Early Release of Prisoners

Debate between Carla Lockhart and John Hayes

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Disraeli, the great Conservative Prime Minister, said:

“Justice is truth in action.”—[Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 11 February 1851; Vol. 114, c. 412.]

When criminal justice deviates from what the public see as the truth, the faith in its delivery is undermined. People want to see that justice is done and seen to be done, and that punishments for wickedness are dealt with appropriately. I take a different view from the Minister about the character of a retributive approach to criminal justice, as I do think that retribution is an important part of satisfying a legitimate public thirst for appropriateness—that is to say, when something awful is done, people expect the person responsible for that horror to be treated accordingly. They do not take the view, which has prevailed for successive decades affecting all kinds of Governments, that we should, in the first place, treat the criminal as though suffering from an illness. The treatmentist approach has dominated thinking on criminal justice for most of my lifetime is out of tune with popular sentiment.

The truth is that crime is not an illness to be treated; it is a perverse choice by those seeking to gain from it. That might be financial or, in the case of sexual crime, about lust. When we speak of wickedness, let us be straightforward: these kinds of instincts have been endemic in humankind since we fell from the state of grace, so we should not assume that people are not capable of the worst horrors—all of human history shows that they are. When that occurs, people expect those who exercise power to deal with it emphatically, without fear or favour.

We need a criminal justice system that defends the innocent and punishes the guilty, and I make no apologies in making a case for punishment. People should be punished when they do awful, wicked things, so I want to see more people locked up for much longer. I do not think I am out of tune with my constituents, because I think they would say exactly the same.

What we actually have is public policy that is taking us in exactly the opposite direction. We are seeing people sentenced and, as though that sentence is meaningless, then serving half of it. What is the purpose of a judge agreeing a sentence when the victims of the crime know that the person responsible for it will only serve half the time that the judge insists is necessary for punishment to be done?

Early release will not just affect minor criminals; we have heard from Members across the Chamber that it will be applied to people of all types. When my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) asked for clarification about numbers, answer was there none. We do not know how many of those who will be released remarkably early are likely to pose a considerable danger to my constituents, the Minister’s and my right hon. Friend’s. I was not generous but accurate in describing the Minister as a decent man, and I think the least he owes us is, before the debate concludes—he can get a message sent to him from on high, by which I mean the Box over there, not from God—to be precise about the number of people in each of the categories that have been described today who will be released early. How many people convicted of manslaughter, how many child sexual offenders and how many rapists will now be on the streets as a result of this policy?

The Minister has come to the House and said, “This is a matter of practicality because there are insufficient prison places to hold all those there.” We know that there are two reasons for that beyond the desire to lock people up. One is the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons, so let us have some clarity about the number of those who are being deported. Is the number increasing dramatically, and if not, what are the impediments to those offenders returning to their country of origin?

Secondly, there are large numbers of prisoners on remand because the throughput of the courts is insufficient. How many people are on remand? How long have they been in prison? What steps will the Government take to improve the throughput in our court system that allows fewer of those people to be clogging up our prisons? We have to assume that some of them are innocent; not everyone who is on remand will later be found guilty, so there may be innocent people in prison, but we are going to let guilty people—we know they are guilty, because they have already been sentenced—free. That seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I am always happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way; he is speaking very eloquently. The British people believe in a simple principle: if you do the crime, you should do the time. We in Northern Ireland, unfortunately, have witnessed the early release of prisoners under the Good Friday agreement, the impact that it has on victims and the retraumatisation of victims. I agree with his point totally. When we speak about prison capacity, would we not all agree that the airport is where foreign nationals should be, not the high street, which will retraumatise victims?

[Sir John Hayes]

Not for the first time, the hon. Lady has brought both insight and character to our considerations. She has been consistent in raising this issue in the House. From the experience in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, we know the effects of early release: many of the people released early will go on to commit other crimes. The figures are really quite shocking. Official data shows that there were 870 notifications of serious further offences committed by released prisoners in 2024-25, including 56 murders and 107 rapes.

When, from time to time, I make the case for capital punishment as a sentence available for the worst possible crimes, I am told that we could not possibly have that because we might make mistakes. However, we know that many people who have committed murder and subsequently been released have murdered again. Some of the people we are about to release will commit awful, horrible crimes. Not only will their victims be traumatised by fear, but crimes are almost bound to be committed by those people, in reality, notwithstanding the efforts of the Probation Service and the police, and that will be on the Minister’s head—I do not think he wants that, for he could not possibly defend it to his constituents. I do not think that that any Member of the House would be comfortable with the idea that a decision taken here might have that effect.

