and girls. What do the former Justice secretary's measures mean in relation to the Home Secretary mean in relation to other perpetrators? That, as she describes, a vile sex offenders sent to prison for the exact same offences? I can tell the House that two thirds, two thirds of offenders sent to prison for similar sexual assault offences will only have to serve a third a third of their sentence.

If this bill goes through a third. The government wants, on the one hand, to celebrate removing these offenders from the streets at the same time as directly legislating to put them back on them. It's shameful that members opposite in their majority voted against our amendment and our clause to remove these early measures in specific terms, and our clause to remove the measures entirely remain before the House, even if we will not get the opportunity to vote on them today. I'd now like to consider our new clause 19 that seeks to address a clear gap in the law, one that I believe the majority of members on all sides would agree would agree must be closed.

Madam Deputy Speaker, at present, our sentencing framework requires that a whole life order be imposed on anyone convicted of murdering a police or prison officer while that officer is carrying out their duties. That provision acts as both a deterrent and a guarantee of justice for those who risk their lives in confronting dangerous offenders. Yet a recent court case has created a precedent that that measure will not be applied if the prison or police officer is not actively on duty at the time of their murder.

I want to describe to the House the disturbing events surrounding the murder of former prison officer Lennie Scott, who was killed by a violent offender he had once supervised. Mr. Scott was working as a prison officer in HMP Altcourse in Liverpool in 2020. Elias Morgan offered him a bribe to keep to himself that a phone had been found in his cell. I know the vast majority of prison officers do an excellent job and follow the rules, but the House will be aware of examples where we do see corruption in our prison service.

Mr. Scott could have taken that bribe. This is a man that Mr. Scott almost certainly knew was capable of violent offences, and was involved in organised crime. He could have forgotten his duties and responsibilities, but he did not. He refused the bribe. He was then subjected to death threats by Morgan. It's a matter of public record that Mr. Scott's time as a police officer was not unblemished. But when it comes to the question of courage, of sheer guts and bravery, of refusing to be cowed by a violent thug, of refusing to take the easy way out, Mr.

Scott was an exemplar, not just a prison officers, but to all of us. But Morgan made good on his threats, waiting years later until 2024, to murder Mr. Scott in cold blood. This was a carefully planned murder. Lancashire Lancashire Police found evidence that the month before, Morgan was scoping out locations linked to Mr. Scott. He drove close to Mr. Scott's home in Prescot, Merseyside, a gym in the Speke area of Liverpool, where he sometimes trained in a gym on Peel Road, Skelmersdale, where the shooting would later take place.

He gunned him down and was leaving the gym, shooting him six times. He didn't stand a chance. In 2013, the then Home Secretary Theresa may, the former Prime Minister and member for Maidenhead, announced that we would change the law so that the murder of a police or prison officer would result in a whole life order. Speaking at the time in relation to police officers, she said we asked police officers to keep us safe by confronting and stopping violent criminals for us. We asked them to take risks so that we don't have to.

That is why I'm clear that life should mean life for anyone convicted of killing a police officer, and rightly, as prison officers, have done the very same thing. The measure included them. But the sentencing of Mr. Scott's murder has made it clear that the courts have not, in my view, understood the will of Parliament because Morgan was not given a whole life order. He was given a life sentence with a minimum tariff. It's true to say that at 45 years, his sentence is longer than most.

But Morgan was 35 when he was convicted. It is not inconceivable that he will get out one day, and I don't believe Parliament ever intended for criminals like him to ever get out. I have to say I was shocked at this outcome. It had not occurred to me that it would not apply. I was very familiar with the measure in relation to police officers. Following my own time serving as a volunteer police officer, so my initial reaction was to believe that the measure must not have been applied to prison officers.

And I raised that in the House because Parliament legislated to say the ultimate sanction of our legal system should be used when police and prison officers are killed for doing their jobs. Lenny Scott was killed for doing his job. The wording of the present measure refers to the murder taking place in the course of their duty. I can't know with certainty what was in the minds of all parliamentarians when passing that legislation. Maybe they had considered scenarios such as the one that Mr. Scott suffered and actively chose to exclude them, even if they did, this side of the House is clear that it shouldn't.

Our new clause. Madam Deputy Speaker, would ensure that this loophole is closed once and for all. Where a police or prison officer is murdered. If the motivation for the murder was connected to the police or prison officer's current or former duties, that should result in a whole life order. We can't go back and secure this outcome for Mr. Scott and his family, but I have had the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Scott's mother. She would very much welcome this change in memory of her son, so that her family know, though nothing can be undone, that something positive can happen for others.

As a result, she's accepted an invitation to attend Parliament and meet with me, and I'm sure the Minister would welcome the opportunity to meet her as well. And I know he's nodding his head in affirmation. We can ensure in future that criminals know the fullest possible consequences of the law will follow if they murder a police or prison officer, simply because they are doing their job. I'd now like to turn to clause 20, which seeks to establish notification and offender management requirements for those convicted of child cruelty offences, in effect creating a system similar to the Sex Offenders Register for individuals who have abused and neglected children.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to be clear why this matters. Every one of us in this House knows that behind the legal language of cruelty or abuse, there lies some of the most distressing, life altering crimes imaginable. Crimes are a child utterly dependent and vulnerable gets the worst instead of the best. Often from those that are supposed to love and care for them. This measure will not fix everything. Sadly, this is not the world we live in, but there is before us a clear improvement step that we can take toward improving how we protect our children.

At present, if you are convicted of a sexual offence against a child, you are rightly placed on the sex offenders register. You're required to keep the police informed of your whereabouts, your identity and any change to your circumstances, including whether you're living with children. This requirement sits separately from probation requirements, and if you're convicted of an offence to which the requirements apply and you receive a prison sentence of 30 months or more, the notification requirements are indefinite. This allows the police service, along with other agencies, to better assess and manage risk and ultimately protect children, others from harm.

But Madam Deputy Speaker, if you're convicted of a horrific physical abuse of neglect or of causing a child's death through sustained cruelty, there is no equivalent requirement. Once your sentence and probation is over, you can disappear into the community with no requirement to report where you live, no oversight by those who might need to protect other children, and no legal mechanism for ongoing management. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a clear gap in our child protection system. This new clause 20 would correct that gap.

A person convicted of any of the listed child cruelty or violence offences, including causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult child cruelty, neglect, infanticide, exposing children whereby life is endangered and female genital mutilation would be required to notify the police of their details within three days of conviction or release. They would have to confirm where they live, any other addresses they use in any names they go by. They would have to keep that information up to date and confirm it annually, just as child sex offenders already do.

And importantly, that information could be shared between the police and other agencies that work to safeguard children. This would have local law enforcement the information they need to identify the risk that individuals could pose to the local community, and intervene with any precautionary measures early to protect children before harm could come. It offers greater protection to the public by ensuring that those who have committed abuse and cruelty to children are treated in the same manner as those who have committed sexual abuse.

Now, I would like to say a few words about the reason why we're considering this measure today. I would like to say a few words about the extraordinary lady Paula Hudgell Paula, whose name has been spoken before in this House. Paula is the adoptive mother of 11 year old Tony Hudgell, who had both legs amputated after abuse by his birth parents. She previously campaigned successfully for tougher sentences to be available for child abuse offences, for which she was awarded an OBE. When Paula adopted Tony, the criminals responsible for what happened to him, his birth parents were not even going to be prosecuted.

Paula told me that if anyone had done that to her birth children, she would have done whatever what they had done to Tony. She would have done everything she could to pursue justice, and that even though he was adopted, Tony was no different. And that is exactly what she did for him. And in the end, they were convicted. The maximum sentence they received. Appalled, Paula and her first campaign campaign began to change the maximum to a life sentence. But during the course of her campaigning and getting to see the system of parole and what the system can do to monitor people afterwards, Paula got an incredible insight into the flaws and what needed to change.

Discussing it with the police officer, Becky Taft would also like to pay tribute to a lady that Paula got to know. During the course of the prosecution, they both recognised this glaring omission that we're seeking to close today. And so Paula acted, and Paula is continuing to act despite facing enormous challenges in her personal circumstances as she is undergoing treatment for cancer that can no longer be cured. If I can quote Paula now, she says, I've been battling cancer, but as long as I have fire in my belly, I'll keep fighting to protect children by pushing for this register.

That's what keeps me going. Knowing what Tony's knowing that Tony's legacy can help save other young lives. This is an incredible woman that I'm honoured to have gotten to know. And her MP, the member for Maidstone and Malling and Shadow Solicitor General, has done so much to help Paula turn this campaign into words on the page, into legislation we can pass. And she's someone I'm pleased to be able to call a friend. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that this is something that the Justice Secretary is taking a direct interest in, and I want to sincerely thank him for that.

I know this is something that I'm sure the Minister will also want to closely consider. I do want to ensure the strength of feeling on these benches and other benches is understood via the voting lobbies tonight, and it may be this evening. The government's not ready to support this measure right away, and Labour MPs may feel that's reasonable at this stage, but I would welcome a commitment from the despatch box to enable me to come to the conclusion that we can agree to work cross-party under other place to get this done.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the rest of the debate and considering amendments being put forward by other members, and I hope I have been able to explain clearly our measures related to prison and police officer whole life orders and the child cruelty register. But for whatever else this bill achieves, for whatever else we might reasonably disagree on, at the heart of this bill is the biggest step backwards in securing justice for the victims of serious crime in a generation. If it passes unamended, it would represent a betrayal of victims.

I don't believe members opposite want that. It is not too late. The Lords, I am confident, will not let this bill pass unamended. And at some point Labour MPs will again be able to decide. They will be able to say to the Prime Minister and his plan, no MPs always have choices. This government spends £1 trillion a year on various services, whatever positive and honourable intentions. Members opposite have in relation to victims and securing justice for them. Whatever positive measures they bring forward will be disastrously undone.

If members opposite don't work together to make clear they will not support measures that let thousands of serious violent and sexual

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offenders out of prison. Earlier. Linsey Farnsworth. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak to my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

New clause 36, which. Seeks to implement a key recommendation of David Gauke Independent Sentencing Review on Independent Sentencing Review on which the measures in this bill are based. New clause 36 proposes that based. New clause 36 proposes that release at one third of a sentence should be conditional on positive actions and purposeful activity, actions and purposeful activity, such as attending education classes, engaging in voluntary work, and participating in drug rehabilitation. The amendment seeks to address the prison capacity to address the prison capacity crisis by embedding an emphasis on rehabilitation into the earned progression model from its very progression model from its very first stage.

Incentivising purposeful activity will do two things. Firstly, it will actively things. Firstly, it will actively reward better behaviour within the prison, leading to fewer incidences

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prison, leading to fewer incidences of additional adjudication days. Added on that point. My honourable friend, give way? Yes, and I thank her for giving way. Would she agree with me that offering clear incentives for earned release is a key way of earned release is a key way of offering certain offenders clear chances to change, and thereby reducing the risk of reoffending

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and enhancing public protection? Thank you for the intervention. I would absolutely agree with that. And as the honourable member will have seen as part of the Justice Select Committee alongside me, there is clear evidence to back that up. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, secondly, by starting the process of rehabilitation through positive requirements earlier, it will reduce reoffending rates on release, thereby cutting crime and consequently easing pressure on prisoner capacity. In the longer term. On this, on the first point, the Justice Select Committee inquiries have found worryingly high rates of drug and alcohol abuse, self-harm and violence against inmates and staff.

Evidence submitted by Collective Voice shows that prisoners are more likely to develop substance misuse issues while in custody, if they lack meaningful activity. The Prisoners Education Trust describe how participating in education as rehabilitative benefits and helps people in prison occupy their time positively and learn new skills. His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons found that the prisons which were able to best tackle substance abuse combined clear boundaries, high expectations and importantly, meaningful incentives. Prisons like HMP Oakwood and HMP Rye Hill, which offer rich, purposeful activity, see significantly lower rates of drug use and better behaviour by incentivising engagement in well resourced, purposeful activity.

New clause 36 would reduce the likelihood of prisoners turning to substances or violence. In turn, fewer prisoners would incur additional days on their sentence, which would ease overcrowding and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be. Making an excellent speech and as she said, the chief Inspector of as she said, the chief Inspector of Prisons has found that rehabilitation is not working in prisons and this bill gives the prisons and this bill gives the opportunity for a sea change in the way that works, as well as preventing reoffending. When people preventing reoffending. When people leave prison. And as a member of the Select Committee where producing a major report on producing a major report on rehabilitation soon.

And it's essential that purposeful activity becomes the norm in prisons and not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the exception. I thank the Chair of the Justice Select Committee, whose opinion I greatly trust and rely upon, and indeed, it is absolutely essential indeed, it is absolutely essential that rehabilitative work in prisons is available to all, as I'll go on is available to all, as I'll go on to, to talk about in a little bit more detail on my second point. more detail on my second point. Madam Deputy Speaker. Structured rehabilitation during custody prepares individuals for life after prepares individuals for life after release.

As the earned progression model currently stands, the emphasis on rehabilitation begins emphasis on rehabilitation begins largely during the intensive supervision stage. And whilst I absolutely welcome the focus and absolutely welcome the focus and measures, this bill in this bill to tackle the root causes of crime, we shouldn't wait until release from custody to begin that important work. Too often upon release, individuals return to the same environments, the same pressures and the same risks that contributed to their offending in the first place.

So why wait then, when we can intervene at the point when they are most reachable? Madam Deputy Speaker, we quite literally have a captive audience. And if people leave custody, having already engaged in structured rehabilitation, they're more likely to respond positively to supervision and less likely to reoffend. That, in turn, reduces pressure on the probation service, which is also already under immense strain. To summarise, the model proposed by Newark, clause 36 is fair and proportionate. Actively rewarding good behaviour while existing provisions in the bill punish bad behaviour, those who engage constructively while in custody through an earned progression scheme may be released as early as a third.

Those who break the rules will serve more days, but meanwhile those who neither engage positively nor breach rules will see no change in their release date. This ensures that rehabilitation, positive behaviour, purposeful activity and steps towards reintegration are actively incentivised and baked into the earned progressive model progression model from the very start. Having said this, I do understand that there are practicalities which have to be considered in implementing this positive requirement scheme if it is to be successful.

Years of neglect by the previous government have left our prison system overstretched and under-resourced.
16:00
Linsey Farnsworth Portrait Linsey Farnsworth MP (Amber Valley, Labour)
-
-
On the 4th of February, the Justice Committee heard evidence from Clinks Prison Reform Trust, Women Clinks Prison Reform Trust, Women in Prison and Nahco. And we were told during that session that only around 50% of prisoners are engaged around 50% of prisoners are engaged in education or work, which is often part time, not rehabilitative. And that's due to staffing shortages, overcrowding and limited resources and facilities. In resources and facilities. In essence, Madam Deputy Speaker, we've inherited prisons that can't offer the programmes people need offer the programmes people need and access to purposeful activity is highly inconsistent.

So I is highly inconsistent. So I recognise the immense scale of the challenge in facing and getting the prison system to a place where the prison system to a place where the provisions that I'm proposing in this new clause can be implemented fairly effectively and with the necessary resources across the country. Therefore, while I don't country. Therefore, while I don't expect the government will accept my amendment today, I strongly urge the Minister to commit to incorporating positive requirements to purposeful activity in the Earned Progression Model as soon as Earned Progression Model as soon as conditions allow, and this incremental approach is in line with the position that David Gauke with the position that David Gauke himself outlined in the review, he said this review holds the view that as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding.

Madam Deputy Speaker. Only by doing this will we truly future proof our prisons, help people turn their back on crime and ensure that, unlike the last government, we always ensure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we have places in our prisons for the most dangerous offenders. Thank you. Liberal Democrat spokesperson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the House has. Heard repeatedly in recent weeks,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Heard repeatedly in recent weeks, our justice system is crumbling under the strain in our courts, prisons and probation services bulging at the seams stretched to bulging at the seams stretched to the limit and ultimately failing all who come into contact with it. Our justice system is not Our justice system is not adequately punishing criminals, not rehabilitating them, and not protecting victims and survivors. And confidence has been slowly And confidence has been slowly eroded and undermined. So this has to end. The sentencing bill to end.

The sentencing bill provided ample opportunity to address these issues, with scope to consider how we tackle the looming consider how we tackle the looming projection of a prison population of over 100,000 in just three years time. I am disappointed that such a time. I am disappointed that such a large bill that's making fundamental changes to sentencing wasn't given the line by line scrutiny that a bill committee scrutiny that a bill committee affords it, rather than a committee of the whole House. We as a party, are supportive of many of the steps that are taken in the bill.

