Sentencing Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Gardner]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree. Prison should be rehabilitative. Any offender should have that support, to prevent reoffending. It is right for our society, it is right for potential victims, and it is right for offenders, who often resort to criminality due to very severe personal circumstances and trauma.

Gambling disorder is recognised as a mental health condition. Leading mental health assessment tools such as the DSM-5—the fifth edition of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”—and the World Health Organisation’s international classification of diseases classify gambling as an addiction with similar cognitive and psychological effects to those of substance use disorders. Research indicates that once an individual begins chasing their gambling losses with further gambling, their cognitive functioning becomes impaired. Changes can occur in brain chemistry and neurocognitive function, and the ability to make rational decisions—such as choosing whether to engage in criminal behaviour to manage debts or to continue gambling—becomes compromised. There is the link.

The criminal justice system recognises the psychological impact of drug and alcohol dependency. Drug and alcohol dependency are mitigating factors, with sentencing guidelines, treatment pathways and rehabilitation requirements, as set out in the Sentencing Act 2020.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument, drawing parallels between gambling addiction and drug and alcohol abuse. Earlier this year, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I questioned Government officials about the endemic use of drugs in prisons. The Carol Black report looked at this back in 2020—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. How long have you been in the Chamber? Have you just walked in?

[Anna Dixon]

No, I have not just walked in. This is the third speech I have listened to.

[The Chairman]

Okay. Make sure your intervention is short.

[Anna Dixon]

A lot of drug users are repeat offenders, as my hon. Friend was saying about those with a gambling addiction. Does she agree that a shift to community provision might enable people to get the rehabilitation they need for their addiction, whether it be drugs, alcohol or gambling?

[Dr Gardner]

I do. I reiterate that to break the cycle of reoffending or recidivism, rehabilitation must be at the heart of all sentencing and punishment, be it community or custodial.

Under the Sentencing Act 2020, an individual suffering from drug and alcohol addiction receives targeted support through the alcohol treatment and drug treatment requirements for community orders and suspended sentences, yet no such legislation ensures that individuals serving community orders or suspended sentences for gambling- related offences seek rehabilitative treatment. Pre-sentence reports can include problem gambling, and the court may decide that an offender is suitable for a mental health treatment requirement as part of a community order or suspended sentence. However, although problem gambling is associated with depression and a heightened risk of suicide, the mental health treatment requirement does not directly treat gambling disorder.

--- Later in debate ---

All new clause 3 seeks is an assurance from the Minister, preferably in the Bill, that unpaid work will be undertaken only for non-profit organisations. In the past, such work has been undertaken for these bodies, including social enterprises, voluntary organisations and, yes, local authorities, working with local community initiatives. The private sector should never be allowed to profit from such work.

[Anna Dixon]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s clarification that charities would still be able to provide these placements. I have a fantastic charity in my constituency, upCYCLE, which teaches bike maintenance skills to help rehabilitate people. Currently, that is done in prisons, but when there are more community sentences, that sort of charity will want to give people skills and meaningful work in the community. I just want to clarify that this is not about excluding charities.

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly in the tradition of community service as it was founded and developed over the years, but the experiments with privatisation have been a disaster. There is an argument that once a system starts using the private sector, as in America, offenders become economic units for exploitation and profiteering. The Justice Unions Parliamentary Group warns that we should not venture down that path, both as a result of historical failures, and given what has happened in other countries when the private sector has been able to use offenders in that way. The new clause is about returning to the traditional community service approach in this country. It was relatively effective, but in this new Sentencing Bill, which we welcome, it will be expanded on a scale perhaps not envisaged in the past. It is as simple as that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

It is certainly true that a very significant proportion of criminals are repeat offenders, and there are people who choose to live a life of crime. This is not an illness to be treated; it is a malevolent choice to be dealt with through punishment, because we need to punish people for doing harm. That is not complicated—it is what all our constituents would take as read—yet, as I say, we seem to agonise about it perpetually.

[Anna Dixon]

Referring to my earlier comments, the data show that one in four prisoners are drug users and have a drug and alcohol problem, and they constitute many of the reoffenders. Given that data, does the right hon. Member not agree with me that we should be rehabilitating and medically treating those addictions, so that they are not caught up in the criminal justice system?

