Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy (Constitution Committee Report)

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for securing what has been an excellent debate. I join other noble Lords in thanking members of the Constitution Committee, many of whom are currently in their place. I must say, in a similar vein to the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who talked about legal eminence, that it is a huge honour and privilege to be speaking in a debate on the rule of law following no fewer than four noble and learned Lords, as defined by the Companion due to their previous seniority and renowned expertise within the judiciary.

At the start of this Parliament, the Government declared that the rule of law would be the “lodestar” of their term—words which commanded support from all sides of your Lordships’ House. But surely the true measure of government is found not in ministerial opening speeches but in the legislation that follows. With all due respect to this Government, there appears to have been a deviation from that very lodestar.

The committee reminds us that the rule of law performs a dual function. It protects citizens against arbitrary power, but it also protects society against disorder and lawlessness. It is the line held against both tyranny and anarchy. It is difficult to point to a better illustration of the first danger than the Government’s courts modernisation Bill. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition readily acknowledge the serious pressures facing the criminal courts. Victims deserve timely justice and defendants should not wait years for their cases to be heard. Surely constitutional rights should not be treated as administrative burdens. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, gave your Lordships an insight into the potential power of AI and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, flagged digital technology to reduce waiting lists. Is this something the Government are working on?

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, referenced the constitution which has served us so well for three centuries. The right to trial by jury has outlived centuries precisely because it represents a profoundly important foundation stone; namely, that justice is not administered solely by the state but with the participation of the public themselves. It is one of the principal safeguards against the concentration of state power. Yet the Government now propose to remove that safeguard for significant categories of criminal offences, not because the constitutional principle has changed but because a number of Ministers—purportedly not all—regard it as more efficient to do so. Efficiency is indeed a legitimate and worthy objective of government, but efficiency has never been the highest constitutional principle. If it were, many of our liberties would long ago have disappeared. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, were correct when they said that the system is not broken. The UK is a brilliant country, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, advised, a health check on the judiciary is a most sensible proposal.

The committee also reminds us that the rule of law requires legal consistency and coherence. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, rightly proposed that people must have confidence that power is being exercised fairly and equally and there must be a widespread culture of respect for the law. Citizens should be able to understand what the law requires and why Parliament has legislated as it has. Citizens are entitled to expect that one Act of Parliament will not contradict another enacted only weeks before. Yet too often the perception is that the Government’s legislation appears to have been drafted in departmental silos rather than according to any co-ordinated approach to criminal justice or constitutional government.

When justifying the stripping back of the right to jury, the Lord Chancellor claimed that defendants were “gaming the system” by electing for Crown Court trials for relatively minor offences. The Minister for Courts publicly asked, “Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a mini-mart should receive the right to trial by jury?” But in the Crime and Policing Act, the Government included a section specifically to designate low-value shoplifting as a triable “either way” offence; in other words, there is a right to jury trial. If the Minister could clarify the Government’s position, many noble Lords would be grateful.

If the Minister for Courts believes that shoplifting offences are examples of minor offences for which jury trial should be removed, but just months later another Minister believes that low-level shoplifting offences are sufficiently serious to justify expansion into “either way” territory, it is understandably challenging to reconcile the Government’s position. Some would suggest that this is a Government legislating without a coherent direction on criminal justice and is a suboptimal way to uphold the rule of law.

If the courts modernisation Bill demonstrates one threat to the rule of law, the Government’s sentencing reforms illustrate another. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, reminded us that perpetrators are rarely held to account. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, mentioned disrespect for the law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, ended his contribution by flagging that the system is undermined if rights are not enforced. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, talked about widespread public disillusion; laws must be actioned and evenly applied. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, highlighted a shop being robbed and nothing happening. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, summarised it with a laser focus when he flagged that it is alarming that the law, once unquestioned, is now fragile. There is an epidemic of shoplifting and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, reminded us of the posse of non-law-abiding cyclists all over the country.

Without wishing to state the obvious, laws that are not enforced or whose consequences become increasingly remote inevitably lose their deterrent effect. The Government’s new presumption against short custodial sentences rests on the proposition that imprisonment should become an exceptional rather than ordinary response to a significant range of offending. This means that some shoplifters who now have the right to a trial by jury will waste time and resources in the Crown Court, only to be given a suspended sentence and face no prison time—surely we should ask: does this make sense?