And in the spirit of working collaboratively on a crisis that
16:01
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
collaboratively on a crisis that affects us all, we have tabled a number of amendments that seek to improve and strengthen the bill. For example, we welcome the government's new clause three, clause three, which would give courts the power to order offenders to make monthly payments from their income. And we have tabled new clause three to ask the government to assess whether income reduction orders could be used to fund victim support. On the topic of financial penalties, new clause 33 would create a power for a sentencing court to require an offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents, ensuring that their responsibility to provide support is not automatically void during a custodial sentence.

Creating a presumption of a suspended sentence for terms of under 12 months is something that the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for. It's a necessary step to achieve reduced prison overcrowding, but it also plays a vital role in reducing reoffending, with rehabilitation offered in the community. 62% of those serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months go on to reoffend, but only 24% reoffend if they are given a suspended sentence or a community order. We don't need to see offenders sent to prison to become better criminals.

We need to support them to become better citizens, creating a rehabilitative system. Well, in the long term, reduce costs, protect victims and ease pressure on our public services. The work of our justice system should be centred on this goal for the good of all. To that end, new clause 12 would allow and facilitate prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before their sentencing hearing. As of June this year, 20% of the prison population is on remand and is yet to have their sentence heard, with court backlogs at an all time high.

We have offenders arriving at their sentencing hearing, receiving their sentence and then heading straight home because of the length of time they've served on remand, remand prisons are often overcrowded and typically suffer from understaffing and inadequate facilities. They should be offered the same level of support as sentenced prisoners. If we are to reduce the levels of reoffending. We are, of course, supportive of the identifier introduced as part of the bill. Following the work of my friend the member for Eastbourne, in collaboration with the government, with the government, and I commend the hon.

My hon. Friend's hard work and determination to make tangible changes for those who have experienced domestic abuse, providing greater confidence that their abusers will be suitably dealt with in the system. And I do thank the government for their constructive engagement on this issue with my honourable friend. However, our campaign does not end there, as shown in new clause eight, which would ensure that domestic abuse is treated as an aggravated offence which would reflect the severity and long term impact of such crimes on victims.

Whilst new clause nine would ask the government to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes to tackle violence against women and girls. For individuals sentenced to offences such as assault, battery and actual bodily harm where the victim was a female. We have also tabled a number of amendments relating to the probation service, because none of this means anything if probation is not properly resourced, and I know that the government will refer to the £700 million in additional funding, but this is not yet being felt on the front line of probation, where the situation remains as described by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation earlier this year, where the probation service has too few staff with too little experience and training, managing too many cases without maximum caseloads, we open ourselves up to a higher risk of human error and also a more cautious approach to recalling, because staff simply do not have the capacity to manage people in the community effectively.

Probation officers believe fundamentally in rehabilitation and in supporting offenders to reintegrate into society. But I must raise some serious concerns that I have around the removal of the existing short term recalls and standard recalls in favour of a 56 day blanket recall for all offenders except those identified through a mappa, through a multi-agency public protection arrangement. Under the current guidance, somebody who might be engaging with, for example, mental health services in the community but not attending their probation appointments, so therefore are being non-compliant of their agreement, would currently be recalled for 28 days under a fixed term recall.

That means, for example, if they are in temporary accommodation, which we know a lot of these people coming out of prison are, the likelihood is that the accommodation will still be there when they've served their fixed term, and they can re-engage with the programmes in the community that they were already on. But under the new arrangements, in the same circumstances, somebody recalled for 56 days would be coming out and in effect starting again, having lost their accommodation arrangements, lost their place on a on a community programme that they were engaging with.

As these places are typically only held for up to four weeks. The likelihood of them then going on to reoffend when they are seeing a cycle is will increase, and we will see the same people being called back for recalls. And then at the other end of the spectrum, you could have a serious offender breaching their licence by intimidating, harassing or stalking their victim. And instead of receiving a standard recall which would last until the end of their sentence, they would only be returned to serve just 56 days.

Those that are classified under probation as medium risk offenders, which is the majority of offences. When we talk about violence against women and girls, it's the majority of domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers. They would not come under the exclusions that the government has proposed in it. Coming under Mappa two and three on Monday in this chamber, we spoke at length and had consensus across the House that we needed to do more to support victims, and the measure in this bill directly contradicts that desire.

It's a serious omission, which we are extremely concerned will lead to the release of dangerous criminals onto our streets that will go on to continue to reoffend. New clause 31 will therefore ensure that offenders who have committed serious certain offences will not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed term recall. And I would implore the Minister to please go away and look at the proposal that I have tabled as an amendment to this bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill provided a great chance to address some key issues in our justice system, and it showed signs of life taking an innovative approach to some of the issues.

But ultimately, it did lack the vision and and expectedly lacked the funding. But I do thank members for their engagement and discussion around the bill, and I encourage them to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support new clause 12 later on. Amanda Martin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased to support this vital sentencing bill, which represents a significant step towards protecting victims and delivering justice. And victims and delivering justice. And today, I'd like to draw attention to new clause 831 and amendment one, the party opposite claim to be the champions of law and order. Yet their record was of lawless disorder. After 14 years in power, disorder. After 14 years in power, they increased sentencing lengths without planning the prison places to uphold them, delivering just a to uphold them, delivering just a few hundred spaces.

While violence, drugs and chaos spiralled across our prison estates, they left our justice system on the brink. Forced into the early release of more than 10,000 offenders in secret, shattering public confidence. This shattering public confidence. This government is taking a different path. We are delivering the largest prison expansion since Victorian prison expansion since Victorian times of 2500 new places already open and on track for 14,000 by
16:09
Amanda Martin Portrait Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)
-
-
open and on track for 14,000 by 2031, and we will ensure we never again run out of prison capacity. But we must also make prisons work. This means punishment that cuts through crime and through earned release, tougher community sentences, incentive supervision and proper rehabilitation that turns offenders away from crime for good. Madam Deputy Speaker, Central to making sentencing work is protecting victims not just at the point of conviction, but every day thereafter. And I want to thank the honourable member from Chichester for highlighting the important issue of domestic abuse in new clause eight and new clause 31.

The bill introduces a powerful new mechanism under chapter six, Finding of Domestic Abuse, ensuring that there is a court that the court is satisfied once the court is satisfied an offence involves domestic abuse, it must declare this in an open court, permanently recognising the heightened harm to victims. This, Madam Deputy Speaker, activates stronger protections, including potential electronic tagging and exclusion zones, ensuring offenders can be tracked in real time and kept away from victims homes and workplaces. The Loose Women Facing It Together campaign has powerfully shown the real human impact of domestic abuse and the urgent need for continuous protection.

The measures in this bill meet that and meet that need, ensuring abusers cannot return to intimidating or control, and that victims are safeguarded with the full force of the law behind them. These landmark reforms will end the crisis we inherited and restore faith in a justice system that protects the public and puts our victims first. Madam Deputy Speaker, since my election, I've been campaigning tirelessly on the issue of tool theft, a crime that devastates the livelihoods of tradespeople across our country and for whom there are too many to list in this House here today.

But I expect we all know someone who has been a victim of this crime. Construction workers face the highest suicide rates of any profession, four times higher than any other occupation. In December 24th, I laid a ten minute rule bill before this House, calling for tool theft to be recognised as a significant additional harm to victims and for courts to consider the total financial loss to victims. This would mean not just considering the value of the tools themselves, but the repair, the loss of work, and the rippling effect on businesses and families.

Having closely worked with Ministers of Justice over the past year and pleased to see the sentencing bill recognising the additional protections needed for victims and the sector, that the sector has been calling for. This bill, with its provisions, requires courts to consider the full impact of theft on victims, its new restriction zones that can ban prolific thieves from construction sites and tool retailers, and its tougher community sentences, delivering transformation protection for tradespeople. And Madam Deputy Speaker, while the government is not supporting amendment one put by the honourable member from West Dorset, I would like to thank him for enabling this discussion into the wider impact of crime.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to note that this sentencing bill does require courts to consider the full impact of crime, including psychological harm. It recognises what victims of tool theft, and indeed all crimes, have been telling us all along. Harm does not stop when the tools are stolen or the crime is committed. The psychological harm of losing livelihoods, the anxiety about future thefts, the mental health impact, being unable to work are real harms that must consider when sentencing offenders, and this bill delivers on that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, these reforms will protect the public with tougher sentencing and tighter monitoring. Cut crime by stopping reoffending before it happens, support victims by recognising harm and preventing future abuse, and build a safer society with less crimes. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ultimately, Madam Deputy Speaker, fewer victims. Helen Grant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Helen Grant. Well, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wish to speak to new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, and I wish to speak to new clause 20. Regarding the introduction of a. Child. Cruelty register. Tony and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tony and. Paula Hudgell are my constituents, and I've had the constituents, and I've had the honour of getting to know both of them, especially Paula, Tony's them, especially Paula, Tony's adoptive mum, extremely well as an MP, one of the special aspects of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the job that we do is getting to meet incredible people. Doing incredible things.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Often behind the scenes of the public gaze. But in a decade and a half as a member and I'm showing my
16:13
Helen Grant Portrait Helen Grant MP (Maidstone and Malling, Conservative)
-
-
half as a member and I'm showing my age now, I'm I have personally never come across such a courageous,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

driven, united mother and son team. And that's. What they are. They're a team, especially given Tony's young age of 11. And this amendment to introduce a child cruelty register outlined so eloquently and passionately by my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

passionately by my honourable friend, the Shadow Minister, who is underlines. What our.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What our. Job is really about, and that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Job is really about, and that is changing and improving the lives of our constituents for the better, keeping them safe and protecting the most vulnerable. When Tony was the most vulnerable. When Tony was just a little baby, 41 days old, his birth parents Jodie Simpson and his birth parents Jodie Simpson and Anthony Smith, abused him so badly that he had to have both of his that he had to have both of his legs amputated. Tony will have to live with the consequences of these live with the consequences of these injuries for the rest of his life.

Smith and Simpson was sentenced to Smith and Simpson was sentenced to ten years imprisonment by a judge in Maidstone Crown Court. It was a maximum that that judge could give maximum that that judge could give at the time. They served eight years and have now been released quite recently. They will be managed and monitored by police and probation for the remaining two years of their sentences, but after that there's nothing zero, no management, no monitoring, no reporting requirements.

If they change their name, start a new family, move County, have more children and their case details will be archived, thus leaving a terrible and dangerous gap in our child protection system. I was a legal aid family lawyer for over 20 years prior to becoming a Member of Parliament, and I specialised in child abuse and domestic violence work, and most days of the week I would attend various county courts around the south east of the country, obtaining non-molestation injunctions and occupation orders for mainly women and children.

Some perpetrators also went to prison following criminal proceedings, but upon release far too many would go straight back round to their former homes and abuse their families all over again. It was like a vicious circle, and the point I want to make here is that prison can, of course, be a good rehabilitation. But tragically, many upon leaving prison remain at risk. And as parliamentarians, we must do all that we can when we have the chance to manage and eradicate that risk.

The child Cruelty Register would require people convicted of certain child cruelty offences to provide personal details and information to the police. The information would be kept on record, and this would allow the police and probation to continue to manage and monitor those who remain a risk after the completion of their sentence. Experience has shown me, and it really has, that people who commit serious crimes often move around, they move counties. They deliberately avoid detection by not registering with health services, social services and other agencies, and the notification requirement in the amendment would serve as a good single identifier that would help to stop some families slipping through the net.

In other respects, the register would operate in a very similar manner to the Sex offenders register. I would like to end my contribution today with a message from Paula. She said this no child should ever endure what Tony went through, the suffering he experienced as a baby changed all of our lives forever. For the past seven years I have fought tirelessly for a child cruelty register, and this is because I believe those who commit such a horrific crimes against children should never be allowed to simply disappear from the system.

Once their sentence ends. The register would mean proper monitoring, accountability and protection not just for Tony, but for every child in our country. This is heartbreaking that right now, known abusers can change their names, move to new areas, form new relationships, have more children without any requirement to tell the authorities. This is a loophole that puts all of our children at risk. As Paula's MP. I repeat again that as parliamentarians, we have a duty to do all that we can when we have the chance to, as we do today

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with this bill, as we do today, to risk. In.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In. So Sarah Smith. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. I wanted to speak. In support. Of new clause. 36. Which would provide. Requirements for offenders.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Requirements for offenders. To comply. With an earned progression. Scheme before. Being subject.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To release. Which I think is. A. Really important. Opportunity to enhance the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Opportunity to enhance the ambitions of the government laid out in this bill. Because in. My constituency of. Hyndburn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hyndburn. Shoplifting, anti-social behaviour, car Break-Ins. Continue to plague Accrington town centre
16:19
Sarah Smith Portrait Sarah Smith MP (Hyndburn, Labour)
-
-
to plague Accrington town centre and my constituents. Often increases in levels of the town centre. Crime and Break-Ins are caused by offenders released early who have failed to receive the rehabilitation they require. Often with drug or alcohol addictions. They're back on the streets trying to feed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those. Addictions, stuck. In a. Cycle of lose, lose, lose. For

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cycle of lose, lose, lose. For my residents, for the police and for the taxpayer. So while absolutely we must be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely we must be. Tough on. Crime. We. Must also tackle the root causes. Of crime.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of crime. And ensure the system delivers for. Victims and stops revolving door in our prisons, which serves door in our prisons, which serves none of us. There are a number of areas that I think the reforms on areas that I think the reforms on community order, on the requirements, on community orders will lead to less. Crime and safer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will lead to less. Crime and safer streets for my constituents. It will provide a more tailored. Effective approach. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Punishment and rehabilitation. Because under. This new bill. Courts will have expanded.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Courts will have expanded. Tools to tailor community and. Suspended sentence orders so that they better fit the. that they better fit the. Individual offender, the offence and the risk posed. The bill adds and the risk posed. The bill adds new community requirements to the list of options attached to a community or suspended sentence community or suspended sentence order, such as prohibitions on driving, attending pubs, bars and clubs or public events, and being restricted to geographic zones. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this enhanced flexibility means that sentences in the community can be made more. Meaningful. More effective, not just a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

More effective, not just a series of generic tasks, but specifically calibrated, calibrated to the offender's behaviour.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the offender's behaviour. The harm caused. And the need to protect the public and victims. It ensures that public and victims. It ensures that community based sentences are not perceived as light or ineffective, but can carry real conditions and consequences. It also strengthens the public protection and victim the public protection and victim confidence, because one of the key aims of these reforms is to bolster protection for victims and protection for victims and communities. By allowing these restriction zones, bans on alcohol premises or public events, and premises or public events, and driving prohibitions.

The bill enables courts to impose orders that explicitly guard against certain behaviours or contexts associated with risk, and these measures serve to reassure the victims, showing that offenders remain under meaningful restriction and that community sentences can and that community sentences can carry real weight and oversight, not just a passive watch and wait. not just a passive watch and wait. In turn, this helps maintain public confidence in our justice system, and supports the principle that those who offend face real consequences. Furthermore, it supports rehabilitation while reducing unnecessary use of custody, which must be retained for those most violent and serious offences.

The bill complements the broader move to ensure that custody is used appropriately, not as a default for lower level offenders, but reserved for cases which is necessary for public protection by strengthening community orders and equipping the courts with more tailored requirements. The bill supports the case that many offenders can be managed in the community with conditions that deter, restrict and rehabilitate. And the evidence has shown us for far too long that it is these changes that tackle the ongoing problems that the courts and the prisons are currently facing, as well as the ongoing issues with that low level, but incredibly damaging crime that's happening time and time again in our communities.

So these approaches help reduce prison overcrowding, better align the resources that we have, and focus custodial capacity on those who most require it. At the same time, the reforms encourage compliance. For instance, the bill introduces a community sentence progression scheme under which offenders who fully comply with their requirements and complete their sentence may have their community order terminated early. There are practical benefits for communities, offenders and the Probation Service for communities. Community orders

**** Possible New Speaker ****

become more visible and meaningful. The added. Conditions reflect the reality that punishment and supervision in that punishment and supervision in the community should not equate simply to lesser than custody, but to different. For offenders. The to different. For offenders. The structured environment of a. Community sentence with the tailored requirements offers the possibility of real change. Supervision, conditional freedom, accountability rather than automatic imprisonment which can automatic imprisonment which can increase harm and reoffending, and that for the probation Service.