[Sir John Hayes]

It is certainly true that one perverse choice leads to other consequences, and when people become involved in drugs, it often leads to all kinds of horrors. The key thing is therefore to stop people getting involved in drugs, and successive Governments, including this one, have intended to do that. Through a series of measures, we try to deter people from involvement in drugs, to deal with drug dealers and to do all the other things that you will not allow me to speak about at length, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I would be deviating from the content of the amendments if I did—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. While I attack the rehabilitationist dogma, I do of course believe that we should try to save souls, and the best way of doing that is to address people’s fundamental problems, as many Members across the Committee have said in the course of this debate. That might be about ensuring that people have adequate learning, or it might be about the acquisition of a particular skill. The hon. Lady will know from her rich experience in these matters that if someone can get a job when they leave prison, they are much less likely to reoffend. When someone in those circumstances is unable to get a job, it is usually a result of the fact that they do not have core skills, in terms of basic competencies, or specialist skills. Where those can be provided through learning in prison, that undoubtedly has beneficial results—I have seen that myself in prison, where I have met both the people who run such services and the people receiving them. The hon. Lady is therefore right.

However, I am really speaking about something more fundamental than that, which is a willingness to recognise —as the hon. Lady did, by the way, in her brief intervention —that punishment matters. The reticence or unwillingness to declare that as openly as I have, or the attempt to ignore or avoid it, is at odds with the instincts of the vast majority of our constituents. It is, perhaps, a product of a society that has lost its moral compass, where right and wrong have been eroded through a kind of moral relativism. Perhaps it is because of some quasi-Freudian need to explain crime in more complex terms than it may warrant—for it is simply a question of someone wanting something they cannot get and using force, violence or some other means to get it.

[Anna Dixon]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a passionate and principled speech about punishment, but we are dealing here with practicalities. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, has looked at the prison estate capacity. There was a pledge under the previous Government for 20,000 additional prison places; just 6,518 of those were actually built. If the right hon. Gentleman were to pursue this line of saying that everybody needs to have a punishment without rehabilitation, I do not understand where, in practical terms, he is going to put people.

[Sir John Hayes]

I agree with the hon. Lady, actually. I remember visiting the former Justice Secretary—the former Member for Cheltenham, Alex Chalk—with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), to tell him that we would not vote for it if that Government brought forward a measure to let people out early. My position on this matter has been entirely consistent; I would not have voted for a Conservative measure that let people out of prison early any more than I will vote for this measure tonight.

I suggested three things to the then Justice Secretary: first, that we deal more robustly with foreign national offenders; again, our constituents would be astounded and appalled if they realised just how many foreign national offenders are in our prisons. Secondly, I suggested taking emergency measures to provide prison places. After all, during covid, we built Nightingale hospitals; I suggested that we build Fry prisons, named after the Tory prison reformer Elizabeth Fry, which will not be lost on the historians here in the Chamber. I do not see why that could not be done.

Thirdly, we should certainly explore prisons that have been closed in recent times, under Conservative and Labour Governments, and see which could be used, either temporarily or on a permanent basis. There is a whole range of measures that we could take. It is not easy, and I say that knowing what it is like being a Government Minister. None of those things are easy, but they are all worthy of further exploration because of the effects that the legislation will have.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I will speak briefly and cover just three points. I do not expect to persuade those committed to opposing the Bill to change their minds; I hope that I do not persuade those supporting it to change theirs. This is the time to put our concluded thoughts on the record before seeking their lordships’ opinions.

I start where I finished my speech on Second Reading: agency. Since that debate last November, I have continued to meet constituents on both sides of the argument, and answered hundreds of letters and emails—I am sure that other hon. Members have done the same. I have met mainly with groups that oppose the Bill, including faith groups, because they have sought to change my mind. I have not changed my mind. I am still driven by the plight of those suffering unnecessarily at the end of life.

I wholly respect the decision of those who would not want assisted dying for themselves, but I cannot accept their right to deny that choice to those who would, for the most profound reasons, use the provisions of the Bill to end their lives. The pain, suffering, indignity and degradation of a slow, painful, tortured death is something none of us would wish on a friend or relative—on anyone. If that suffering at the end of life, in the narrow circumstances prescribed by the Bill, can be avoided, who are we to deny that?

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

I am not going to give way.

The obvious qualification to what should be a clear and personal choice to leave life in a matter and at a time of one’s choosing is the risk of coercion, and that has rightly dominated much of the debate for the past eight months. There are two points to be made here.

First, great effort has been expended, and is reflected in amendments to the Bill, to make the safeguards as comprehensive and watertight as possible, learning from and going beyond practice in other jurisdictions. Compliance with the provisions of the Bill is a rigorous process, but it is also a practical one; it is designed to be transparent and to test the intent of the person seeking an assisted death.

Secondly, some say that that is still not enough, but with what are they comparing it? The answer at best, and in some cases, is the status quo, which may involve an investigation post mortem as to whether assistance has been given—putting a caring loved one at risk of prosecution, but doing nothing to prevent those of malign intent.