I implore the Minister, as I did earlier, to speak to the shadow Minister to see if the House can come together to find a solution to the problem. I know it is not straightforward, and that other Governments have wrestled with it. None the less, this issue surely stretches beyond the party divide, and is one that we can all use our endeavours and our imagination to try to solve.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Debate between Carla Lockhart and John Hayes

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady’s intervention, though not pithy, was pertinent, because she is one of the 3.8 million women, of all kinds and types, who were affected. Many were not well-off; many did all kinds of jobs that could not be described as highly paid; and many found themselves in a position of financial hardship. That is why I stand here today—because this injustice affects all kinds of women, and it has been mischaracterised by some who do not want to face that fact. That makes me angry and righteously indignant, as I always am in the cause of the disadvantaged.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very kind in doing so. In Upper Bann and indeed across Northern Ireland, thousands of women feel absolutely betrayed by this Government. Does he agree that those women are in financial hardship today because of that betrayal? It is morally indefensible that not a penny has been made available to these women.

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, I agree. Some women were forced to carry on working, even when—as an earlier intervention suggested—they were not really in a position to do so, even when they had extra responsibilities, and even when they were not really fit to do so. That is just not acceptable. It is not right; it is not just.

Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021

Debate between Carla Lockhart and John Hayes

Monday 26th April 2021 General Committees

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister says that, but it is clear from reading the regulations that, in certain circumstances, abortion can take place up to birth and that the 1967 Act’s insistence on two medical practitioners authorising abortion will not necessarily apply in Northern Ireland. I regard both those things as a more permissive application of the law than the one that pertains.

The 1967 Act may well be applied in theory more than in practice—I should not want to comment on that—but at the very least the risk of the more permissive regime that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge described concerns the people of Northern Ireland, who fear that what is imposed on them might not only go against the expressed will of the people, but be altogether worse than that.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow made it perfectly clear that the essence of the argument used when the law was passed was that as there was no Assembly we had to act. She argued:

“I understand that, if it was not for the fact that we do not have an Assembly, this would absolutely not be the right way forward”.—[Official Report, 9 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 183.]

That is what she said, with not a great deal of elegance; none the less, her point is made: it would absolutely “not be the right way forward.”

If it was “not the right way forward”, why on earth have we continued to pursue this path? When the Assembly was reformed, with a new Government, we had an opportunity to think again. It would not have been a huge step, given that the Assembly had the chance to vote on the matter. It has all the appearance of the Government dictating their will and of Parliament insisting that devolution counts only when the devolved Assemblies agree with people here. That is not something that you, Mr Hosie, I nor any democrat in this place could possibly sanction.

We must think too about the consequences for the Union and the continuing pertinence and relevance of devolution. If people in Northern Ireland come to believe what I have suggested—that their right to self-government is condoned by a Parliament that is so arrogant that it says that when they do not agree with the prevailing view here their rights can be torn away from them—how can they possibly continue to believe in the settlement or, indeed, even in the Union?

I was recently contacted by a clergyman from County Fermanagh, who decried the regulations as the final nail in the coffin of devolution. Indeed, an open letter was sent to the Prime Minister from 250 church leaders opposing today’s proposals. On at least four occasions, we have actively ignored the expressed will of Northern Ireland’s representatives on a matter of great importance to many in the Province. First, as has been noted, on 19 July 100% of Northern Ireland Members who take their seats voted against the process that resulted in section 9—a Northern Ireland-only provision on a devolved matter. Let me repeat that: a Northern Ireland-only provision on a devolved matter—a matter expressly devolved to Northern Ireland, yet it was imposed despite that opposition from Members who hold a specific mandate to represent the people there. At that moment we told the people of Northern Ireland that the voices of those elected to represent them would be ignored, and their history and deeply held views on this matter of conscience disregarded. By extension, we told the people of Northern Ireland that their opinion did not matter.

Secondly, we ignored the voice of the people of Northern Ireland in the consultation on the 2020 regulations, in which 79% of participants said they did not want the measure to proceed—seventy-nine per cent. is an even greater percentage than I managed to secure of the vote in South Holland and The Deepings—not much greater, but somewhat.