The bill's provisions also include strengthened investment in community supervision, better tools for monitoring and enforcement, and for monitoring and enforcement, and clearer mechanisms for rewarding compliance. In conclusion, the sentencing bill requires a sentencing bill requires a significant represents a significant advancement in our justice framework, offering justice framework, offering modernised, flexible and robust community sentencing options that strengthen. Public protection, strengthen. Public protection, shore up victim confidence, support rehabilitation and make more effective and efficient use of our resources. The new Community Orders requirements and the community requirements are central to this.

requirements are central to this. By giving courts more precise, meaningful powers, they ensure that justice is done in the community as well as through custody, and I'm confident they will make a real difference to my constituents in Hyndburn who are, you know, rightfully frustrated that they see the same people causing the same

**** Possible New Speaker ****

problems and no real solutions to the crimes that they are committing. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hey. I'm truly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm truly. Grateful. Madam Deputy Speaker, as we return to. The. Consideration of this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consideration of this. Dreadful bill. We debate. Amendments and new. Clauses designed to mitigate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Its worst. Effects. In particular, in clause 43, clause 21, new clause 18,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 43, clause 21, new clause 18, 19 and 20, which I have signed a new clause one. Right honourable friend on new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right honourable friend on new clause one to give way. Well, it's early in my. Speech, but such. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. My regard for my honourable friend, I will. I'm very grateful. To my right honourable friend. As a former sentencing minister, I As a former sentencing minister, I can see no logical reason why the government would oppose new clause one in the name of my fellow one in the name of my fellow Leicestershire MP, the member for Mid Leicestershire, which simply asks for an assessment for that recommendations to be made and then to be reported back to this House. May I ask my right honourable friend as himself, a very senior former minister, indeed a very senior Home Office minister, can he see any reason why the government see any reason why the government couldn't simply do the right thing and accept new clause one?
16:26
John Hayes Portrait Rt Hon Sir John Hayes MP (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

and accept new clause one? I am grateful for my hon. Friend's far too flattering remarks about my own experience in government. I agree with him that this is precisely the kind of new clause that could be accepted by government. He would have known in government, as I did, that no act is the bill that it began as Bills metamorphosize during their consideration. And why is government's listen to arguments that are made during scrutiny, either on the floor of the House or in committee, and the best Ministers allow the bill that they introduced to change over time.

That's the purpose of Parliament. And my honourable friend has done a service to this House in bringing this new clause and therefore allowing the Minister to improve the bill in the way that my honourable friend suggests. Now, whereas we've debated this bill over time, a distinct difference has emerged, a difference between practicalities and principle. And the question remains, is this a bill built on expediency, a necessary response to the unbearable tension between prison supply and the demand for prison places? Or is it a bill born of a distaste for incarceration as a means of delivering justice? The first is inexcusable.

The second is indefensible, but neither is it is inexorable in practice. As the honourable lady said, by the way, if remand were treated in a different way, and that essentially is about more court sittings, more court time, the faster access to justice, then fewer prisoners would be kept on remand. Because if we don't believe that, we'd have to assume that every person brought to trial would be found guilty or imprisoned. So it can't be true.

If we dealt with the huge number of foreign national offenders more swiftly. I know the government's making those attempts, but not enough any more than the previous government, even more than the previous government did, any more than the previous government did. Then we would alter the demand for places for too much of the debate focuses on the supply of prison places and not the demand side drivers that absorb places that could be eased. Now, we talked last time about my ideas for supply side change, and I won't repeat myself.

For Madam Deputy Speaker. You wouldn't allow me to do so in relation to the amendments before us today, but the Minister needs to think more laterally, more creatively. I imagine he's a bright man, or bright ish, at least. And and if he does so, he could look at those demand side drivers and deal with the practicalities. As for principles, it's time to end the liberal orthodoxy which has perpetuated the pervasive myth, the nonsense. The crime is an illness to be treated and not a destructive deviant decision which warrants punishment.

You know, I heard a lot when we debated this last time, and I have no doubt it underpins much of the resistance, the amendments today, that everyone deserves a second chance. And as I listen to my hon. Friend's powerful case a few moments ago, I asked myself this question can anyone in this place with a heart believe those who terrorise and torture children persistently, who maim and murder innocent babies, sometimes their own, deserves a second chance? Can anyone of the heart really believe that those who killed two people dedicated to the service of others, Jo Cox and David Amos, members of this House, deserve a second chance? Or those who that awful, self-deluded Islamist fanatic who plotted and planned and executed little girls at a pop concert.

Do they deserve a second chance? The second chance they deserve is when they stand before their maker. That's the only second chance they deserve and beg for forgiveness for. For us to forgive such extreme acts is to play God. Forgiveness at that level, to that degree, is beyond anyone in this chamber, beyond any human being. So that's what I think about second chances. And every time we make that case, we displace the proper attention we should give to victims.

As several of these amendments, particularly those in the name of my Rotherham prey attempt to do, we he has been champion of victims, as I've said before, and I'm afraid to say again, and he deserves great credit for being so. So we must again in advancing the amendments before us today, make a principled case for just desserts. Just desserts essentially means that people get what they deserve. Those who choose by any means, including violence and deception and the hurt they do to others to get what they want, deserve to be punished.

It is so true, so obvious, so intuitively right that that's the case. That of course, it's what the overwhelming majority of decent, law abiding people feel. It's what our constituents expect us to recognise and act upon, and those who suffer from the fear and reality of crime are frustrated, to say the least, that the old order, the liberal orthodoxy which has dominated public discourse for too long, doesn't recognise that plain fact. So I think it was Chesterton who said that tolerance is the value of a man without convictions.

And we hear a lot about tolerance, but we have far too little about convictions. That old order is out of tune with popular sentiment, and it's out of time. And yet the Sentencing Council perpetuate those prejudices, which is why it must go. It represents that old bankrupt order and a new order. I happily as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. Honourable member realise that. Sorry, right honourable member. Apologies. Right honourable member realised that the sentencing Council doesn't just pluck out of the air the sentence recommendations. They consult recommendations. They consult widely with a wide variety of organisations and the public and people working within the criminal people working within the criminal justice system before they come to their conclusions in relation to their conclusions in relation to the sentence that they propose, is the right sentence for those offences, so that they, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offences, so that they, the recognition should be there for the submit. But I simply say to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I simply say to the honourable lady that when we delegate that kind of authority to those that are unelected, those that are unelected, unaccountable, we're no longer doing our job. And the prevailing doing our job. And the prevailing view for a long time. This, by the way, is not entirely the fault of the party opposite. I think this is the party opposite. I think this is a problem with the whole political class, is we've created every kind class, is we've created every kind of body imaginable in every kind of aspect of government, to do things aspect of government, to do things that should be done by this House and by ministers of the Crown.

And the Council is just another of those kinds of bodies, and who knows who's on the Sentencing Council certainly most of the honourable lady or my constituents wouldn't have a clue, and they certainly wouldn't know how to influence them in any way. And of course, it's working. People that are most disadvantaged by that, not the privileged few who occupy the kind of social circles that no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doubt the Sentencing Council occupy. Too. But the people in the hard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But the people in the hard working, patriotic, law abiding majority in my constituency of hers majority in my constituency of hers are frustrated by a criminal justice system that persistently excuses the worst kind of crimes, excuses the worst kind of crimes, rather than punishing them as they rather than punishing them as they deserve to be. So there is a new future emerging as we build in the future emerging as we build in the post-liberal age, a new order and that order will be inspired by time that order will be inspired by time honoured truths.

It will be rooted honoured truths. It will be rooted in the will of the people and will be powered by a ceaseless be powered by a ceaseless determination to reconstruct our country, to our people. But said country, to our people. But said that said, the worst bad law is the that said, the worst bad law is the worst kind of tyranny. Tyranny of the cruelty of crime, the tyranny the cruelty of crime, the tyranny of disorder will haunt places and people across our country as the people across our country as the vile and vicious are let loose.

So I urge this House to accept the variety of amendments that I've mentioned and the many others on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Order Paper that attempt to rescue the bill from that horror. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I rise to speak to the amendments that I have laid, and
16:36
Esther McVey Portrait Rt Hon Esther McVey MP (Tatton, Conservative)
-
-
amendments that I have laid, and I'm delighted to be able to have another attempt at trying to stop this government from doing something that defies justice as well as common sense, and will make our streets less safe. As I said in the committee stage of this bill, my amendments would mean that some serious offenders would not be given the get out of jail free card being proposed by this government. Now, since the committee stage of this bill, we have had the ludicrous situation involving Shibata, who was released from prison after being jailed for sex offences.

Quite rightly, there was a public outcry and widespread condemnation from politicians. The massive irony of all of this, though, is that if this bill had already been passed, he would have qualified for the presumption of a suspended prison sentence and would not have been in prison in the first place. My amendments 1516 I 2425 I would mean that foreign offenders and sex offenders would not be included in the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence when an immediate prison sentence had been deemed to be the right outcome by the courts.

These amendments would mean that someone like Kabata would still be sent to prison in future. I hope those on the other side listening of the House now agree with these amendments, especially when the Health Secretary has said this man was behind bars because of serious sex offences. So the idea that he's loose on the streets is incredibly serious. Perhaps the Health Secretary will now back my amendment, and perhaps the Health Secretary will have a word with the Justice Secretary, who will also back my amendment regarding the Kabata debacle.

People have been blaming the incompetence of the prison staff in releasing him. And yet, if the government does not accept these amendments, then we will not need to be concerned about the incompetence or otherwise of our prison service, because these offenders won't even be going to prison at all. What we will, however, be sure of is of the incompetence of this government allowing these sentences changes to happen and not to be sending offenders like Bato to prison. Even the Secretary of State for justice himself apparently said, let's be clear Cabato committed a nasty sexual assault involving a young child and a woman.

And for these reasons, this is, of course, very serious. He also said on Monday, in this House, Mr. Kabatas victims are rightly outraged about what has happened. I am livid on their behalf and on behalf of the public, and that Mr. Cabato is back where he belongs behind bars. If it is so serious. And he really means that Cabato belongs behind bars, why on his watch will this bill ensure that the next Cabato will not be behind bars and won't be sent to prison in the first place? These are serious questions that need answering, and it is not too late for the government to stop this dangerous aspects of this bill, and prove to everyone outside this chamber that they're not hypocrites.

By accepting my amendments and while they're at it, they need to seriously reconsider accepting my amendments 20 and 29, which would stop those committing knife crimes from being eligible for suspended sentences. When it comes to proposing a non prison sentence for carrying a knife on our streets, and even allowing it to apply to those committing these offences more than once, the government should hang its head in shame. I'm sure many members in this House will know of cases where someone has been injured or killed by a knife.

Everyone who votes for this bill without amendment is going to be voting to let someone carrying a knife threaten with a knife, and even repeatedly. So avoid prison

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today when this inevitably leads to I will indeed give way. Lady. For giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. And while I don't doubt for a second her impassioned belief in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second her impassioned belief in the need to keep dangerous. Offenders off our streets.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would she agree with me that it government. That cut. Funding to our prisons? A 24%

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Funding to our prisons? A 24% real terms. Cut from. 2010 to 2015,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

real terms. Cut from. 2010 to 2015, resulting. In 30% cuts in staffing. And this. Does. Have clearly an impact on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have clearly an impact on the ability of any government to send individuals to prison. And that was something that happened under the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something that happened under the last government. If I. Could just remind the member of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could just remind the member of those dates and what had happened, the government had collapsed the economy at that time, the coalition economy at that time, the coalition had been brought into power to actually get the books back on actually get the books back on track. And unfortunately, as always happens after a Labour government spending then does have to be cut spending then does have to be cut because they've no doubt bankrupt the country. But from there, when there was more money in the bank, there was more money in the bank, we do need to invest more.

That is why the last Conservative government put £4 billion into building more prisons. Three are now completed and there is a further three left to be completed. So do members really want it on their conscience that they are now changing the laws for people with knives threatening with lives? I think not, and Labour has always talked tough about this matter, but now in a position to do something about it. Fail. And words like apolo possession, and will guarantee sanctions.

Sanctions for young people who carry knives. Those were the words of the Labour Party. But sadly Labour won't. Time and time again, Labour is proving to be a party of empty words and broken promises, and this will be yet another one. And there will be plenty of people ready and willing to remind them in the future of this, especially an outraged public. And there will be no words of comfort for the family of a needless victim of this type of crime.

Another thing members should think twice about is the fact that those who assault emergency workers will also be included in this prison avoidance bill. I know many Labour MPs who very much supported the introduction of the offence of assaulting an emergency worker, with its increased sentence for those convicted, and yet all of this will have been for nothing if this bill gets passed in its current form, because people assaulting emergency workers with sentences of 12 months or less will be very likely to avoid prison altogether.

So having worked hard at the time to increase the sentence to 12 months in prison for assaulting emergency workers, they will now effectively be agreeing to zero months in prison. In many cases. The honourable member for Rhondda and Ogmore, who introduced the assaults on Emergency Workers Offences Act 2018, did so, in his words, to ensure those assaulting emergency workers felt the full force of the law. The Right Honourable Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich said that she was supporting it.

The legislation was long overdue. The trade union supported it. The GMB national officer said at the time it's welcome to see arrests taking place, but we also need to see an increase in prosecution and tougher sentences handed down for these unacceptable assaults. My amendment 17 and 26 would exclude this offence from the bill and show support for those who risk their lives to keep us all safe. What a kick in the teeth it will be for emergency workers to know that this government does not have their backs at all.

It seems it would rather be on the side of many of those who assault our emergency workers, or who keep them from being sent to prison, as they should be sent to prison for doing that sort of thing. These amendments would also exclude assaults on those generally providing a public service. My amendment 16 and 25 also provide a number of exemptions to the presumption of a suspended prison sentence, based on the history of offending of the criminal in question.

For example, where someone has committed a serious offence that would be covered by the unduly lenient sentence scheme, or one that required a mandatory minimum sentence. The unduly lenient sentence scheme covers sexual offences, stalking, putting someone in fear of violence, serious harm or distress, controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, and inflicting grievous bodily harm or unlawful wounding, among other offences. The amendments would also prevent someone who is due to be sentenced for three or more offences, at the same time being covered too.

In addition, and crucially, these amendments would ensure that those who have been released early from prison and are out on licence would not be eligible for this presumption in favour of the suspended prison sentence for offending again when they should really be locked up. Getting one get out of jail free card due to early release is bad enough, but getting a second one would be an absolute scandal. And yet this is precisely what is being proposed in this bill.

My amendments 1819, 18, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30 and 31 would remove the suspended sentence presumption for those guilty of firearms offences, burglary, terrorist related offences and those who fail to surrender to custody. I cannot believe it has been necessary to have to even be putting these amendments down. Surely it makes sense that those people would be going to prison. But it seems with this government I'm having to lay those amendments to this abomination of a bill that is before the House today.

As the bill stands, the presumption of a suspended prison sentence will apply to those where the starting point for their sentence was 18 months. Sentences of this length are not given lightly. You have to be doing something pretty serious for this to be the starting point. However, by pleading guilty and getting a third off, the offender may have to be kept out of prison as they then would be at the 12 month sentence point and be covered by this bill.

Amendments 32 and 36 would mean that this would not be the case, as the sentence would have to be one of 12 months or less before the credit for a guilty plea was taken into account. Amendments 35 and 39 would mean that anyone avoiding prison thanks to this bill should have the maximum length of a suspended sentence given to them. In other words, the sentence would hang over for them, over them for as long a possible a longer time as possible.

Amendments 14 and 23 would also ensure that those given the suspended sentence are electronically tagged throughout, in the hope that might this reduce them to be reoffending or make it much easier to catch them if they do commit further offences, when again, they should already have been in prison? The Bill currently says that if the court is of the opinion that making the order would put a particular individual at significant risk of physical or psychological harm, then the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence would not apply.

My amendments 33 and 37 would take this a stage further to include the public. Why not any individual as opposed to a particular individual? Amendments 34 and 38 would also take out the word significant, so that any risk would be covered if the court believed that there is a risk to an identifiable person, or under identify a member of the public, then they should be also protected them by ensuring that the person causing the potential risk to them is locked up.