Finally, although I have tried to see both sides on every issue, there is one point on which the opponents of the Bill are, in my opinion, just wrong: whether the Bill has, thus far, seen due process. I have been in Parliament for a month over 20 years, and I can think of few Bills of this length and scope that have received so much scrutiny and so many hours in Committee, or on which so much evidence has been submitted and comment made.

Members will vote against the Bill for many reasons, even though by doing so they restrict the choice of others. They should compare the regime pre and post legislation and, I hope, decide that the Bill gives greater protection. But I ask them not to vote against it because we have lacked the time or information to make a decision—we have not—or because we do not as a country have the ability to resource the Bill—we do. A great trust and great opportunity have been given to the Members of this Parliament. This is the moment of decision, and we should discharge it to the best of our ability.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I am honoured to have been called in this debate. It has been moving to hear contributions from across the House. Feelings have been particularly raw for me, as I witnessed my close friend Sharon dying of cancer over the last few months aged just 55. She had good access to palliative and hospice care, and died at home with her sister and niece. But even with that support, her final days were difficult. Her sister wrote to me:

“she was highly distressed, everyday she said she’d had enough and wanted to die—it was very undignified for her and it was heartbreaking to observe but be powerless to help.”

Each story we hear of loss and grief is unique. As legislators, we must consider everyone who will be affected, both directly and indirectly, by a change in the law. The public and the courts are rightly looking to Parliament to answer the question of whether the provision of assisted suicide should be a legal option. It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to do the job properly.

Like many other Members, I have spent the past weeks listening to constituents and professionals in my Shipley constituency and experts in this place. I have read numerous reports and articles. As well as the moral and ethical dilemmas, there are many complex legal and practical considerations that need careful examination. I take a different view from the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who has just spoken. I welcome the reassurances from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and her commitment that the Bill Committee should take evidence, but I am not confident that a private Member’s Bill process will be able to adequately address the issues. That is why I have co-sponsored the cross-party amendment, tabled by my colleague the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), to call for an independent review and a systematic public consultation on these legal changes and for an independent assessment of the provision of palliative care.



With a background in health and social care, and specifically in ageing, I am particularly mindful of the context of the Bill and I wish to make three brief observations that concern me. First, we have heard many times about inequalities in access to palliative and end-of-life care. According to Hospice UK some 100,000 people die each year who could benefit from end-of-life care but do not receive it. Those who are non-white and from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to get care. Unless terminally ill people are confident of access to high quality end-of-life care, how can they make an informed choice about assisted dying? I believe that investment in palliative care must come before a change in the law is implemented.

My second point is about the failure to reform social care. Some people have to spend their life savings, including the value of their home, on care. Much of the responsibility for providing care falls to family members who fill the gap. Older and disabled people with a terminal illness may feel an unspoken pressure to go down the route of assisted dying to protect their inheritance, or because they do not want to be a burden. There is a real, direct risk of coercion. Annually there are 400,000 cases of domestic abuse against older people in England and Wales.

My third concern is that the NHS is on its knees, as outlined in the Darzi report, and an impact assessment is needed to understand fully the cost of implementation to the NHS. Do we have the doctors? What additional training is required? What is the opportunity cost of the necessary but lengthy process of establishing consent, capacity, and absence of coercion? Without that we risk making dying legal, but finding that it is available only to those who can pay.

I will conclude my remarks, respectful of the fact that many colleagues want to speak. I recognise that people can benefit from a potential change in the law—people such as my friend Sharon, for whom palliative care was unable to relieve her suffering. However, there are also many who could be put at risk by a change in the law, and other direct and indirect costs and consequences that need to be weighed up. I believe we should adopt the precautionary principle in this case, and without a proper public consultation and a detailed examination, I will be unable to support the Bill today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

21. What steps her Department is taking to support victims of rape and sexual violence.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

23. What steps her Department is taking to support victims of rape and sexual violence.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

24. What steps her Department is taking to support victims of rape and sexual violence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon]

I draw the Minister’s attention to the work of Bradford council and West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin, who have launched the safety of women and girls initiative, together with a dedicated women’s safety unit within West Yorkshire police. What support can the Government offer to bolster the efforts of local authorities such as Bradford to stamp out violence against women and girls in our communities?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend’s question gives me the opportunity to also place on record my thanks to Mayor Tracy Brabin for all the incredible work she is doing in this field. She is an outstanding champion for tackling violence against women and girls, and we should be doing more work like hers across Government.

As I have said, we are committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade. We are supporting colleagues across Whitehall, including at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure close collaboration with local authorities. In addition, the duty to collaborate under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will facilitate improved multi-agency working and encourage all local commissioners to provide joined-up working for victims of all crimes, including violence against women and girls.