The committee rightly reminds us that the rule of law depends not only on citizens obeying the law voluntarily but on public confidence that the law will be upheld fairly and consistently. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities, and nor can legal obligations exist without meaningful consequences. The rule of law must be respected and non-compliance must carry a real expectation of sanction.

Public confidence is further eroded when, on those occasions when offenders do receive custodial sentences, prisoners who should be behind bars are mistakenly released. The public are entitled to expect that criminal justice is administered fairly but also competently. Under this Government, releases in error have more than doubled. At the end of last year, a convicted sex offender was released by mistake. The Lord Chancellor expressed considerable remorse at the individual’s release, promising to remove him from the streets as soon as possible, yet under this Government’s new sentencing reforms, those convicted of such a crime will not go to prison in the first instance. This raises serious questions. Is it a coincidence that the previous Safeguarding Minister resigned and has publicly called for exemptions to the Government’s indiscriminate early release proposals? Indeed, the Prime Minister in waiting has quite rightly expressed apprehension at the prospect of sex offenders being released early this autumn. It should be no surprise that, in the other place on Tuesday, the Motion from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regarding early release was carried through unopposed and, in fact, supported by a number of Government Back-Benchers.

Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, referenced Shakespeare in 1584. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, talked about American independence in 1776. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, referenced William Pitt in 1801. If I may, I will finish by referencing Edmund Burke, a renowned political thinker from the 1700s, who observed that society is a partnership not merely between the living but between those who are dead, those who are living and those yet to be born. This country’s constitutional arrangements are part of that inheritance. They have evolved over multiple centuries because they reflect lived experience and deep wisdom concerning the relative balance between liberty and authority. That balance is never maintained by accident. It is because the rule of law guards against both tyranny and anarchy that it remains one of the defining principles of our constitution. That is why respect for the rule of law is critical and must be adhered to, as has been so well put by many noble Lords today.

Imprisonment for Public Protection Prisoners

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is exactly right: families play a huge role—it is employment, it is housing and it is families. One important thing about open prisons, for example, is that prisoners can go out on day release and reintegrate. Some 193,000 children are affected by parental imprisonment, so we need to make sure that we help both the prisoner and their family on that journey.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, there appear to have been 3,000 IPP prisoners in 2024, 2,500 in 2025 and still close to 2,500 in 2026, with the never-released group dropping from 1,200 to around 950 in the same timeframe. In his response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the Minister said that there had been an 11% reduction in the never-released group from 2025 to 2026. Is 11% also a firm commitment for the next 12 months, or will the department commit to even more?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Noble Lords who know me will know that I do not lack ambition. Although I cannot put any figures on it, I can say that we are doing all that we can. I work with incredibly professional and dedicated teams within the Ministry of Justice. Whenever I go round a prison, I always meet an IPP prisoner; I sit in their cell and talk to them about where they are up to. I sense their hope as well as that of the staff who work with them, because it is very much a team effort.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Debate on Amendment 142 resumed.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, debate on this group, as with every group thus far in the Bill, has been extensive and in depth. We have heard from around 19 noble Lords on over 70 amendments. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not believe that it would be an effective use of your Lordships’ time for us to summarise the excellent contributions made across all Benches by many noble Lords. The relevant points have been highlighted. We welcome the opportunity to hear from the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to understand their position on the proposals that we have all listened to with interest.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, as with the groups on 27 February, I have structured this speech by grouping amendments by theme rather than taking them in order. This is in the interests of dealing with them as quickly as possible. If anything needs a longer explanation then I will take interventions, but it would be a more effective use of time if noble Lords wrote to me so that I could try to give a fuller and more detailed explanation.

I will begin with some observations about the legal implications of some of the amendments, then outline what the Government see as operational workability issues presented by some of the amendments. Finally, there will be some brief drafting considerations. I shall continue to limit my comments to amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns. I remain happy to write to any of your Lordships who have further questions relating to the workability of any amendment and will place a copy in the House Library.

The Government’s position remains that it is for Parliament to consider the policy. I will therefore not provide a government view on the merits of any proposed changes or make any observations in a personal capacity. When we were last in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised how the Government plan to implement this Bill; she was not alone in doing so but she mentioned it specifically. We have not undertaken detailed implementation work as that would precede the parliamentary process. Should Parliament pass the Bill, the Government will undertake detailed work to develop a delivery model and on workforce planning, engaging with stakeholders and delivery partners, including the judiciary.