This does not seem like rocket science to me, and it would be completely wrong to do anything other than protect these people from all kinds of unnecessary risk. New clause 43 would mean that the bill would cease to have effect two years after its introduction. If anyone is seriously supporting this bill today on the basis that it is a necessary measure to alleviate prison overcrowding, then they should be happy to agree to this, seeing as we are hearing how many prison places the government are going to provide.

And we do know that there is another three prisons coming on board with about 4500 prison places. More importantly, though, we do not need a crystal ball to realise that this bill is going to cause untold damage to the country. Offenders will be laughing all the way to their next crime, and there will sadly be countless needless victims of crime. The public may not yet be fully aware of what is coming their way, but in two years they will have seen some of the consequences of this bill and many will want it to be urgently reversed.

This amendment will make that happen. When describing the botched release of Jack Abbott early this week, the Secretary of State for justice said any release in error is one too many. Well, I say to him, any get out of jail card under this bill is one too many, and this will certainly have been no error. It will have been by those on the opposite benches, by those in government. Very deliberate. My amendments would restrict some of the or try and restrict some of the damage that will otherwise be caused as a result of this bill.

It is absolutely clear that this government is proposing to let a whole load of serious criminals avoid prison and run amok in our communities, and I, as I am sure any right minded person here today voting wholeheartedly, would agree, and they will be opposing this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and agreeing to my amendments. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, I'd like to welcome the Minister and my former colleague to his place. I'd urge all members of this House to support the excellent amendments that have been tabled in the name that have been tabled in the name of my honourable friend the member for Chichester, particularly new clause 11, which is very logical, clause 11, which is very logical, very common sense. A suspension of driving licence during bail for driving related offences. And I
16:52
Ben Maguire Portrait Ben Maguire MP (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
driving related offences. And I also echo her praise of our honourable friend for Eastbourne for his excellent, passionate and successful campaign which the government have adopted on tagging domestic abuse crimes. But I do join her as well in urging the government to go further than that and support our new clause eight, which would make those crimes aggravated crimes. I'd like to turn now to my amendment new clause 35, which has been tabled on behalf of the Sultan family from my North Cornwall constituency.

It's already received support from across this House. Their campaign, known as Rowan's Law, was launched a few years ago by Helen and Mark Sultan after their son, Ryan was tragically hit and killed by a car leaving the village carnival in Saint Taft. The driver did not stop to check on Ryan. He didn't attempt to administer first aid, and he didn't phone the police or the emergency services. Instead, Ryan, a father of one, was left in the road to die. The driver drove into work the next day as if nothing had happened.

And what punishment, Madam Deputy Speaker, was the offender given for this fatal hit and run? Well, he avoided prison entirely and was handed just a four month suspended sentence by the Magistrates Court. Madam Deputy Speaker, the family themselves, of course, acknowledge that accidents happen, but to leave a young man dying in the road and not give it a second thought as the driver sped off, too cowardly to do the right thing and then not spend a single day in prison for his crimes.

I can't imagine the unbearable pain that the family must feel in response to this enormous injustice, they launched their Ryan's Law campaign, and with it a petition that received overwhelming national support, reaching 167,000 signatures. Because countless other families. Madam Deputy Speaker, have been affected by too many similar cases right across our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country, I would happily give way. Thank you. And I'd just like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I'd just like to bring attention to two cases in my constituency. One of. Which I've. Spoken about before in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spoken about before in this place. Where a lady lost her life. Indeed. And it was somebody.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it was somebody. Who was driving, looking at, phone. Again. That person. Did.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did. Not go to prison, but it's. It's absolutely tragic. The old clause has to. The honourable gentleman's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has to. The honourable gentleman's clause has. To set out those things which. To most of us would seem

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To most of us would seem absolutely natural. You shouldn't have to be told to stop, to report, to phone the police, to do all of these things. I just wonder if the honourable gentleman agrees with me. I think it's necessary to bring I think it's necessary to bring this clause forward, but it's a terrible shame that we live in a world where people don't think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world where people don't think that's the right way to behave. Therefore. I thank my honourable friend for that intervention. I completely that intervention. I completely agree with her. It's a horrible indictment on our society and our country that we have to bring a clause like this forward. But sadly, clause like this forward. But sadly, as is the case in so many cases, hundreds if not thousands of cases as the one that she rightly points as the one that she rightly points out, it is unfortunately necessary.

Mark and Helen Skelton and their daughter Leanne have campaigned campaigned tirelessly for years on this issue and the family have set up Rise Haven, a safe, dedicated space where grieving families of hit and run victims can escape to Cornwall to take a moment to breathe, process and recover from their heartbreaking traumas. Madam Deputy Speaker, my amendment new clause 35 would introduce three new aggravating factors into this bill that would mean offenders like the man who hit and killed Ryan Salton would have one failure to stop, two failure to administer first aid, and three failure to alert emergency services upon the hit and run added as aggravating factors, specifically when it comes to sentencing those guilty of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving.

I'd also like to support New Clause 21, which was tabled by the Honourable Member for Huntington, where death by dangerous driving should, of course, result in a lifetime driving ban. And as my honourable friend said earlier, it just seems common sense. I urge colleagues from across this House to support my amendment. This isn't just for Ryan and his family. This amendment is for the hundreds of hit and run victims across this country. I urge ministers to hear me and those thousands of loved ones who are left to suffer such injustice.

Please write this gross wrong. And if the government won't accept this amendment tonight, then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I sincerely hope they'll now give it serious consideration. Thank you. Steve Steve Barclay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Steve Steve Barclay. Thank you. Very much, Madam. Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. I rise because I think this bill illustrates a wider theme that we. See across. A number of the debates.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A number of the debates. That the. House has. And. That is the gap. Between the. Government's words. And how.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And how. They vote. And indeed. It. Is illustrated in a number. Of the new.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the new. Clauses that. Colleagues on. These benches have spoken to already in the debate. And in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already in the debate. And in. Particular. I start with new.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I start with new. Clause 14, my honourable friend t Member for Mid Leicestershire. See within.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

See within. The Labour manifesto. That sets out a. and. 17 year.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Olds the right to. Vote. But then says even. If they. Commit an offence. So serious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commit an offence. So serious that it warrants a custodial sentence of four or more. Years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Years. They are too young. To be named. Library. Just to clarify. Because a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to clarify. Because a custodial. Sentence of four and a half years. Or four years. Or more is not. Given out lightly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the courts, and particularly not to those. Of those age. And they said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And they said. These are offences, serious. Sexual offences. Murder. Armed robbery. We see. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Tweets from Members of. Parliament when a boy or girl is stabbed to death.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stabbed to death. Yeah. But the benches opposite are not willing to. Vote to. Name those who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Name those who. Commit those offences. And I think it is wrong to deny victims think it is wrong to deny victims the transparency when such serious. Offences have taken place. But it Offences have taken place. But it is bizarre to do so when then saying those people are old enough

**** Possible New Speaker ****

saying those people are old enough to. Vote at that. Age.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nor is that inconsistency. Madam speaker, limited to to that course. Let me take. A second example, Let me take. A second example, which is new clause 18, moved by my right honourable friend the member right honourable friend the member for Bexhill and Battle, because many people now look at the Labour many people now look at the Labour manifesto and say, well, what it said on energy bills isn't what they have done. What it said on they have done. What it said on council tax isn't what they've done, what they said to farmers is certainly not what they have done.

And with the budget very near by, I think we're very shortly see on tax what they said is not what they are about to do. And yet the front page of that Labour manifesto had a single word on it, which was change. I don't think most voters realise what they meant was change from the manifesto itself, as opposed to change in terms of policy and indeed change for the worst. But it's bizarre, isn't it, that, again, when serious offences take place, quite often the judiciary are the ones that get the blame, and it's very easy for people to look at the sentences from the judiciary, and perhaps it's an unfashionable view.

Actually, I think we have a very high quality judiciary in this country, and often people are quick to leap to criticise the judiciary and say it is their fault that the sentencing is wrong. And indeed there are cases, and not least my right honourable friend, the Shadow Justice Secretary has highlighted some of the concerning conflicts of some within the judiciary, but I think far more common is the issue that they are operating within the tramlines imposed by sentencing guidelines.

And indeed, I remember a constituency case where someone killed through dangerous driving highlighted the fact that whilst this House had increased the sentencing posture that should be imposed, the sentencing guidelines, so many obstacles to actually getting that maximum sentence, then in practice, hardly anyone ever reached the tariff that the House in its debate had intended. So it is right that key decisions on issues of public policy should not be outsourced to quangos. Where, as my neighbour, my right honourable friend, the member for South Holland and The Deepings highlighted, the public have no idea often who it is that is making the decisions.

And I come back to the manifesto. The manifesto promised change. But actually when it comes to the sentencing guidelines, it will be the same people applying the same approach and anything but change. So if the manifesto is to deliver change, then it is right that democratic oversight is imposed and that this House ministers take more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsibility. Of course, I. Can. Hear does the member agree with me that I don't think anywhere in me that I don't think anywhere in the Labour manifesto, did it say it was going to cut prison time for offenders?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offenders? Indeed. And this is why I say, I think the new clauses in this think the new clauses in this debate highlight a wider principle, which is driving much of the public frustration with the democratic process, this sense of people voting and then seeing decisions that they don't feel were on the that they don't feel were on the ballot paper. And again, I think my friend the member South Holland and The Deepings is right. This isn't The Deepings is right.

This isn't just an issue with this government. The government of which I was a member was guilty of this. Too many member was guilty of this. Too many decisions were outsourced to quangos, and I think there are lessons to be learned from that. lessons to be learned from that. And today's debate highlights that. I think very well. Madam, let me I think very well. Madam, let me turn to two other new clauses, not least because these are two new clauses on which the House will clauses on which the House will divide this evening.

And that is firstly, new clause 19. That firstly, new clause 19. That applies to something that again, I think unites the House. The horror at the murder of a police officer at the murder of a police officer or a prison officer. And this is particularly pertinent to myself because I have the privilege of representing a constituency with a maximum security prison, Whitemoor Prison, where the safety of prison officers in particular is pertinent. But of course, it also applies because all of us benefit from the safeguarding provided by, in my case, Cambridgeshire Police and the police more widely.

And I just question for Ministers what message it is sending to not just police officers and prison officers, but particularly to the families of police officers and prison officers if they tonight decide to vote against new clause 19, because it is not enough just to tweet after events how sorry they are, they have an opportunity tonight to vote to do something, and we will see in the division lobbies indeed how they do vote. Let me close with new clause 20, because I don't think I, alone in the House, was deeply moved by remarks of my right honourable friend, the member for Maidstone and Malling.

And I think one of the things that is most effective is members across the House, regardless of which party they are in, speak from their own deep professional expertise about issues that I think transcend party politics. And I think anyone hearing the case of Tony could not feel the revulsion, the horror. The shame of that offence in terms of what had been committed, and indeed, the passion in which my right honourable friend spoke to highlight that. And when someone with professional expertise highlights a case like that that transcends party politics, I just say as a former minister, that I sat where the minister now sits, that I hope he just reflects on the case put forward in terms of new clause 20, because I don't believe any members across the House want to see loopholes exploited, to see people move around the country to evade accountability and the ability to track any future offences.

And I think when someone speaks with that sort of professional expertise, I think I just emphasise to the minister that it is important with colleagues that they take on board the very practical concerns, because I think that is a concern shared across the House. It is a defective element within this bill. Members have an opportunity tonight to address it. The expectation is there will be a vote on new clause 20. Again, it is not the words, it is how people vote that will determine their response.

And I hope members across the House will respond to new clause 20. Bear in mind the case of Tony that was highlighted to the House and do the right thing. Thank you, Madam Speaker. you, Madam Speaker.
17:06
17:08
Monica Harding Portrait Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
weight of their caseloads, a system once respected for its fairness and once respected for its fairness and efficiency is now struggling to deliver timely justice. One major cause is the limit imposed on the cause is the limit imposed on the number of sitting days available to judges. In effect, we are deliberately rationing justice. Successive governments have chosen to restrict Crown Court sitting to restrict Crown Court sitting days. The previous Conservative administration cut them drastically up to 2020 and then reintroduced a up to 2020 and then reintroduced a cap in 2021.

The current Labour government, disappointingly, has continued that practice, fixing the continued that practice, fixing the number of sitting days for 24 to 25 number of sitting days for 24 to 25 at 108,500. That figure, announced only in December, was thousands only in December, was thousands below what the courts had planned for, and nearly 5000 short of the 113,000 days His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service advised were needed to meet basic operational capacity. But even 113,000 sitting days would not open every courtroom.

As Sir Brian Leveson review made clear, we would need at least clear, we would need at least 130,000 to bring all courtrooms fully into use. Anything less is a conscious choice to leave some courtrooms dark. Some judges idol and thousands of victims waiting. And meanwhile the backlog grows. The Crown Court caseload has reached historic heights, with more than 73,000 outstanding cases, and it is only growing in the first quarter of 2025. 2000 more cases were received than disposed of. 1 in 4 open cases has been waiting over a year, and in some instances, trials are not being listed until 2029.

When I visited my own local Kingston Crown Court, I saw the impact firsthand. They're one of many across the London region, which suffers as the region sees its backlog increase by 25%. Staff spoke of the frustration of empty courtrooms, rooms that could be hearing trials but are instead shuttered by bureaucracy. For my constituents in Esher and Walton, that means longer waits for justice for victims of assault or burglary, of sexual violence, who are left to relive their relive their trauma every time their trial is postponed.

Witnesses lose faith, memories fade, and confidence in justice evaporates. Caps on Crown Court sitting days are not a matter of efficiency. They are a false economy. We are paying for court buildings, for security, for staff, for judges. Yet we prevent them from working to full capacity. And the consequences are severe. Victims and witnesses are waiting months, even years for closure. Defendants on bail remain in limbo, their futures in the balance. Some guilty defendants plead not guilty in the hope that Delay will work in their favour.

In the process, public faith in the criminal justice system and politics deteriorates. Justice delayed is justice denied. Each time a case is adjourned or pushed back, a victim's faith in the justice dies a little more. Communities lose confidence that the system will protect them, and that loss of trust is corrosive. It undermines everything from police co-operation to jury participation. It is deeply disappointing that the government has not brought a motion to this Bill, meaning Parliament cannot directly remove the cap today.

But new clause 42 offers a constructive step forward. It would require the government to confront the evidence and to assess transparently and publicly whether this cap serves justice or undermines it. Madam Deputy Speaker, we cannot continue to ignore a crisis that every practitioner, every victim and every judge can see unfolding before their eyes. Removing the cap would not solve every problem in our courts, but it would allow them to function at their full capacity. It would mean fewer empty rooms, more trials heard, and faster justice for those who need it most.

New clause 42 is a vital amendment that shines a light on the cost of cap and justice, and that begins the work of restoring confidence in our criminal courts. Justice delayed is justice denied, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is time we stopped denying justice to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people we serve. Thank you. Jim Allister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, much of this bill does not apply to my constituents because in the main, constituents because in the main, this bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. But there is a Northern Ireland. But there is a key component of this bill which is supposed to apply to Northern Ireland, because the extent clause Ireland, because the extent clause says that part four applies. Of course, that is that part that
17:12
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
course, that is that part that deals with the very important issue of the deporting of foreign criminals. But my question to this House tonight is will it in fact apply to Northern Ireland? Yes. This is said to be the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is said that when this Parliament decides something, that is it decided when it applies at all to citizens in the United Kingdom. That is the end of the story.

But sadly, I know, and this House needs to know and needs to act upon it. Not once, not twice, but three times. This House has passed bills which it said apply to the whole United Kingdom, and not once, not twice, but three times. The courts in this land overruled. And disapplied parts of those bills to my constituents and to my part of the United Kingdom. Those were the Rwanda bill, the illegal migration bill of 2023, and the soon to be defunct legacy Bill.

Now, how could that be that this sovereign Parliament decides we are legislating on issues affecting constituents across this United Kingdom? We are passing laws which we say applies to them all, but which, it turns out, does not. Well, the answer, sadly, is article two of the Windsor framework, because article two of the Windsor framework purports to trump this sovereign Parliament. It says in respect of Northern Ireland, that where there are EU laws, laws not made by this House, those made by a foreign jurisdiction, laws, we don't make, laws we can't change.