Thirdly, we ignored the voices of the people of Northern Ireland when we insisted on welcoming the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly while simultaneously ignoring its clear vote last year to reject the 2020 regulations. We now seek to forsake them again by forgoing further public consultation on the new regulations, at a time when the Assembly is working as intended, providing extensive and conscientious scrutiny of an imposed policy of the utmost sensitivity and profound local concern.

[Carla Lockhart]

I noted this with regard to my own speech but did not reference it. If the Committee was forcing a devolved issue on Scotland or Wales, would Members in this place agree to it? I think back to two examples. In 1957, Westminster voted to impose the flooding of the Tryweryn valley in Wales—

[Carla Lockhart]

Thank you, Mr Hosie. My point is that Welsh MPs voted against that, but the Government forced it through, which was recently described as “shameful”.

The same applies with the poll tax in Scotland, about which David Cameron apologised in 2006. One would hope that the lesson had been learned about not forcing things on the devolved Administrations, because that undermines and damages the Union. Therein lies my broad point.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is true, and the Committee that considered this issue before this Committee said that it was unprecedented in respect not only of Northern Ireland, but of any of the devolved nations. The decision that this Committee looks set to take—I will not put it more strongly than that—in supporting the regulations is so exceptional as to be noteworthy, as I described, and the hon. Lady has amplified.

It has been acknowledged that these issues understandably give rise to strong views, but on a matter as sensitive as this what is happening is particularly reprehensible. It would be reprehensible on a constitutional basis, regardless of the issue, but on a matter that causes such grave concern in Northern Ireland it is all the more so.

Today’s regulations are the continuation of a process that has fallen far short of the standards to which we as legislators should hold ourselves. I am not for one minute suggesting that people in Scotland and Wales think as the people of Northern Ireland do concerning abortion, but the precedents flowing from the way in which we are treating Northern Ireland with respect to the sustainability of the current devolution settlement across our kingdom are obvious.

Do not tell me that this is a matter of the sovereignty of Parliament, which we have heard suggested once or twice. Parliament has been sovereign since 1707. The fact that it can do certain things does not mean that it must do all things or should even do those things that it can. Parliament is sovereign by way of our constitution. By that constitution, it constrains itself by convention, and there are few more important conventions than upholding the Union and the Acts of Parliament that underpin it.

I recommend our Attorney General’s views on judicial activism and the creeping role of the Supreme Court in making public policy. If those views are not sufficiently persuasive, I recommend the views of the former Supreme Court judge, Lord Sumption, who has been clear that democratic legitimacy relies on the judiciary knowing what its constraints should be.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Debate between Carla Lockhart and John Hayes

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, if the Government carry on down this road, we will have Las Vegas-style drive-through divorces. The hon. Gentleman is right. The Law Society suggested 9 months, and it was 12 months the last time reform of the law was suggested some years ago, so I am astounded, frankly, that we have come up with six months. It is an imperfect world, but a still more imperfect Government and, most of all, a wholly imperfect proposal, on which the Government have been resistant to amendment or change in any way.

The second thing I want to talk about is learning, because we learn from listening. The Government issued a consultation, and completely ignored the fact that most of the respondents did not want what the Bill now proposes. Most people felt that, even where they believed that the law should be changed, it should not be changed in this way. This is the most radical reform of divorce, with no public appetite for it, which completely contradicts the Government’s own consultation. That is how bad this is. I have seen many pieces of legislation come before this House as I have endured and enjoyed many Governments of many colours, but I can rarely remember a Bill that I would be less likely to vote for than this one.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will happily give way briefly, but I do not want to truncate the Minister’s time.

[Carla Lockhart]

The Government did consult, and does he agree that, with three quarters of respondents disagreeing with the Government plans, this Government are making people disenchanted about consultations on such issues?

[Sir John Hayes]

With a mix of assiduity and diligence, for which she is becoming well known in this House, the hon. Lady has fleshed out my argument with the facts that I did not have at my disposal, so I am grateful. She is right. I mentioned that the consultation was not listened to, but she has shown just how much the Government ignored what they were advised by the people they consulted.

The third thing I want to talk about is time. It is absolutely right that we should take time over this sort of legislation, which is challenging by its very nature. The Bill is being rushed through the House at a time when we are enduring one of the worst health crises of all time—certainly, the worst in our memory—and families are under intense pressure and relationships are strained, inevitably. Yet the Government regard this as the right time to bring this Bill before us for consideration? I find that quite extraordinary—quite astounding.