I turn first to legal considerations and specifically the compatibility of some of the amendments with the European Convention on Human Rights. The articles in question are Article 6 and Article 8. I turn first to Article 6 risk. There are four amendments in this group which, in the Government’s opinion, may interfere with a person’s right to a fair trial under Article 6. The first is Amendment 499, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which would introduce a route to annulment of a certificate of eligibility where material circumstances have changed. However, it requires further detail about the process, so it is difficult for us properly to assess it at the moment.

The Government have concerns that Amendment 498, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would prohibit any further referral to a panel where the commissioner has previously dismissed the individual’s application to review a panel decision. This has the potential to breach Article 6 in circumstances where a material change has subsequently arisen.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments make fundamental changes to the process by which a person is able to access assistance with ending their life under the Bill. It is clear that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has put great care and thought into these proposals, drawing on her decades-long, extensive experience in medicine. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, put it so well when she said that “years of work” and thinking on how this will work have been done by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

Amendment 333 replaces the doctor’s assessment with the multidisciplinary panel process, bringing skills and knowledge from the health sector, the social work sector and the justice sector, including 10 years of minimum relevant experience. Our understanding is that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is seeking to strengthen the safeguards for people who are seeking an assisted death, which was also referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Harper.

We know from previous groups already debated, and indeed this very group, that many noble Lords are profoundly concerned about vulnerable individuals. On the basis of what appears prima facie to be a widespread sentiment in your Lordships’ House, may we ask whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, agrees that potentially more can be done to safeguard those vulnerable people and ensure that they are not pressured into seeking assistance under the Bill?

If the noble and learned Lord were to acknowledge these concerns and accept relevant amendments, will the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, please set out any assessment that the Government may have researched regarding the practical solutions required to implement the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—points touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss? Will the Minister also give your Lordships’ House a sense of the Government’s view on the balance that they will need to strike between the risks of a vulnerable individual dying in a circumstance where their capacity, understanding or will might be in doubt versus the practicality of delivering an assisted dying service?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in the debate so far today. As we know, this group of amendments focuses on two core subjects: first, adding a new multidisciplinary panel process into the Bill, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and secondly, amendments in relation to approved substances. This is a large group of amendments. As ever, my comments will be limited to amendments where the Government have major legal or technical workability concerns.

On the suite of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, it is the Government’s view that, logically, these amendments stand or fall together, as they are a systemic change to the Bill. The amendments would introduce a new system of “assisted dying panels”, distinct from the existing assisted dying review panel in the Bill. These panels would receive and consider requests for assistance as part of the first declaration process, replacing the role of the co-ordinating doctor. The amendments would also introduce the concepts of “licensed assisted dying services”, “navigators for assisted dying”, and “designated” pharmacies. These are rightly policy choices and matters for the sponsor and for Parliament to decide on.

However, noble Lords may wish to note that it is the Government’s view that this package of amendments would lead to major technical, legal or operational workability concerns. The amendments introduce new concepts that would require significant further work to ensure that the policy intent was clearly understood and could work with the rest of the Bill.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I intend to say only a few words on the Motion to thank those who have been closely involved with this Bill as it passed through Parliament. I start with my honourable friend Emma Foody, Member of Parliament for Cramlington and Killingworth, who carefully guided this Bill through the other place. I also thank my noble friend Lady Levitt, the Minister, for her assistance, and of course her officials and others at the Ministry of Justice who have made this task easier. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading of the Bill in this House, and the Front Benches of all parties who have given the Bill the support it needed to become law.

In short, this Bill will allow us to continue to transform how we detain children and young people in custody by delivering education and intensive support in secure schools. The Bill, and the establishment of secure schools within the custodial estate, has had support around the House, and represents, I believe, a pivotal step in reducing offending for some of our most vulnerable children and young people. I am delighted, as I hope the House is, that it will soon be on the statute book. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his efforts to take this Bill through your Lordships’ House and for his past work on the Bach commission, which strove to improve the legal aid situation within the UK justice system. As I outlined at Second Reading, secure 16 to 19 academies were conceptualised in Charlie Taylor’s review of the youth justice system, published in 2016, then agreed on and adopted by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition when we were in government. They will now be made more practicable and effective as a result of this Bill.

Secure schools are an idea founded on the principle of rehabilitative justice for our youth with a vision of improving behaviour, mental health and educational attainment. The nature of this aim means that every offender who enters a secure academy will have different requirements, and the academies must therefore be both flexible and adaptable. The Bill reduces expenditure funding for the academies from a seven-year to a two-year horizon. It removes the requirement that the Secretary of State must take into account local schools before accepting the academy, as pupil intake will largely not, if at all, overlap. Finally, it requires a consultation with local partners instead of local schools, bringing process in line with purpose.