But if there are foreign EU laws which bestow on citizens or those in Northern Ireland rights which are different from the rest of the United Kingdom, then those rights will trump this sovereign Parliament. That is a frightening reality, which this House, of course, has been running away from ever since it agreed to the withdrawal Agreement and the protocol, now called the Windsor Framework. And it comprises a fundamental assault upon not just the sovereignty of this House, but the legitimate expectations of my constituents that it was subject to the equal citizenship that is supposed to come from being a part of this United Kingdom.

What article two, one of the Windsor framework sets is that protections which are enshrined in the provisions of union law. That's EU union law, which are listed in annexe one, which are provisions about rights. And of course, on top of that, we have the fact, the appalling prospect that never mind rights in 300 areas of law, this Parliament cannot legislate for Northern Ireland because a foreign Parliament that we don't elect will legislate for Northern Ireland on many matters touching on goods and our trade and all other sorts of matters.

But when it comes to rights, there are ensconced through article two of the protocol rights, which can trump the will of this House. Article four of the withdrawal agreement says that people can rely directly on its provisions, where they meet conditions for direct effect on an EU law concept. And that, of course, is delivered by section seven A of the European Union Withdrawal Act of 2018, which gives direct effect automatically as part of UK domestic law, and says that other UK legislation must be read and applied subject to these EU provisions.

And that is what has happened and that is how the three acts have referred to have been overruled in respect of people in Northern Ireland, in the parts where they offended EU rights and registration. Our own Supreme Court has said this. The answer to any conflict between the protocol and any other enactment. Whenever passed or made, is that those other enactments are to be read and have effect subject to the rights and obligations which are to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section seven A2.

In other words, if EU law says something different than our national law, than EU law applies. And it was in the Dillon case that the Court of Appeal decreed that they would disapply parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy Act because it offended rights supposedly given to victims by EU law. Of course, the Dillon judgement is before the Supreme Court presently, or relevant parts of it, which will shed some light as to how far the Court of Appeal is correct about the wide application of article two of the protocol, and we await that judgement with interest.

But when it came to the Illegal Migration Act of 2023, it was disapplied because it diminished asylum rights as protected by EU law and the Dillon case made it very clear that it's the same logic that that which is applied by article two can trump this House. Now, how does that apply to the deportation of foreign criminals? We've already, if that foreign criminal is an EU national, if they are an EU national, they already have the protection of the EU Citizens Rights Directive, which gives them enhanced protection against deportation.

So there may be two categories. There may in the Northern Ireland courts, be foreign criminals who are convicted, who are EU citizens. If they are, it seems to be beyond doubt that they will have the added protection of the Citizens Rights Directive of the EU. But if they're not, if they're from somewhere else and they're a foreign criminal, they are also likely to have enhanced protections, which you wouldn't have in Great Britain if you were a foreign criminal convicted because of the importation of the reliance upon the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms.

The European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms is there to assist, according to our courts, the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights and in article 19 of the European Charter for Human Rights. It affords particular protections against deportation. It says each deportation must be specifically examined. You cannot have a provision for collective deportation. And of course, the thrust of part four is to create a scenario where if you are a foreign criminal convicted in our courts, then the presumption is towards deportation.

And so it should be. So it does seem to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we are again entering into territory where a very laudable, a very necessary, a very proper provision of this House, that foreign criminals should be deported from wherever they are convicted in this United Kingdom, does seem to me that we're entering into territory where, though that is apparently the will of this House, it's a will which will be thwarted by our subjugation in Northern Ireland, to the outrage of overriding EU law and provisions.

That's why, in the Second Reading of this bill, I asked the minister about this issue. I didn't get an answer, so I'm asking the question again, because the explanatory document for this bill is totally silent on the impact of article two of the Windsor framework on its provisions. So I'm asking again for an answer. Is there a risk? Is it, in fact, the expectation that the provisions in respect of deportation of foreign criminals will not be able to apply in Northern Ireland? Is that conceded? Is that the expectation, or is there an answer as to why that won't be the situation? Because, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Wouldn't it be outrageous if a foreign criminal in one part of the United Kingdom faces deportation as the will of this House, but if he happens to be convicted for the same offence in my part of the United Kingdom, he is cocooned from deportation. Wouldn't that be an outrage to the sovereignty of this House? Wouldn't it also create a magnet for foreign criminals to ensure that they're going to indulge themselves in crime? The best place to do it would be the place where from which you cannot be deported.

So it is a serious issue. Serious issue for me, serious issue for my constituents. But a serious constitutional issue that this House has yet to face up to. It doesn't just affect article two of the Windsor framework, it affects the very fact that there are 300 areas of law touching, shipping much of our economy in Northern Ireland, certainly controlling our trade laws, which are beyond the reach of the sovereignty of this House and lie in the whim and the wish of a foreign Parliament that should offend each one of us as members of this House.

And it should so offend us that we determined to do something about writing that wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Jake Richards. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I thank all honourable members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate. This is. A landmark piece. Of legislation which gives us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of legislation which gives us the chance to put an end. To. The prison capacity crisis. And build. A better justice system. Let me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me. Be clear at the outset of this debate, this government believes prison can work. That's why we are undertaking the largest prison building programme since the building programme since the Victorian era. Many offenders must be sent there, some for a very long time, some for the rest of their lives. This government has already opened 2500 places since we came to opened 2500 places since we came to office. Came to office. We have a commitment to build 14,000 further places. And despite what has been places.

And despite what has been said by the opposition, by the end of this Parliament, under a Labour government, there will be more criminals in our prisons than ever before. But we cannot only build our way out of this crisis. We must reform sentencing to ensure our criminal justice system is sustainable. The changes in this bill will ensure we never face a situation the conservatives left behind. The very real prospect that behind. The very real prospect that the most serious offenders would not face prison at all.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in a competitive Deputy Speaker, in a competitive field, the state the last government left our prisons was perhaps the most appalling aspect of the Tory legacy. It was so appalling that when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond, became aware of the scale of the crisis, he gave up and called an election. It was the last shameful act of a vandalising, incompetent government. This bill represents the work of a government pulling up its sleeves and getting on with the job, however difficult that may be.

Of course I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. I really welcome this sentencing bill because I think sentencing bill because I think what my constituents want is not only criminals being punished for their crime, but the prevention of their crime, but the prevention of future crime. It shouldn't just be about about that punishment, which is very rightly owed to a lot of is very rightly owed to a lot of people, but about. Making sure our communities are safe in the future. So I was wondering, could the So I was wondering, could the minister lay out how the intensive supervision courts that are in this bill will help to do that? Yes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill will help to do that? Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This bill doesn't just stabilise the bill doesn't just stabilise the prison system, but it also goes further and tackles reoffending. She mentioned the intensive supervision course, but also the supervision course, but also the reforms we're going to be taking to short term sentences, which will cut reoffending, and we know it will cut reoffending from evidence will cut reoffending from evidence that the last Conservative government commissioned. It was why the exact provision on short term sentencing, which they're all sentencing, which they're all howling with outrage at now, was in legislation that the last government put forward.

Completely government put forward. Completely hypocritical. My honourable friend is completely right. So this bill represents a government that steps up to the challenge rather than putting their head in the sand. I want to turn to some of the amendments and the specifics of the amendments and the specifics of the debate we've heard today. And I want to start with new clause 20, which was put down in the in the name of the honourable member for Bexhill and Battle. But I want to begin by paying tribute to the honourable member for Maidstone and Malling, who has put her name to this amendment, and who I've had the pleasure of speaking with on numerous occasions this week in the build up to the debate.

She spoke incredibly powerfully about her own experience in the family courts, and I share that experience. Madam Deputy Speaker, before coming to this place, I was a barrister who spent a lot of time on legal aid cases representing local authorities, family members or indeed guardians, and exactly the types of cases that the honourable member raises. And I share her concerns and I want to pay tribute to her constituent, Paula Hudgell, who has been campaigning for a child abuse register with such eloquence and passion for some time.

Her work, her life, her dedication to Tony and others deserves enormous gratitude from across the House and on the government's behalf. I say thank you for all she and her family have done and continue to do, and I welcome the constructive comments from the Shadow Minister on this particular amendment and issue. And I can be very clear that Paula has identified a problem in the system, and we are determined to fix it. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To give. Way, I will give way, yes. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. And can I welcome his comments on amendment 20 on a possible child protection register? My constituents, Gemma Chappell and Rachel Walls, have been campaigning for stronger child protection measures after their great niece, Maya, was murdered by her mother's Maya, was murdered by her mother's abusive partner. Does the minister agree with me that measures such as agree with me that measures such as a child protection register and Maya's law can only help to protect our children and all children like Maya and Tony and others? And what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Maya and Tony and others? And what steps will he be taking to follow up? I'm grateful to my friend and the answer is yes. The problem that
17:28
Jake Richards Portrait Jake Richards MP (Rother Valley, Labour)
-
-
the answer is yes. The problem that has been identified as a problem in the system and we are determined to fix it. It simply cannot be right that some horrific child abusers are able to have access to children, live with children, work with children at the end of their sentence without any system of monitoring or notification upon the end of their sentence. The government cannot support the amendment today because work needs to be done to understand the demand. Different options would place upon different public services.

It would be wrong to legislate now without a fuller or even basic understanding of whether we have the capacity to deliver a register, as is proposed safely. There are there are numerous options before us, and it is right that any new system is tailored in terms of who holds that information and the duties placed upon them to ensure the particular risk is adequately and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proportionately managed. In the. Yes position he seems to have articulated is literally bizarre. articulated is literally bizarre. He's saying he fully agrees with the problem and the remedy set out the problem and the remedy set out by my right honourable friend. They've had 14 years in opposition. They've had over a year in They've had over a year in government. They have brought the bill at this time. And then he's saying, notwithstanding the fact saying, notwithstanding the fact we've brought this bill after over a year in office and agreeing with the problem and agreeing with the diagnosis, he's still going to vote diagnosis, he's still going to vote tonight and ask his backbenchers to vote tonight against fixing the issue.

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue. Yes. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have identified a problem, but it would be wholly irresponsible to legislate when we have not had the opportunity to ensure that public services complete the task. That would be irresponsible. And the honourable member criticises us for not taking action. Now, what about not taking action. Now, what about the last 14 years on this issue? What about the recommendations of the independent review into sexual the independent review into sexual abuse, which reported in 2020 2nd November 2022, and the last government did absolutely nothing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government did absolutely nothing on those recommendations? Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes. I hear what he has to say. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hear what he has to say. I hear what the minister has to say. Will he bring forward a government amendment to introduce a child cruelty register when the bill moves to the House of Lords?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Great point, good point. We'll be speaking with Home Office colleagues and others to look at the possibility of doing look at the possibility of doing that. Absolutely. And she has my word as her constituent, who is no doubt watching this debate carefully, that I will be working carefully, that I will be working at speed on this. But what I do not want to do is make promises that the government cannot keep. And so it's absolutely vital that we do the work.

We understand the burden this will place on the services that will need to take this work to that will need to take this work to make sure this is done. But I want to be clear, this is a problem. We accept it's a problem and we're accept it's a problem and we're going to take action to solve it. I will continue to have conversations with the honourable member for Maidstone and Malling as part of Maidstone and Malling as part of that process, and I welcome the offer of cross-party talks as well.

And I've spoken with colleagues from the Department of Education from the Department of Education and the Home Office. And of course, I'd be eager, if appropriate and possible, to speak with Paula herself to ensure we get this right. But as I said in answering the intervention, we want to do that quickly. I've also asked officials quickly. I've also asked officials in my department to look at what can be done within the criminal justice system itself, which is within the Ministry of Justice, to within the Ministry of Justice, to track child abuse offenders and offences involving child cruelty.

I thank the honourable member for her thank the honourable member for her work on this, and look forward to working together with her and other honourable members who've shown an interest in this issue to achieve interest in this issue to achieve an important change in safeguarding, which is absolutely necessary. I want to turn now to new clause 12, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. This speaks. This amendment seeks to allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence.

It is important to note, as we had a brief discussion outside the chamber about this, that remand prisoners can already access these programmes where prisons run them. We accept as a government that there is a lack of these provisions within our prisons. That's something that we absolutely have to improve and work upon. But of course, we must remember that remand prisoners have not been convicted of an offence, and they can't be required to undertake any of these services. But it's an issue that I'm very much aware of.

I'll continue to have the conversation with her and other colleagues about that over the coming weeks and months, as we look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to improve those services within prisons, of course. Can I can. I congratulate Mr. On his bill,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate Mr. On his bill, which can undo the damage done to the prison system over the past 14 years of neglect and mismanagement? years of neglect and mismanagement? But while he's in listening mode, as he clearly is, it is capable of improvement. I tabled a number of improvement. I tabled a number of amendments designed to improve the bill at committee stage last week. I'll write to him to remind him I'll write to him to remind him what those are. But will he look at those proposals? But they made in good faith to see whether changes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

good faith to see whether changes can be made in the other place. I welcome, as always, the contributions of the Chair of the contributions of the Chair of the Select Committee. I am very aware of the array of amendments that we discussed before committee stage last week, within the last seven days. I haven't yet returned to them, but we no doubt will in the coming weeks as this bill coming weeks as this bill progresses. I briefly want to touch upon the issue of probation.

A number of amendments that have been put down by the honourable member put down by the honourable member for Hayes and Harlington, and spoken of by other honourable members as well. The government accepts that this sentencing bill accepts that this sentencing bill places a an extra responsibility on the probation service. That's why we're investing £750 million into we're investing £750 million into probation, a 45% increase. The biggest upgrade in investment in probation for a generation. It's probation for a generation. It's why we're investing £8 million to improve technology so the probation officers can undertake probation work rather than be stifled with the burden of paperwork.

It's why we recruited 1000 probation probation officers in our first year, 1300 this year. But there is undoubtedly more work to be done, and we will be undertaking that work in the coming weeks and months. On the issue of work, this government has been very clear that work must be at the heart of our prisons to ensure that offenders work can be rehabilitated, and as and when they leave prison, they are able to enter society with the prospects of employment. Clearly, some of the details as to how that work provision is provided and the role of the private sector have to be worked out and have to be worked out carefully.

I'm very happy to meet with the Justice Trade Union group to discuss that, but I will never apologise for ensuring that there is work provision in our prisons because it's absolutely vital on this side of the House. We are the party of work. We believe in. The inherent value of work and work in our prisons plays a vital course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really grateful for my hon. Friend's responses on work in prison, which I completely agree, prison, which I completely agree, make a huge difference to the opportunities that prisoners have to be able to stop their reoffending behaviour. And when 80% reoffending behaviour. And when 80% of offending is reoffending, costing over £18 billion a year, it costing over £18 billion a year, it is quite clear that we need to enable people to turn their lives around. Would my honourable friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

around. Would my honourable friend agree that our communities will be safer when we're able to actually tackle tackle reoffending rates? Yeah, absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, absolutely. I agree with my right honourable friend, and she's raised this important issue in an adjournment debate very recently. We are taking debate very recently. We are taking steps to provide further provision of work within our prisons, working with the private sector and the with the private sector and the third sector and others. But there's more to do, and we certainly accept that. Briefly, on certainly accept that. Briefly, on New clause 24 and the final speech from the honourable member.

Simply put, he asked me a direct question. put, he asked me a direct question. We don't agree. We do not think that this amendment is necessary. The government's view is very clear The government's view is very clear on the legal analysis of the proposed change, that the portion of deportation of foreign national offenders would not be prohibited offenders would not be prohibited by the provisions within the Windsor framework. If the honourable member disagrees with that analysis, I'm very happy to that analysis, I'm very happy to meet with him to discuss that and look into it, because he's absolutely right that it would be wrong in the scenario that he painted towards the end of his speech, if different parts of the country had different provisions in regard to the deportation of foreign national offenders.

So I want to give him that reassurance at the despatch box. Yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister. Give assurance that if it turns out to be that there is a out to be that there is a distinction and that foreign nationals cannot be deported from Northern Ireland because of article two of the framework that he will undertake to legislatively override

**** Possible New Speaker ****

undertake to legislatively override that, so that we do have equality, a right across the United Kingdom. As I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I. Say, Madam Deputy Speaker, if there is a problem we don't accept, there is. If there is a problem, there is. If there is a problem, then we'll look to fix it because it's not right. The scenario he painted, which we don't accept will happen as a result of this happen as a result of this legislation, is not right. I want to turn now to the issue of short sentences and amendments 1539, sentences and amendments 1539, several amendments put down by the honourable member for Tatton.

