Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) has spoken most movingly, and we know that many of us are very conflicted on this issue. We have to respect each other and show compassion—we know what this debate is all about. No one side has a monopoly on compassion.

I will say in a moment why I believe in being assisted to die in a dignified way, but will the House forgive me if I start with an essential legal point? We know that what this is all about is ensuring that the Bill we are debating today leaves the House unamended so that the Parliament Act can be imposed. The Isle of Man had an assisted dying Bill, which, like this Bill, left a lot to delegated powers. The Ministry of Justice concluded that this meant that that Bill was not compatible with the European convention on human rights. When the result of the private Member’s Bill ballot was published, three former Attorneys General of both parties—Baroness Scotland, Dominic Grieve and Baroness Prentis—wrote to the promoter to urge her not to present the same Bill, as it would run into the same legal and constitutional difficulties. It is unfortunate that that offer has not been taken up, and we have to ask why.

Let me give my own personal views as briefly as possible. I will surprise the House by saying that I am in favour of assisted dying. I am in favour of the idea that when I, or when any of us, approach our last moments, we go into a hospice and are assisted to die. That is what doctors and nurses do all the time. I have been very impressed by what our Prime Minister has said on this issue—he has not been mentioned yet. It is about ensuring that everybody receives excellent palliative care, as we see in our hospices like St Barnabas hospice in Lincoln. So we are agreed on that.

[Imran Hussain]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I have been told to be brief.

I am in favour of our being assisted to die as painlessly as possible, and every palliative care nurse and doctor I have ever talked to has made it clear that in the overwhelming majority of cases, that is possible. Of course, we can be anaesthetised, as we all are when we have operations. I hear the argument, but I believe that we need to improve palliative care.

What worries me about the Bill—this is my point—is that I do not believe that it will be just an assisted dying Bill; I think that in time, it will become an assisted suicide Bill. I have mentioned the ECHR. What is the logic of the Bill? We all know it is terrible if you have a terminal cancer prognosis, but what if you are clinically depressed? What if you are quadriplegic? What if you are sentenced to a lifetime of being unable to move your arms or legs? What if you know, as a member of our family in Canada does, that you will get more and more dementia, so you take the assisted dying route? The truth is that we cannot differentiate between these conditions that make life unbearable for many people. I make this prediction: if this Bill goes through—if the Parliament Act ensures that it does—I believe that in 10 years’ time we will be in similar situation to Canada, and very large numbers of people will be choosing assisted dying.

We hear a lot that this country is broken, and that the elite is ruining the country. I think that is rubbish. This country is not broken. The reason we are under pressure is that there are too many of us—too many old people; too many people with multiple health conditions. There is tremendous pressure on the NHS; we know that. We heard a lot from my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) about coercion. We have also heard that coercion is not necessarily external; it can be internal. I believe that if we move to a society in which assisted suicide is the norm, vast numbers of people will take it up. Is that really the sort of society that we want?

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No. I agree that we would have more prosperity and be a richer country, and would have more choice and freedom, but would it really be a happier country? What I stand for, and what I believe in passionately, is respect for all human life—the life of old people who are suffering so much from dementia that they cannot even recognise their own children, and the life of people who have appalling long-term conditions. I believe that there is a greater thing than choice or prosperity; it is love—love of life. All of us in every country in the last 100 years have said that whatever happens, we should respect life and not take it. Yes, this will be difficult for many people, and we have heard moving stories, but take the NHS; at the moment, when a person goes to hospital, they know that they will be dealt with compassionately by a doctor or nurse, and that the conversation will be all about relieving their symptoms and trying to save their life. Do they want the conversation to start with the fact that their life is unbearable?

I know that there is passion on both sides of this debate, and we treat each other with respect, but before we vote for this Bill at 2.30 pm, remember what sort of society we would be creating—not a society that loves life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T7. The Secretary of State knows how fond I am of him personally, and I want him to keep his job, so will he please his new boss—the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—virtually the entire legal establishment and the English people, whose only wish is to keep their 1,000-year-old right to trial by a jury of their peers when their liberty is at stake?

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Minister will have heard, as I did, the very moving speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) last week. She really moved the House with her testimony of the terrible experience that she had had as a rape victim, and her experience of delays. She will also have heard her say that, according to the Government, abolishing jury trials will save perhaps only a week. So my positive question to the Government is this: why do we not proceed on the basis of the Labour manifesto? It has its merits and it promised specialist rape trials. Why do we not set up courtrooms in every single courthouse with specialist lawyers and really deal with the backlog now?

[Sarah Sackman]

Might I echo—

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Quite unusually, I have served as a practising barrister in courts and have also served on juries. I never fail to be impressed by the extraordinary care that juries take in deciding a case. Undoubtedly, the stand-out speech of the debate so far has been by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox). He addressed us like a jury; it was actually rather wonderful. He posed a question to us that is always posed to a jury, and which is emphasised by the judge at the end of the case: are you certain? Are we sure that trial by jury is guilty? Frankly, I do not think that the Government have made the case so strongly that we can be certain of the outcome.

We are debating something of deep and fundamental seriousness. No one doubts that the backlog in the criminal courts is serious. Everybody agrees—I follow the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) in saying this—that justice delayed is justice denied for victims, whom we would certainly always put first, and for defendants alike. We know that Parliament has a duty to act. The question before us, however, is not whether we solve the backlog, but how we solve it. The concern many of us have is that we may be tempted to treat trial by jury as just some procedural device that can be adjusted for administrative convenience. Leaving aside the fact that there was no mention of this measure in any manifesto, trial by jury is not merely a procedure of the courts; it is one of the constitutional foundations of our liberty.