It is in everyone’s interests that secure academies work. Young offenders will be given a second chance and, with a fair wind, they will join the workforce and have every chance to succeed. That is why, when in government, we supported the proposals and why we continue to do so now. We need more secure academies and this Bill will help deliver that goal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak at the Third Reading of this Private Member’s Bill. I, too, start with thanks—to my noble friend Lord Bach for steering this small but important Bill through the House and to Emma Foody MP for guiding it through the other place. The secure school model has been developed in accordance with the best available evidence for what works in addressing the underlying causes of youth offending, offering children small and homely environments with healthcare and education at their heart. Importantly, secure schools will allow children in custody to gain skills and qualifications, supporting them to return to the community and lead successful and crime-free lives. In turn, this will protect the public from these children reoffending in the future. The Bill will help us achieve this aim, and I am pleased to see the support that it has had from across your Lordships’ House.

Hillsborough Law

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. It would be wrong not to pay particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his advocacy concerning the Hillsborough families and for public accountability more widely.

The Government’s Public Office (Accountability) Bill, widely referred to as the Hillsborough law, represents a significant step towards placing a legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials, and strengthens the inquest representation for bereaved families and victims.

Noble Lords who have followed the Hillsborough campaign know that this is not simply an exercise in drafting; it is an attempt to learn the hard lessons of decades of anguish and pain. It is our duty to ensure that no families ever again have to go through the prolonged fight for truth that the Hillsborough families have had to endure. The Government’s stated aim, to ensure that the truth cannot be concealed by the state and to extend legal aid for bereaved families at inquests where the state is an interested party, is therefore to be much welcomed.

As and when noble Lords scrutinise the Bill in your Lordships’ House, legitimate concerns that have been raised by campaigners and practitioners about the Bill’s scope and drafting must be considered. As was flagged by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, it is crucial that the duty of candour is framed so as to be effective in practice and not merely declaratory in form. The new criminal offences must be targeted so as to deter serious wrongdoing without producing unintended consequences that discourage necessary co-operation by public servants in good faith.

As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, we must also be clear about the Bill’s application across different parts of the state, including how it interacts with national security, defence and policing functions. Thoughtful, precise drafting and careful parliamentary scrutiny, which are hallmarks of your Lordships’ House, will be essential.

As was highlighted also by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Wills, on practical points, the commitment to broaden legal aid at inquests is welcome but it must be matched by clarity over funding and timeliness, and it must also provide the support that families require to participate fully in investigations and hearings. If the Bill is to fulfil its promise, the culture and the practical machinery of state accountability both need to change, not only the letter of the law.

Finally, as the Government and Parliament proceed, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition thank those across the other place, your Lordships’ House and, most notably, outside the Palace of Westminster who have worked tirelessly over decades to ensure that this grave issue remains on the radar and is ultimately fixed for good.

The former Attorney-General, the right honourable Dominic Grieve, persisted with constructive engagement over many years with questions of public accountability and the rule of law. His contributions, both in public office and subsequently, have helped advance turning the wider public concerns into enforceable statute.

There are many families whose perseverance has made this measure possible. Their cause deserves the highest level of care and best efforts in scrutinising and improving the Bill when it comes to your Lordships’ House. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition look forward to further discussion and collaborating cross-party with all noble Lords to ensure that the Bill is effective and fair and delivers the justice that families of relatives and friends caught up in the Hillsborough disaster both seek and deserve.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, please let me thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions on this important subject matter. As we have heard, secure 16 to 19 academies are a promising and innovative conceptual approach to improving the youth justice system. His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons’ 2016 review of that system advocated for new institutions aimed at giving those who committed a custodial offence

“a bespoke and intensive programme of study and support in a therapeutic and well-ordered environment”.

When in government, we agreed with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and set upon that task to introduce secure schools. As a result of that work, the first secure school, the Oasis Restore, was opened with the intention of offering young people who have made poor choices in the past the opportunity to receive rehabilitation, support and education, in order that they may acquire the skills and qualifications needed to both better their lives and avoid the same mistakes in the future. These mainly young men and women deserve a second chance. As my noble friend Lord Farmer, who strives relentlessly for positive prison reform and improving outcomes for offenders, would confirm, with the right help and guidance, these youngsters can turn their lives around for the better.