These are a series of amendments that aim to widen the scope of the exemption, or to eat away at the 12 month definition of short sentences. This is the wrong direction and I want is the wrong direction and I want to set out why. Firstly, we need to clear up some myths shared by the opposition on this issue. Either opposition on this issue. Either they be either they are being wilfully ignorant or simply do not understand the legislation before us. We are not abolishing short sentences as the Shadow Justice Secretary wrongly stated in the House on Monday this week.

He was a briefly a corporate solicitor, and I hope he would know better to actually read the legislation before commenting on it. Judges will always have discretion to send offenders to prison, and short sentences have an important function, especially in certain domestic abuse and violence against women and girls cases. This legislation makes it clear that the presumption does not apply where the offender poses a significant risk of physical and psychological harm to a particular individual, where they breach a court order or in exceptional circumstances.

At committee, the government went further. We strengthened this provision to ensure that breaches of all civil court orders, such as the Dvpo, the Domestic Violence Protection Order, was covered more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

broadly. Yes, of course. Domestic abuse remains remains

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Domestic abuse remains remains the deepest scar on our society, and it's an issue that demands our collective action to eradicate. Can collective action to eradicate. Can the Minister please outline the measures in this bill that will measures in this bill that will help tackle this invidious form of violence and enable improved support for victims during the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process? Again, I thank the honourable member for intervention. The the the most important part of this bill in that regard is the domestic abuse identifier, which has abuse identifier, which has actually been worked on on a cross-party basis with outside organisations campaigning for it, which is really innovative and which is really innovative and important step to ensure that these cases, which are broad, brush different offences, but they can all be covered by this one term, all be covered by this one term, can now be tracked through the criminal justice system and out for safeguarding agencies to ensure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safeguarding agencies to ensure that women are kept safe from their abusers. Yes, of course. I know the interest of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know the interest of the member opposite in domestic abuse and other offences. Will the minister just confirmed to her, his minister just confirmed to her, his colleague, that the vast majority of offenders convicted of offences related to domestic abuse will get related to domestic abuse will get out of prison much, much earlier as a result of this bill? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, again, as he knows, for each offence the judge will have full discretion as to their sentence. And secondly, when I sentence. And secondly, when I speak to victims of domestic abuse and I've worked with victims, I've represented victims of domestic abuse in courts. The things that abuse in courts. The things that they fear the most is when the prison system was at the verge of collapse, to the point where some collapse, to the point where some of the most serious offenders would never have faced prison at all.

never have faced prison at all. Madam Deputy Chair, more broadly, I'm just going to finish this point and then I'll give way because I'm dealing with the honourable dealing with the honourable member's amendments more broadly, we know that suspended sentences and community centres can be more effective at reducing reoffending. effective at reducing reoffending. The level of reoffending for those who serve short sentences is staggeringly high. As I've said staggeringly high. As I've said already, it is research that was commissioned by the last Conservative government which shows that short sentences lead to more re-offending, meaning tens of thousands of more criminal offences being committed each year.

This is research the Shadow Justice team research the Shadow Justice team continue to cite. So when they vote to drop this provision from the legislation, legislation at the last Conservative government put forward, they are voting for more crimes blighting our communities. And the opposition know this is And the opposition know this is common sense because, as I've said before, they propose this this measure was a Conservative proposal towards the end of the last Parliament, and now they're opposing it for opposition's sake. Madam Deputy Speaker, this provision on short term sentences will begin to break the cycle of reoffending that does such damage to communities across the country.

And we reject the amendments by the honourable member from Tatton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Minister, for allowing me to speak. Now. All sides of the House were concerned about attacks on emergency workers. about attacks on emergency workers. Offenders sentenced to 12 months or less now getting suspended less now getting suspended sentences. Can the Minister make on the record state on the record? That won't be the case. They will That won't be the case. They will still be going to prison, something that all sides of the House want to protect emergency workers? Or are protect emergency workers? Or are you going to down?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you going to down? The judge on any given case, awful offence such as that will have the power under this legislation to send that person to prison. And that's absolutely right. And that hasn't changed at all. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to turn to new clause 19. And first of all, I have huge sympathy with this all, I have huge sympathy with this amendment. The shadow justice spokesperson, I think, gave me the spokesperson, I think, gave me the opportunity to meet Lenny Scott's mother, and I would absolutely take him up on that and be very happy to him up on that and be very happy to do so and look forward to it.

As he knows, there is a review on homicide law being undertaken by the Law Commission. It would be the Law Commission. It would be wrong to pre-empt that. I'm sympathetic to the motivation behind this amendment, but it would be wrong to pre-empt that review. As he noted in his remarks, this offence, this offender, this awful offender, was convicted of life imprisonment with a minimum term, minimum term of 45 years. But I understand the mischief that he's trying to tackle with this amendment will await the review on homicide laws from the Law Commission.

Yes, I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister is perfectly capable of legislating on this particular measure and letting the homicide work carry on. When he homicide work carry on. When he says it's wrong, it's not wrong. It's just a choice that he's choosing to make. And it's the wrong choice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wrong choice. Exactly as I say, I'm not going to be pre-empting the Law Commission's review on homicide, but I'm sympathetic to the measures. I look forward to meeting this victim's family, and we'll be taking steps in due progress. I taking steps in due progress. I want now to turn to the progression model, a new clause 36, now withdrawn by my honourable friend withdrawn by my honourable friend for Amber Valley and spoken about with such passion by my honourable friend the member for Hyndburn.

I friend the member for Hyndburn. I met with my honourable friend for Amber Valley and understand the motivation behind this this amendment. There is appetite within amendment. There is appetite within government to go further to offer positive functionality to the progression model, but primary legislation is probably not the legislation is probably not the appropriate mechanism for delivering a stronger system for incentivising rehabilitation in prisons. I want to briefly explain prisons. I want to briefly explain the current framework as set out in legislation bad behaviour, for example, acts of violence or example, acts of violence or possession of a mobile phone can mean more time in custody.

We are making this tougher to ensure there is more bite and discipline within is more bite and discipline within our prisons, with doubling the maximum punishment from 42 days to 84 days per incident. By secondary legislation, there will be no automatic release for badly behaved offenders, but I accept myself and Lord Timpson in the other place, will be looking at the current incentives policy framework to see how we can further incentivise engagement with self-improvement services, whether in work or education. We expect prisoners to work in prison and where they have educational needs to engage in classes to support reading, literacy, maths and vocational skills.

That is why we are building partnerships with employers and looking to increase the amount of time prisoners working in industry to increase employment skills. As I said to the honourable member in our meeting, I look forward to working with her and others to look at how we can expand and improve this framework to ensure the Earned Progression model is as effective

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as possible at that point? Yes. Does he accept that he's legislating to let these people out legislating to let these people out automatically and then just expecting Labour members on a promise that later on, at some point, he might introduce some point, he might introduce some legislation for some of them, a small proportion of them, to not get out. He's legislating to let them out automatically. Whatever he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them out automatically. Whatever he says at the despatch box, that's at the consequence of his legislation. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm getting increasingly confused by some of these interventions. As I set out before, the government are set out before, the government are setting out very clear measures by which we're going to improve discipline in our prisons. That's discipline in our prisons. That's part of the progression model, which is learnt from the Texas model, where they've seen crime model, where they've seen crime reduced by 33%. They've closed 16 prisons at the same time. I think we should learn from good examples abroad.

The other party have no abroad. The other party have no idea what their position is anymore. I want to turn to new clause 14, I want to turn to new clause 14, brought by the honourable member for Mid Leicestershire. The most serious offences are already dealt serious offences are already dealt with in the Crown Court, even involving those offenders aged under 18, and it is at the under 18, and it is at the discretion of the judge as to whether their identity is reported upon.

There is a clear balancing act that's always in the act that's always in the consideration of the judge between the principles of open justice and also the welfare of the child. It's right that that discretion remains with the judges. I would also just gently say to the honourable member that the scope of this sentencing bill was the adult estate. There is work to be done in the youth justice system. We will be taking steps in due course to look at this. This may be something we can come back to as part of that provision, but this focus much more on the adult estates.

And that is also a point in regards to new clause one, again brought by the honourable member for Mid Leicestershire. I want to go into some detail on this because it is important and it's an important issue that he raises with regard to parenting orders. It is right that those responsible for a child's care will be involved in their rehabilitation where possible. To that end, courts have the power to issue a parenting order where a child has been convicted of an offence. Parenting orders require the parents or guardian to comply for up to 12 months with certain requirements.

Non-compliance can lead to breach proceedings in court, while parenting orders can be a good option for some children. Youth offending teams that I've spoken to often decide that it is more effective to engage and build relationships with parents wherever possible on a voluntary basis, without resorting to a parenting order. Many parents will engage readily and take part in specific parenting support activities, as well as programmes and on financial orders. Children are naturally limited in their access to the funds necessary to meet the conditions of a financial order.

To that end, where the child is under 16, any financial order must be met by the parents or guardian. For children aged 16 or 17, the fine may be imposed on either the parent or child themselves, whether they are used in particular case is best determined by the court, with access to professional advice from the yacht or youth offending team. It is right that the court, which has access to information on the individual circumstances of a child, retains that discretion to determine whether such interventions are well placed to support their rehabilitation.

I can undertake to the House today that I will be looking at this as part of our continued review of the youth justice system. We do not think that it needs primary legislation for a dedicated assessment, which is vague in the form of his amendments, and therefore we urge the House to reject this amendment too. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to turn to the issue of driving. There's an array of amendments before the House which relate to driving offences and an understandable sense from the House about the need to go further and strengthen or tighten our use of driving bans for criminal offences.

These amendments have been put down by the Honourable Member for Huntingdon and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. But I also want to pay tribute to the work of the honourable member for West Bromwich, amongst others, as well as the honourable member for North Cornwall who has raised this issue in this House. It should be noted that this legislation offers new provisions to order a driving ban for offenders who receive a suspended or community sentence, even if their offence did not relate to driving. But I have been persuaded in the course of the debates in this House and in my relatively short period in this role, of the need to look again at driving bans and do so properly and rigorously.

I've organised a meeting with my colleague in the Department for transport to discuss this issue and to ensure the points and individual cases raised during this debate and the debate last week are considered in the government's road safety strategy that is being developed. It is right that proper and further analysis is undertaken as to the current situation and how we can encourage greater use of driving bans. I promise that I will ensure this House is updated as to the development of that work, and have I have reached out to road safety charities to ensure they are consulted and kept informed to.

It is right that we investigate this issue carefully, and it is also important to say that the courts already have the discretion to implement these driving bans in precisely the way various amendments seek for them to do so. I want to turn now to new clause 31. These are exclusions from recall measures which have been spoken to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. There are a number of offences listed within this amendment that are already excluded from the fixed term recall provisions. Many others are able to receive sentences which would be beyond the scope of the fixed term recall provisions, but we understand the concerns raised by the honourable member.

There is a balance to be struck between recognising the risks posed and ensuring there is a sustainable system. Before any recalled offender is released, the Probation Service will undertake a thorough review of release plans and licence conditions, ensuring needs and risk are managed, with a focus on mitigating risks against known victims. This will take account of any patterns of behaviour. Recall remains an important public protection tool. Where risk escalates. There are still challenged looking at the 56 days and the provision of education for those that are returned on recall, we've had discussions outside of the chamber will continue to do so.

It's an issue that I'm aware of, Lord Timpson's aware of and will be making progress on that issue in due course. Very briefly. New clause 22, brought forward by the honourable member for Esher and Walton. This relates to the awful Crown Court delays that we experienced in this country. Again, another element of the rotten legacy that we received by the Conservative Party. Brian Leveson has reported on this, and Minister Sam Carling will be bringing forward the government's response to that in due course.

It's an urgent issue and all of these issues prison capacity, justice, rehabilitation, reoffending can only be solved if we have a functioning court system. And so that's a twin approach sorting out our prisons, stabilising our prisons, reforming sentencing and also dealing with the Crown Court backlog will be at the heart of this government's approach.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Throughout this Parliament. I will give way to my friend. Minister, for giving way. Just one small omission there. Could the one small omission there. Could the Minister confirm that this government are looking at legal aid provision in this country as well, because it's come up from several

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because it's come up from several members here today, will that be addressed by the government? Yes. Madam Deputy Speaker, legal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Madam Deputy Speaker, legal aid is obviously absolutely vital. Right to legal aid is important. The government understand that. Right. We'll continue to look at it. Right. We'll continue to look at it. There are financial constraints that we're all aware of. But legal aid is very important. We've made certain commitments in regards to employment tribunals, and we'll be continuing to look at that over the continuing to look at that over the coming months. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll turn now to amendment seven, which would remove clause 20 regarding the changes made to the release of certain offenders.

Let us start with the most basic promise of our justice system, promise of our justice system, where offenders are caught and they pose a risk to the public, we will ensure there is a capacity in our ensure there is a capacity in our prisons for them to serve a custodial sentence. It sounds straightforward, a fundamental tenet of the social contract, but that is what was damaged and broken by the last Tory government in July by the last Tory government in July last year. Our prisons were essentially full.

The government, disgracefully, could not fulfil disgracefully, could not fulfil that most basic promise to the British people, and the party opposite should be ashamed of themselves for the lawless disorder they cause. The changes in this bill are necessary to stabilise our prison system. There is no alternative. We have heard from the opposition is carping from the sidelines, wholly unserious proposals. Reform UK say we should build paperweight, temporary prisons portacabins holding hardened criminals in our backyards. No thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me be clear. This would place the public at serious risk of harm. You cannot simply rustle up a secure setting to incarcerate dangerous offenders. This government is building more prison places than we have seen for over 100 years. Following the changes in this bill, there will still be more criminals in prison than ever before 2000, more by 2029 than there are now. On the other hand, reform have no serious plans to keep our community safe and the Tory position, if possible, is even more absurd.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the shadow justice Minister last week began to apologise for the legacy legacy they left behind in our prisons. He said that if he had been Prime Minister or Chancellor that it would not have happened. We had five Tory prime ministers, seven chancellors in 14 years. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm simply not sure that giving another one ago would have made the difference. And the shadow Justice Secretary says deport more foreign offenders. That will solve it all. Completely unserious under this government, deportation of foreign national offenders is up by 14%.

We have accelerated decision making on deportations, which can now happen at 30% of the sentence served, something that the Tories never did. And because of this legislation, we will be able to go even further to deport a foreign offender immediately upon sentencing. Practical measures from a Labour government clearing up the Tory mess. I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for. Giving way. My father is a retired senior prison officer, and retired senior prison officer, and I know firsthand the devastation of 14 years of the Tories has wrought 14 years of the Tories has wrought on our prison system. Does he agree with me that it's incumbent on us as a government to fix the mess as a government to fix the mess that they have left and to fix the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system urgently in terms of reforms? Will my honourable friend, first of all, I thank the service of my of all, I thank the service of my hon. Friend's father because prison officers across the country do a brilliant job, an important job, and she's absolutely right. I've and she's absolutely right. I've sat through hours of this debate over the last few weeks, and it's been an important debate. But the crowing from the party opposite is galling, considering the legacy that they have left behind.

Madam Deputy Speaker, when this Labour government came to government in the summer of last year, we faced a crisis. The Tories had left our prison system on the brink of collapse, lawless chaos was on the verge of breaking out and we took verge of breaking out and we took action. Plans to build 14,000 prison places, the biggest prison building programme since the building programme since the Victorian era. 2500 places in our first year, compared to just 500

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first year, compared to just 500 places in 14 years of Conservative government. I will give way. Does the Minister recognise that. The in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The written response he gave to. those. 2405 prison places. Was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2405 prison places. Was Conservative. Government, and that the. 14,000 prison places that you plan to buy won't get delivered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

plan to buy won't get delivered. Because the firm. That's due to build them has gone into administration. The Deputy Speaker, the honourable member always makes this point, and he thinks it's a very good point. He's absolutely shambles that He's absolutely shambles that towards the end of 14 years of Conservative government, they suddenly realised they hadn't done anything to our prisons, started taking action and we've actually delivered those places 2500 in 1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

year, compared to just 500 in 14 years. It's shocking. It's not a good point. He shouldn't keep raising it. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government began an independent Sentencing Review led by a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to Conservative Justice Secretary, to ensure our system was sustainable. This bill is that vital step to ensure that we can keep that most basic promise to the British people. We will ensure there is capacity in our prisons to keep law and order our prisons to keep law and order on the streets. We will ensure our justice system clamps down on reoffending and delivers punishment reoffending and delivers punishment that works.