In respect of time, let me say this. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who spoke at the beginning of the debate, is absolutely right that time is necessary so that people can engage with those services designed to encourage the very reflection I recommended. Counselling does matter. Time to think about how you are going to sort your life out, even if you cannot rebuild your relationship, matters. To limit that to a few months—what amounts, in practice, to a few weeks, because of the way the process is now going to work—seems to fly in the face of all experience, given what we hear from those engaged in that process of mediation and counselling.

Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Debate between Carla Lockhart and John Hayes

Monday 8th June 2020 General Committees

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a question for the Minister, not me, because he will have those figures to hand, but he was the one who made great play of the consultation, not I. He cited the consultation in his opening remarks. Indeed, he celebrated the fact that the Government had consulted widely. I was simply clarifying that in that wide consultation the overwhelming majority of people who responded were not in favour of what we are being asked to support today.

There have been other tests of opinion and other polls. The University of Liverpool released a poll showing that only 5% of Northern Irish voters wanted abortion to be provided up to 24 weeks, which is what the regulations do. The strength of feeling on the issue transcends the usual divides in Northern Ireland. According to polling, 58% of Sinn Féin voters and 54% of Democratic Unionist party voters believe that abortion should be allowed only if the mother’s life is at risk.

I could go on about polling, but I will simply make this point: it would be easy to assume that women took a different view from men, or that the young took a different view from those who have lived longer. In truth, women are less supportive of the regulations than men, and the young are less supportive than their parents and grandparents. In Northern Ireland, the regulations are certainly unwanted. That was illustrated last week, as has been said, when the Northern Ireland Assembly voted to oppose the regulations, passing a motion that states:

“That this Assembly welcomes the important intervention of disability campaigner Heidi Crowter and rejects the imposition of abortion legislation which extends to all non-fatal disabilities, including Down’s syndrome.”

The regulations are unwise. Seventy-nine of the 90 MLAs in the Northern Ireland Assembly voted against abortion on the grounds of non-fatal abnormalities. Despite that, the regulations permit abortion up to birth on the grounds that the unborn child has been diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, a cleft lip or palate, or a club foot. If we vote the regulations through, what does that say to the people in Northern Ireland about how we view their opinion? Even more importantly, what does it say to those disabled people in that part of our kingdom, indeed in the whole of our kingdom, about how we regard them? I say it would broadcast loudly and clearly that we do not regard them very highly at all.

Furthermore, the regulations go much further than the requirements set out in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 and further than the provisions that apply in England and Wales. Specifically, they allow for abortion on demand without certification through to 12 weeks, which will allow sex-selective abortion to be available during that period. It is the first time that no ground for abortion has been allowed up to 12 weeks. Some will say, “Well, that won’t happen. That’s alarmist. Why on earth would people abort a child on the basis of its gender?” I do not share that uncynical view, because we know there are cases where people have done so, and there are places in the world where that is common. We do not want it happening here, and anything that risks it should, frankly, send a shiver down the spine of any member of the Committee.

Indeed, the Government have curiously—I would go so far as to say remarkably—chosen to impose on Northern Ireland a more permissive regime than the one that applies in England and Wales. I do not have time, and you would not permit me, Sir David, to go through all the areas in which the regulations are more liberal than the regime that applies to the rest of the kingdom. That raises the issue of consistency, certainty and clarity—all used as arguments in favour of the regulations by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, who has now left. How bizarre—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend is back; her ears must have been burning. If it is clarity, certainty and consistency that we want, why on earth would we want to impose a different regime in Northern Ireland from that which prevails elsewhere?

Yet there is a substantially different regulatory approach to abortions proposed for Northern Ireland from that in England and Wales. The Northern Ireland regime will allow all GP surgeries to be approved locations to do abortions, allowing this serious procedure to take place in a dramatically increased number of locations compared with England and Wales.

[Carla Lockhart]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the legislation has no reference to inspections of places where abortions can take place, which leaves difficulty in managing where they can and will take place?

[Sir John Hayes]

That is true, too. It is also true that whereas an abortion can be carried out in England and Wales only by a doctor, the regulations extend that. The issue of home abortions, with the woman taking a pill—there has been quite a lot of publicity in the national press in the last few weeks about how that can go wrong—is also catalysed by the proposed changes.