I believe that all noble Lords, regardless of political persuasion, would agree that it is in Parliament’s power to facilitate institutions that will provide this, while at the same time being entirely realistic that it will be no easy task. The Bill is a further step towards that end, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition fully support it.

The concept of secure schools presupposes institutions which are flexible, short-term and have a high turnover. Young people are rehabilitated at a secure school and released back into society if and when that happens. There is no guarantee of the demand for such schools, nor the tenure of their occupants. Giving these places of improvement the same treatment as if they were regular schools, or prescribing them with the same regulations and requirements, is not practical. It is crystal clear that secure schools urgently require their own remit, given what we know about the extremely regrettable situation of events at Oasis Restore. Assaults and disorder were reportedly rife, in a chaotic and often out of control atmosphere. This is a country mile away from the intent behind a secure school. The fact that the pilot secure school is facing these early challenges is firm evidence that they must have a wider and more adaptable scope for action.

As was so eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, decreasing the notice period from seven years to two years allows for current and any future secure schools to be as flexible as the context requires. In a similar vein, disapplying the requirement to conduct an impact assessment on local maintained schools is prudent. Secure schools are a wholly different type of institution from the average school. They are jointly custodial and educational establishments. They are not competing for the same intake of students as local maintained schools. Therefore, comparing schools is both unnecessary and irrelevant. Requiring further considerations creates an additional layer of administrative bureaucracy that slows down the process. It is that very process which we are trying to achieve with secure schools—namely, the rehabilitation and further education of young people, which suffers as a result.

We understand that future secure schools will be dependent on funding, as well as the future success of Oasis Restore. We ask that the Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, might consider diverting some resource from their respective departments to focus on making Oasis Restore a shining template for what can be achieved with the right strategy and know-how.

As my noble friend Lord Farmer and many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House agree, including the noble Lord, Lord Bates, it is entirely possible to save young people from reoffending and living a life of crime, with all of the incremental negative consequences to society that go with it, if the right provision is given as early as possible. It is on us to play a pivotal role in helping secure schools to succeed, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that the Bill achieves part of that.

Uncollected Financial Penalties

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

It is an interesting question—one which I used to grapple with regularly when I sat as a magistrate in Westminster. The noble Lord is asking that the sentencer increase the sentence from a fine to a community order, increasing the sentence for certain people who are unable to pay their fines. It may be that this is taken into account when sentencers make that judgement, but it is an inflationary—if I could use that word—solution to a problem. Nevertheless, of course, when sentencers impose fines, they have to take into account the means of those whom they sentence.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, there is £5 billion-worth of bitcoin cryptocurrency in government accounts seized from organised crime relating to Jian Wen. Please allow me to repeat that: £5 billion that is in the Government's bank account. I ask a similar question to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, posed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer four months ago: what are the Government’s plans for this windfall?

Prison Capacities

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, this will be quick. Four years from now, the prison population will be around 106,000. The Institute for Government has stated that, even with new prisons being built, there could be a shortfall of 8,000 prison places by 2028. Under the previous Government, we delivered the largest expansion to the prison estate since the Victorian era. Please will the Minister let us know exactly when and where the Government are going to build new prisons to accommodate these additional offenders?

It has been reported that probation officers are aware of criminals convicted of sexual and serious violent offences who are eligible for the early release scheme because they are serving consecutive sentences and Prison Service staff take into account only the sentence for a less serious, non-sexual offence. Please can the Minister reassure the House that this is not the case and confirm that any offender serving such consecutive sentences will not be eligible for early release?

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales has warned that a third of the victims where perpetrators were due for release on Tuesday were likely to be unaware of this. Many of these victims are not eligible for victim notification schemes, and those who are often fall off the Probation Service’s lists. Please can the Minister let us know how that can be allowed to happen and the exact number of victims who have not been informed?

A senior probation officer has also recounted that, by the time the Prison Service had determined who was eligible, many colleagues had been given only four weeks to prepare for offenders confirmed for release. In one instance, a colleague had been given just one week’s notice. The Government said that at least 1,000 new trainee probation officers would be recruited by the end of March 2025. Please can the Minister explain why it takes seven months to recruit trainees? That is surely too long. Does he not agree that four months should be the target to complete this?

Finally, for prisoner well-being, will the Minister commit to building an extra exercise facility in each of the UK’s 141 prisons to help the mental and physical rehabilitation and social interaction of prisoners?