We will ensure that never again we will face chaos of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

never again we will face chaos of Tory misrule. And I commend this bill to the House. The question is that new clause one be read a second time, as many as are of that opinion, say 'aye' I of the contrary. No, no. Division. On On the On the Order On the Order Paper, as many as are of that.
17:57
None Portrait Division
-

Opinion, say I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I of the contrary. No, no. Tell us for the I Jerome Mayhew. Nick Timothy tellers for the noes Order, Order, order! Order, order! The Order, order! The Ayes Order, order! The Ayes to Order, order! The Ayes to the Order, order! The Ayes to the right Order, order! The Ayes to the right 170.

The Noes to the left 328. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nurse. To the left were 328.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the left were 328. So the nurse have it. The nurse

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the nurse have it. The nurse have it unlocked. She is order, have it unlocked. She is order, order under the order of. The House of the 16th of September. I must now put the questions necessary to now put the questions necessary to bring proceedings on consideration to a conclusion. New clause 12 has been. Selected for separate been. Selected for separate decision. I call. Jess Brown-Fuller to move new clause 12 formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally? The question is that new clause 12 be added to the bill. As many as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

12 be added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. I. Of the contrary. No, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary. No, no. Ordered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion. Say I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Say I. Of the contrary, no no. Tellers for the eyes. Zoe Franklin Claire Young tellers for Franklin Claire Young tellers for the noes Stephen Morgan Taiwo

**** Possible New Speaker ****

C.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The order. The order. The The order. The ayes The order. The ayes to The order. The ayes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The order. The ayes to the The order. The ayes to the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The order. The ayes to the right 82 the noes to the left 314. The 82 the noes to the left 314. The eyes to the. Right 82. The noes to the left 314. So the nurse. Have it. the left 314. So the nurse. Have it. The nurse have it unlock. New. Clause 19 has been selected for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 19 has been selected for separate decision. I call. Doctor Kieran Mullan to move new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Kieran Mullan to move new clause 19 formally. To move. The question is that new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause 19 be added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say aye, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Of the contrary. No, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question. Is, as on the Order Paper, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, no. aye. I of the contrary. No, no. Tell us for the eyes David Reed Nick Timothy tellers for the noes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! Ayes to the right 173. The Noes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the left 323. The Ayes to the right 173.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 173. The Noes to the left 323. So The noes have it. The noes have it En bloc. New clause 20 has been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bloc. New clause 20 has been selected for a separate decision. I call Doctor Kieran Mullan. To move new clause. 20 formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

20 formally. The question. Is that new clause 20 be added to the bill. As many. As that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As that. position.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues Colleagues should Colleagues should be. Observing the chamber. I'm on my feet, so they.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm on my feet, so they. Should. Be seated. They should. talking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

talking. To Mr. Right. They should. Be seated. The question is, as on the Order Paper Makerfield I. I on the Order Paper Makerfield I. I of the contrary, no no tellers for the ayes I David Reed and Nick Timothy tellers for the noes are Taiwo Owatemi. Taiwo Owatemi.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ayes to the right 182. The noes to the left.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

311. The eyes right 182.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes right 182. The Noes to the left. 311. So the nose habit The noes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it En bloc. One.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One. A point of order. Tessa Munt. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd just like to point out to the I'd just like to point out to the House that actually, on today's printed version for the report stage of the Sentencing Bill, stage of the Sentencing Bill, unfortunately, there's been a blip on the printing, and whereas I'd on the printing, and whereas I'd actually put my name to a number of new clauses, I did not put my name to the amendments.

Four. Five. Six. Seven. Nine. 11. 12. 22. 23. 31. 32. Seven. Nine. 11. 12. 22. 23. 31. 32. 33. 34 and 35. I'd like to put that on the record. Mr. speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the record. Mr. speaker. I thank the honourable member for giving me notice of her. Point of order. I know that House staff would wish to apologise for the error. She has put the fact on the record so that it will now be clear which amendment she actually supported, and to which amendments her name were added in error. Marvellous consideration completed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third Reading now Minister to move. Third Reading. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the bill now be read a third time. It is a pleasure to speak at Third Reading of this to speak at Third Reading of this landmark legislation. Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly to deliver this important change to deliver this important change to our criminal justice system. It is difficult to exaggerate the scale of the crisis that landed on the of the crisis that landed on the desk of the previous Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary, and my predecessor, my honourable my predecessor, my honourable friend, the member for Scunthorpe when they entered government on the 5th of July last year.

Prisons at
18:47
18:49
Jake Richards Portrait Jake Richards MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Rother Valley, Labour)
-
-
for Portsmouth North for her tireless campaign around Torfaen. Madam Deputy Speaker, through their personal experience or the experience of constituents, members have powerfully raised issues that the government will continue to the government will continue to look at and address as this legislation progresses. Madam Deputy Speaker, the debates we've Deputy Speaker, the debates we've had on this piece of legislation neatly sum up the dividing lines in British politics. The Conservative British politics. The Conservative Party is in complete denial. Not a single word of apology.

It is their mess that this legislation begins to clear up. Madam Deputy Speaker, and this bill goes further than and this bill goes further than simply stabilising the system. It confronts reoffending, the cycle of crime that blights so many of our communities and learns from the Texan Texas earned progression model to encourage rehabilitation, confronting re-offending, improving confronting re-offending, improving rehabilitation. These used to be policies the conservatives supported today nothing but supported today nothing but opposition and reform. Their justice spokesperson, who hasn't bothered to attend this debate at bothered to attend this debate at all, and who inexplicably said over the weekend that she gets angry when she sees Asian and black when she sees Asian and black people on her TV.

OK, madam. Madam Deputy Speaker, she should concentrate on coming up with workable policies. We cannot build workable policies. We cannot build portacabin prisons for hardened criminals and keep our communities safe. Reform are simply not credible. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government, on the other hand, is getting on with the job, making difficult decisions to ensure we can keep our promise to the British people. We will never let our prison system collapse like the last government, where even the most serious offenders may have avoided prison altogether.

This bill will ensure our prison system is sustainable whilst reducing reoffending and crime. This bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will help keep our communities safe and I commend this bill to the House. The question is that the bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be now read a third time I call the Mullan. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House. I want to finish by explaining again that for whatever good this bill may do, the consequences for victims and their consequences for victims and their families sense of justice in this country are grave. Yes, the very same victims that want to see prosecution rates improve, who want prosecution rates improve, who want to see court waiting times reduced, who want to have a criminal justice system that works better for them system that works better for them in so many ways, but who never agreed to a trade, a swap, victims who will welcome changes and who will welcome changes and improvements at the party opposite say they can deliver, but victims of crime who should not have to accept that something is taken away accept that something is taken away just because something else is given.

And I say to backbenchers, the government can agree spending the government can agree spending settlements, it can come up with plans, but they can't create the changes in legislation that are needed for this bill. Backbenchers needed for this bill. Backbenchers do that when it needs MPs to change legislation. They can say no. Labour backbenchers have said no Labour backbenchers have said no recently on the reform to welfare. I will remind members again what I will remind members again what this bill will do. This bill will mean that more than 80% of paedophiles sent to prison will get paedophiles sent to prison will get out of prison earlier this bill.

This bill will mean that more than 60% of rapists who are sent to prison will get out of prison earlier. It will mean, in total, more than 6000 serious violent and sexual offenders will get out of prison earlier. And I say to members, imagine a couple of years
18:52
18:52
18:52
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
of the changes they say they're going to make and that, like very many victims of sexual assault, sees the perpetrator sent to prison sees the perpetrator sent to prison for three years. But that victim will come and see members just like those opposite and say that that those opposite and say that that perpetrator is getting out of prison after just one year. A third of their sentence, one year. That is the reality for two thirds of the people who will be sentenced to prison for sexual assault in this country.

These measures will mean that they get out of prison after a that they get out of prison after a year. What will members say to them? Well, they say what they say to me. It was the Tories. I didn't know. It was the Tories. I didn't know. We had no choice. How hollow will those words sound to those victims and their families? Because for whatever this bill might do, the price victims will pay is simply price victims will pay is simply too high. Much too high.

The government has no right to tell victims and their families that victims and their families that they must accept this trade off, that if they want things to improve in one direction, they must accept in one direction, they must accept a betrayal in another. I ask members opposite to reflect again on the figures I've given you. They are the correct figures. They are the facts. No matter what the frontbench have muttered as I've spoken to them, I ask them to force this government to make different choices.

Don't support this betrayal of victims. It will come back to haunt every single one of you. When victims ask you why, why did you vote for something that lets thousands, thousands of the member mutters thousands and thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier this year.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be now read the third time as many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that say I. Know no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Know no. As many that say I. Of the contrary, no know.
18:53
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And And Mr. And Mr. Shannon, And Mr. Shannon, Mr. And Mr. Shannon, Mr. Shannon colleagues, no. Benches should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Benches should. Be seated quietly, quietly,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be seated quietly, quietly, quietly. The question is, as on the order papers that opinion say, I continue tellers for the ayes the Taiwo Owatemi and Stephen Morgan Taiwo Owatemi and Stephen Morgan and Tellers for the noes are David and Tellers for the noes are David

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All order. The eyes to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes to. The right. 321 the nose to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The left 103. The Ayes to the right 321.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 321. The nose. To the left 103. So the ayes have it. The ayes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have it unlocked. Unlocked.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hello. Nice to see you over here. Thank you. We go on to the next item of business. The Leader of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

item of business. The Leader of the House has tabled a. Motion for a debate on a matter of privilege. We're waiting. For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For. You, Mr. Shannon. Go on. The Leader of the House has tabled. A motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A motion. For a debate on a matter of privilege. I call the. Minister to move the motion. Thank you. Very much indeed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move the motion. In my. Name in. Relation to the report of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee of Privileges into the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. Which was referred. To in this. House on. Committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee. Of Privileges. Consideration of this matter and its report. The motion, if approved,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would enable the unpublished transcript of unreported evidence. Taken by the. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in November 2009, to be provided to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. It will enable that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inquiry to publish. That. Evidence if. It. Thinks fit to do. So. Subject to relevant advice. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Subject to relevant advice. I would like to thank the honourable members for Gower. And for. North Dorset for raising this issue in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dorset for raising this issue in the House in July. I'd also like to thank. The Chair of the Privileges

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Chair of the Privileges for. South Leicestershire, for his committee's swift. Work in considering the matter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Work in considering the matter. In particular, I commend his committee's sensitivity in handling. This subject. As well as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Its commitment. To facilitating the important work of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to parliamentary privilege. The report also highlights important points on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

points on. The matter of exclusive. Cognisance and the privileges. Of this House. Be in no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be in no. Doubt. Madam Deputy Speaker. That the government. Supports the rights. Of this House and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will. Act to defend them. I hope the House will support this motion. Today. And I. Commend it to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commend it to the House. The question is, as on the Order Paper, and I call the Chair of the. Privileges Committee. Alberto Costa.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alberto Costa. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And may I. Support the motion proposed. By the leader of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the leader of. The House? And I. Thank him for. His kind words. About me and other members involved in this
19:07
None Portrait
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

matter. The motion, of course, the report drafted by the. Committee of Privileges.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee of Privileges. The task the House gave the committee was, in essence, a. Simple one to consider whether.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Simple one to consider whether. To release a document to the Omaha bombing inquiry. Throughout our work, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Throughout our work, the committee has had it in mind. That the Omaha bombing was one committed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committed. In Northern Ireland during. The period known as the Troubles. And afterwards.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And afterwards. In Omaha on the 15th. Of. August. 1998. A summer Saturday in the centre of a busy town.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of a busy town. Where people. Were going about their everyday taking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taking. The lives of. 29 people and two. Unborn children. It injured.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unborn children. It injured. Hundreds more people, with repercussions of for thousands of relatives, friends.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relatives, friends. And people across Northern Ireland. In short. We felt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ireland. In short. We felt. From the beginning that there was an overwhelming public interest in our helping the Omaha bombing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in our helping the Omaha bombing inquiry in any way. We could. That inquiry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is charged. With considering an allegation made by a former senior police officer that police investigators did not have access to intelligence materials that might reasonably have enabled them to disrupt the activities of dissident republican terrorists. Before the Omaha bombing, that allegation was made to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 11th November 2009, and can I just thank the honourable member for Gower who chairs that committee today? And I commend the words that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She said. Previously about this matter and the work that she has done. And can the work that she has done. And can I also put on record my thanks to the honourable member for North Dorset, who moved the original. Dorset, who moved the original. Motion on behalf of the honourable member for Gower. As the former

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member for Gower. As the former Chair of the Northern Ireland. Committee. Now part of the evidence taken

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now part of the evidence taken by the honourable member for. Gerber's Committee formerly was not reported to the House and so has never been published. We were asked to make a recommendation on the to make a recommendation on the desirability of releasing that evidence to the inquiry. These were evidence to the inquiry. These were procedural and perhaps constitutional difficulties, in that the terms of reference drawn that the terms of reference drawn up by the then government for the inquiry enabled it to consider the allegation made by the now retired police officer.

The unreported transcript of his evidence was not, transcript of his evidence was not, however, the property of that or any government. It belongs to the House of Commons and as it is unreported, it has not been seen by current members of the House other than those who sit on the Committee of Privileges. Nor will this motion make it available to the House of Commons. In short, in proposing that we provide the transcript to the inquiry, we are giving control of that transcript to that inquiry.

This, so far as we are aware, is an unprecedented procedural step. But I would praise the inquiry for its careful, helpful and cooperative approach to the matters of parliamentary privilege raised by the step. I also thank the inquiry for the assurances it has given my committee about how it will handle the material, and, in particular, what steps it will take to ensure that any national security concerns have been fully discussed with the security services before it shares the document or relies upon it on its own conclusions.

Those assurances may be found in the annexe to our report. Thus, given the assurances received by from the inquiry and in light of the overwhelming public interest in providing aid to an inquiry into the murder of so many people, I trust that the House will feel confident that my committee has recommended an appropriate course of action. We have added to our report a recommendation that the government remind ministers and officials in drawing up terms of reference for future similar inquiries or public bodies, that more care might be taken in relation to intruding upon matters that fall within the exclusive cognisance of Parliament.

That is not in any way intended to be a partisan point. The terms for this inquiry were drawn up by the previous government, but we would wish all governments to take more carefully in future and to recognise the rights of the House of Commons. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on that point. I would also like to place on record, Madam Deputy Speaker, not only my thanks to the fellow members of the Privileges Committee and I can see 1 or 2 of them in their place this evening.

But I would also, on behalf of the Committee, like to place on record my thanks to the clerks of the committee, as well as the advisers to that committee who helped us navigate what is a helped us navigate what is a challenging constitutional point. To conclude, however, the committee believes that the House should do believes that the House should do all it can to help the Omagh bombing inquiry in its work. We wish that inquiry well as it wish that inquiry well as it continues to seek the truth behind the terrible events of the 15th of August 1998.

We should always remember that truly dreadful human tragedies lie behind what we do tragedies lie behind what we do this evening. I commend, Madam Deputy Speaker, the motion to the House.
19:12
19:13
19:14
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Jim Shannon. everyone who took part in the in the report and thank the Leader of the House, of course, for for bringing it for us to to consider. I, I can recall and as we are only very well where I was on the on that fateful day, and when the news came through, and it is always been a big enough for me, and I did for everyone in this House to ensure that justice is done. I was born in Omagh.

Remember a little about it, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I was only there when wee baby and therefore knew little about it, but it was my place of birth, so I always want to see justice done for all those who have lost loved ones. So that's my reason. So I welcome the report warmly. I think it's a positive, positive step in the way forward. My party leader, the Right Honourable member for Belfast East. On myself and my party have both encouraged full co-operation and that's what we want to see.

Thank the Chair for all the swift conclusions that have been brought forward as well. And that's how important it would have been untenable for the House of Commons to hold information that may aid the inquiry's understanding and for the assistance of the families in their request for the truth that they want and the justice that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want. Thank you very much. I can see. That the. The leader. Of the House wishes. To respond.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To respond. Of course, leader. Of the House. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful to all members for their contribution to this short

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their contribution to this short debate, in particular to. My honourable friend the member for. Gower. An excellent Chair of her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An excellent Chair of her committee, as well as the Chair of the Committee of Privileges, the honourable member. have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have. To say, spoke with. thoughtful. Ness which we have come to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expect from him. I also thank. The honourable. Member for Strangford. For welcoming.
19:17
19:17
19:18
19:18
None Portrait
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

say, I of the contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I beg to move that this House do. Now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. And I call Mary Glindon. On government support for the. Offshore supply chain in Tyneside.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tyneside. Mary Glindon. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I'd like to. Thank. Mr. Speaker for granting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank. Mr. Speaker for granting this debate. I don't. Underestimate the challenges that the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the Minister. transition. Is a monumental task. Tonight I will set out the case

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tonight I will set out the case that. Further government support. Is needed for the. Offshore wind. Sector in places such as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tyneside. Smulders project UK, who I have worked with. For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For. Many years, is a critical employer in this sector and in my does. A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. Key global player, but it is also the. UK's leading. Provider of offshore wind

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Provider of offshore wind substations and foundation structures, including Monopiles, structures, including Monopiles, transitional pieces and jackets. These form the essential building blocks of the critical blocks of the critical infrastructure required for UK renewable energy. Energy security. renewable energy. Energy security. Based in Wallsend, Smulders is one of the many businesses along the time that are markers of the town's time that are markers of the town's proud and enduring legacy. Throughout history, the town has Throughout history, the town has stepped.

Up when the country needed it most. Today, it stands ready to it most. Today, it stands ready to aid the transition to renewables. To excuse me, very proud of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To excuse me, very proud of the time. I certainly will. Give away. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give away. Thank you. Supply chain in Tyneside. Jim Shannon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. The honourable lady. I spoke to her beforehand honourable lady for a Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend and I explained to her the connection between her constituency and my constituency and why this is so important. But I also want to encourage the Honourable lady. She's been a great friend of mine in this House and all the time I've been here. We share many things. We share this as a as a subject matter, but we also share our faith.

And I think that's important that we we have that relationship across the chamber. And those the honourable lady not agree that whilst Tyneside is a major hub for offshore wind supply, that we must continue to invest in new and better methodology in renewable energy such as harnessing, for example, the tidal energy like Strangford Lock and Newcastle Universities wave energy device, which contributes to the area's role in marine energy innovation. These are things, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can do better together.

Thank you.
19:20
Mary Glindon Portrait Mary Glindon MP (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. And yes, the honourable. Gentleman has been a long friend of mine, and he speaks well of not just his own constituency and Northern Ireland, but is very supportive of all of us across the Irish Sea. And he's right in what he said, and I think we're both justly proud of what's achieved by our universities, our industries on in our areas. And that's why we stand here and see what we're seeing and plead to the government tonight.

This week, the government said the government set the budget for the allocation round seven to support new offshore wind projects. Renewable UK, along with other industry voices, have expressed concern that the amount allocated is likely to occur on a quarter of the 20 gigawatt capacity available in this year's tender. This is a very recent announcement, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the budget aligns with the government's plans to maximise the number of green jobs in Britain, against the backdrop of AR seven, there is real concern regarding the alarming drift for UK offshore wind turbine foundation structures to be procured from lower cost regions such as the Middle East, APAC and China.

Very recent examples of this include EDF. Near Orkney, W.F. Ocean Wind, Moray West, or W.F. and Inchcape, W.S. for these UK projects, all the foundation structures were imported from lower cost fabrication yards located in the Middle East, Indonesia and China. Whilst I understand the approach taken by the previous government and developers to drive down Ynys Mon and minimise capital expenditure expenditure that adversely impacts on the operations of our own UK companies unable to compete on cost alone.

Recent mechanisms and initiatives such as the Clean Industry bonus included in the ECR seven are of course welcome. However, there is a fear that these alone will not prevent further drift of foundation fabrication away from the UK to these low cost regions. With reference to the R seven SIB allocation framework, there are two SIB criteria which developers could meet. Criterion one refers to investment in shorter supply chains, where an investment may be made in a deprived area. In the UK, given the socio economic challenges that Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend faces, option one is a welcome incentive and I look forward to the outcome of the R seven projects when announced.

Criterion two refers to investment in more sustainable means of production. Investments may be made in one or more manufacturing facilities or installation firms that have either committed to or set their science based targets by the application date anywhere in the world. There is real concern that this approach opens the door to unfair competition from lower cost regions such as China, APAC and the Middle East, specifically for the supply of critical offshore wind infrastructure such as wind turbine generator foundations, jacket transition people pieces and monopiles.

Therefore, outside of the R seven framework, and given the criticality of this infrastructure to our energy security security, will the Minister set out what additional measures or guarantees can be put in place to ensure a significant portion of offshore wind infrastructure is secured and fabricated by UK companies such as Smulders? It is essential that businesses in the UK continue to invest, innovate and introduce new technologies and process processes to optimise efficiencies as well as competitiveness.

As my honourable friend on the other side of the House said, however, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for UK companies to compete equally with overseas yards on such an uneven playing field on the Tyne. Not only are supply chains held back by unfair competition, but they are also constrained by physical barriers. The power cables over the Tyne are an obstacle to businesses securing work for large renewable energy structures, which risks possible net GVA benefits of up to £1.2 billion.

The height restriction in place is 87m. However, when turbine jackets for R seven and future rounds will be in excess of 100 to 120m high. For Smoulders, this means they can't bid for certain contracts despite having world class facilities and the sharpest minds ready to go. It has been proposed that the removal of the cables will be completed in 2032. I have campaigned since 2017 for a solution to this issue. 2032 is too late. The jobs of the future have become the jobs of today.

This is an international race. Madam Deputy Speaker Yard in the Middle East will not wait for 2032. APAC will not wait and neither will China. In July, I welcomed the Secretary of State's commitment to engage with me and Ofgem to try to accelerate this. I look forward to meeting with the Energy Minister next month to discuss this further. I would be grateful if the Minister could reaffirm the department's support for this work to be brought forward, and that the government will press National Grid for an early completion date.

I will now turn to the issue of ensuring there is more consistent revenue. There is a more consistent revenue stream for our domestic fabricators. We have seen disruption, delay and postponement in the promised pipeline of offshore wind projects because of failures during earlier leasing and allocation rounds. Projects from R five and R six are all now complete or very near to completion. Unfortunately, however, there were insufficient projects approved and contracts awarded to the UK to ensure a continuous pipeline of work for companies like Smulders.

The result of this failure is a very real two year chasm in UK offshore wind manufacturing. From the start of 2020 2026, there are effectively zero UK offshore wind projects in fabrication. The next tranche of projects is dependent on the successful outcome of R seven and the clean industry. Bonus incentives offered to developers. The result from R seven, however, will not be known until quarter 1 in 2026, thus creating the two year gap. This is the effective period from project approval and contract award to finalising engineering and procuring materials.

Before industry can start cutting steel optimistically, this could begin in quarter three or quarter four of 2027, with offshore infrastructure in place again two years after that, in the final quarter of 2029. However, the first power generation from R seven projects before August 2029 is a stretch target. Smulders has already invested over £100 million at its World's End facilities, based on previous government's assurances of continued UK offshore wind fabrication projects. What level of operational or other support is the government willing to provide established tier one fabricators like Smulders to secure the jobs of over 600 well-paid workers during this two year gap in fabrication, I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State's commitment during party conference to a Clean energy jobs plan, which will see the sector grow from 430 000 jobs today to 830,000 by 2030.

This includes tens of thousands of new roles for engineers, welders, electricians and construction workers. I support the government's ambition for further growth. The skills for these jobs are being developed and nurtured by companies in Tyneside, as well as the energy Academy in my constituency constituency, which is set to expand following the combined authority's commitment to invest £8.5 million in the college. Well-paid, secure jobs can be created through the award of contracts to existing UK tier one fabricators for you can for UK companies.

The outcome and results from allocation round seven are critical to their continued operation in this country. More crucially, it is the outcome of the foundation contract awards that will ultimately determine the long term success or failure of our businesses, and I believe the future of the offshore fabrication wind sector. I believe in the and I also believe in the. It will affect the future of the offshore wind fabrication sector in the UK. Only foundation awarded contracts awarded domestically can provide the necessary volume of serial repeat fabrication needed to achieve the government's clean jobs target and secure the necessary skills required for a high paid clean energy sector in the future.

So again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I repeat my call to the government to take further steps and measures to ensure that a substantial allocation of R seven Foundation fabrication is awarded here in the UK. Earlier, I outlined that at its peak, small does support over 600 highly skilled, well paid local jobs on Tyneside and across the region. Small does. Primary concern is securing these jobs in the long term. It's in the national interest that UK businesses businesses succeed with these projects as they are creating highly skilled and dependable jobs that will not only strengthen the offshore wind industry, wind industry, but also support the skilled training required for associated industries such as defence, nuclear and the wider engineering sector, as well as supporting other major British infrastructure initiatives.

The drift of this work overseas threatens domestic jobs, future economic development, investment and the UK's long term security. Given this critical juncture for the UK offshore wind sector. Would the Minister, with the Minister for energy be willing to meet with myself? Representatives from Smulders and the wider Tyneside supply chain to urgently discuss the concerns. I have set out areas where industry needs further support and to present our aspirations for the clean energy future. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to end by saying that the transition presents challenges from all angles, but even more opportunities.

The Tyne is open for business. This stands ready to play

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a defining role. Well done, well done. I call the minister Katie White. I believe it's your first time at the despatch box for a German debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

despatch box for a German debate. Marvellous. Minister Katie White. Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I. Begin by congratulating the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

congratulating the. Honourable member for Newcastle upon Tyne and Wallsend for securing this debate on this important issue,
19:33
Katie White Portrait Katie White MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Leeds North West, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

but also for her passion and authenticity and representation of her area. I don't. Think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think. tonight. I know this. Question is close to the hearts of many honourable members and their constituents, particularly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their constituents, particularly. In our. government. Is on a. Mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering clean.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

energy superpower, delivering clean. Power by. 2030 and accelerating to net zero. And offshore wind is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beating heart of. That mission. The sector is. Already providing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

secure, clean energy as well as growth. And opportunities. To communities such.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities such. also. An international success story. At the end of June.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This year, the UK was generating 16.7GW from offshore wind, the highest amount in Europe and. Worldwide.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Worldwide. Second only to China. A country with a. Population roughly 20 times the size of ours.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have consented 4.2GW. Since we came. Into office, and we have 75GW of capacity in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

capacity in. The pipeline. Which equates to a 450%. Increase on. Our current world leading amount.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our current world leading amount. We also have the second most. Installed floating offshore wind capacity. After Norway and at.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Over. 25GW, the largest pipeline of floating offshore wind.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Projects in the world. And yet, we are confident that. The best is. Yet to come, from. North.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

East England to Scotland and the Celtic Sea, there are incredible things happening across the country in this industry, and this government is determined to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government is determined to do everything we can to help our offshore wind sector thrive and deliver. For the British people. The contract for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contract for. Difference scheme is vital to our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower. With allocation around 7.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With allocation around 7. To 9 being crucial to the delivery of our goal of clean. Power by. 2030. And protecting households

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2030. And protecting households from volatile fossil fuel prices. On Monday, we confirmed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A total budget of £900 million. offshore. Wind in. Allocation round seven.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which is an increase. On the previous. Allocation round. Initial budget. When comparing on. A like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For like basis, this is. The initial budget. For fixed bottom offshore wind. unsuccessful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bids and. Adjust the budget later. If we deem it's. Good value for consumers. We have fundamentally. Reformed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have fundamentally. Reformed the system. For offshore wind to. Get better. Value for money. Under the old. System, the government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

System, the government. control. Over what. Quantity and what price. We recognise the importance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognise the importance. Of robust domestic supply chains. Both to the. Continued support growth of this industry, but also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to ensure British. Workers and communities. Benefit from the jobs created. The government has therefore set out a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out a. wind. Supply chains, worth up to £1 billion. This includes £300 million billion. This includes £300 million from Great British Energy to provide upfront public investment, £400 million from the Crown Estate £400 million from the Crown Estate to support new infrastructure including ports, manufacturing and research and testing facilities,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

research and testing facilities, and 300 million from the offshore. Wind industry to. Deliver new investments into supply chains such as advanced turbine technologies and foundations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

foundations. Speaker. First of all, can I welcome the Honourable lady to her place and wish her every success and happiness? And we tried not to and happiness? And we tried not to be too hard on the questions. The contract for difference scheme that contract for difference scheme that the Honourable lady referred to. I know it's a thing that Northern Ireland have to do themselves, but could I ask the Minister, please, at this early stage, to to take some engagement with the relevant minister at the, at the Assembly and perhaps, maybe help us to move our scheme forward as well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Yes. through. But I will also make sure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I will also make sure that the Minister for energy is aware of your issues and and feeds them. And I'm sure he. Will be. He's he's a friend, I believe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's he's a friend, I believe. Of yours as well. So this is a genuinely transformative package of investment. And by providing that investment. And by providing that support as well as clarity in our plans, we're giving investors and developers the confidence to invest in the future, too. It's expected in the future, too. It's expected the £1 billion package of investment will directly. And indirectly mobilise billions more, as well as mobilise billions more, as well as supporting thousands of jobs in our industrial heartlands, we have also introduced a clean industry bonus introduced a clean industry bonus to reward projects which invest in coastal communities, industrial heartland and cleaner supply chains.

heartland and cleaner supply chains. As my honourable friend said, the criteria two of the Clean Industry Bonus rewards investments in cleaner supply chains, measured by cleaner supply chains, measured by sign up to the Science Based Targets Initiative for decarbonisation. It so happens that the overwhelming majority of qualifying suppliers are in the UK or the European Union. Very few or the European Union. Very few suppliers outside of the region actually qualify under criteria two. It was great to see the Clean It was great to see the Clean Energy Bonus Auction smash expectations in terms of bids earlier this year, and we look forward to seeing the investments forward to seeing the investments come in after auction round seven, showing that when government leads with ambition, industry is ready to match it.

We also know that we will need even more skilled workers to achieve our mission in the years ahead and with our analysis suggests the offshore wind sector alone could could support up to 100,000 jobs by 2030. We are determined to ensure our industrial communities benefit. That is why we've set up the office for Clean Energy Jobs, which will provide training and support to the workforce in clean energy and net zero sectors. Our priority is creating good jobs in Britain's industrial heartlands, including a just transition for the industries based in the North Sea.

We published our Clean Energy Jobs Plan on the 19th of October, which sets out how the government will work in partnership with industry and trade unions to help workers in all parts of the country benefit from these opportunities. Supporting our existing workforce to find new opportunities, training up the next generation and supporting our young people to get good unionised jobs. Let me turn to our support for the North East. Tyneside is ideally placed to service the offshore energy sector, including one of the world's largest offshore wind markets.

The Tyne has the capacity to become a major hub for the installation and maintenance of offshore wind farms, and service the supply chain that will grow from it in 2023. The UK infrastructure Bank invested £50 million in the Port of Tyne as part of a debt refinancing package of up to £100 million. This finance was provided to regenerate and redevelop land, building a base for a growing number of clean energy industries in the area, including offshore wind, advanced manufacturing and other renewable activities.

In September this year, the Port of Tyne announced it is investing 150 million to transform 23 acres into the Tyne Clean Energy Park, adding 400m of deep water quayside to support offshore renewables, clean energy and advanced manufacturing. According to the Port of Tyne, the redevelopment could create up to 12,000 jobs and deliver £5.6 billion to the economy, and I look forward to working with the honourable member to help us realise that potential. Regarding the transmission cable over the River Tyne, I can confirm the government is open to discussing the progress of the proposals to underground cable with National Grid.

The decision for approving the project lies with Ofgem as the independent regulator, who must demonstrate there are benefits to consumers when approving network projects. To sum up, our offshore wind sector is a British success story that we should all be proud of and thanks to the perfect conditions provided by the North Seas as well as our legendary offshore workforce and supply chains, we are perfectly placed to keep leading the way. But this government is not content with simply winning the race for clean power.

We want to ensure that we're building the industries of the future here in Britain, and in doing so, creating a new generation of good, skilled jobs for the communities we depend on and ensuring the economic benefits of the clean power transition are felt in Tyneside and in every corner of our country. I know that the Minister for energy visited Smulders UK yard in Wallsend in the summer and had a fantastic visit, and I can confirm that the Ministry of Energy will be very happy to meet my honourable member for Newcastle upon Tyne.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question. The question is this House do now adjourn. As I say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House do now adjourn. As I say, I the ayes have it. The ayes.
19:47
None Portrait Oral questions: Wales
-

19:47
19:47
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page