As William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century,

“Trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law”.

It would have been inconceivable to Blackstone that what he called the “grand bulwark” of an Englishman’s liberties might be voluntarily and needlessly surrendered.

[Sarah Russell]

What does the right hon. Gentleman say about the freedom of women to walk the streets without fearing for their physical safety? What does he say about the freedom of women who have made allegations of rape, and who are waiting six years between reporting to the police and having a trial? Does he recognise that those are liberties that matter, too?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course that is an important point—we are not debating that. Of course the backlog is wrong, but this is not the right way to correct it. The backlog is caused by administrative delays or, if hon. Members want, cuts to the judicial system; it is not caused by trial by jury. Of course we put defendants first.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I may give way in a moment.

Others, not necessarily in our country, have commented on this. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 19th century that the jury

“places the real direction of society in the hands of the governed”.

That was in his book, “Democracy in America”, and the great republic has followed our example.

[Pam Cox]

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill preserves jury trials? It does not abolish them, and to say that it does is to misrepresent the case.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am not suggesting that jury trials have been abolished. If the hon. Member listens to my speech, she will hear me talk later about jury trials for people who are accused of, for instance, shoplifting.

The freedom of the citizen is not solely determined by the state, but by his or her peers—that is the important point. The senior judge and legal philosopher Lord Devlin captured this perfectly when he wrote:

“Each jury is a little parliament.”

The jury trial is the point at which ordinary citizens participate directly in the administration of the King’s justice. The existence of the jury tells a citizen that the determination of justice ultimately belongs to free people of good character, not to bureaucrats, officials or state-appointed mandarins. That is why the principle has deep historical roots in our constitutional tradition, and why this debate is so fundamental.

As long ago as 1215, Magna Carta declared that

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

For more than eight centuries, that principle has stood as a reminder that liberty must always be guarded against the power of the state. Today we are told that this safeguard must be weakened because the courts face a serious backlog. A temporary administrative crisis should not lead us to dismantle a permanent constitutional protection; that is the point. It would be the height of folly.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but Madam Deputy Speaker wants me to proceed.

The backlog did not arise because juries exist; it arose because the system itself has been placed under strain for many years. Opposition Members, like others, have a responsibility here. If the courts are struggling, the answer is to repair the system rather than weaken the principle. Many sensible proposals have been suggested, such as restoring bigger and longer court sitting patterns, opening additional courtrooms, and treating the backlog as a genuine national crisis that requires urgent resources.

Many people have pointed out the flaws in the Lord Chancellor’s plan. Several senior legal figures have written to The Times explaining that the proposals are “unworkable”. Perhaps there is one possible compromise: to at least preserve the absolute right of those of good character to a jury trial. If a person of good character—perhaps a Member of Parliament—is accused of something such as shoplifting, which would be quite a minor case, it can have a devastating impact on their career and life.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

The other logical absurdity is that, under the Government’s proposed reforms, somebody with a previous conviction may well go above the three-year threshold, so those who have a string of previous convictions will get a right to jury trial, but a person of good character will not.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very fair point.

I ask Members to look to their conscience. If they, a Member of Parliament—a person of good character—were accused of shoplifting, what would they choose? They would choose trial by jury, would they not? They would not choose to be tried by a magistrate. The task before us is to solve this practical problem without undermining our constitutional safeguards. The danger that we face is the temptation to sacrifice a long-standing liberty for the sake of short-term administrative convenience.

The Lord Chancellor is a friend of mine and a good man. He is not a villain; he approaches things with the best of intentions—I say that without doubt. The problem is that we may not always have individuals as good natured and well intentioned as him. We accept that he is genuinely trying to solve a problem, but I fear that he is doing it with the wrong mindset. Constitutional safeguards are not designed for moments when power is exercised by good men; they exist precisely because future holders of power may not always be so wise or so restrained. We have become so used to our state of freedom that we are in danger of imagining that it is the natural state of mankind. History teaches us that it is not. We have reached our advanced state of structured freedom, responsible government and parliamentary democracy through centuries of slow, organic growth. They grew through the common law, through Magna Carta, through Parliament and through the principle that the community—the people—participate in justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Member has not been here for the entire debate, so I am afraid that I am not going to address his comments.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) moved a reasoned amendment that would drive a coach and horses through this Bill. Politics is about choices, and to govern is to choose. We know what choices those on the Opposition Benches would make about our justice system, because it is writ large in how they gutted legal aid, shut criminal courts and capped sitting days. They have presented many criticisms, but one thing I have not heard is an apology, nor have I heard an alternative plan for how to address the backlog.

This Government have brought forward a plan built on three pillars, or three levers that we choose to pull. The first is investment in uncapping sitting days, removing the financial constraint on how much our courts can sit and putting record investment into criminal legal aid. I have heard the important contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) about needing to look at the availability of legal aid, because of course access to justice is vital.

The second lever is modernisation. Many Members across the House have pointed to the wasted time in our inefficient and broken court system, with the time it takes to bring prisoners to court, the courtrooms empty because of disrepair—we are now investing in courtrooms —and problems with listing and how we adopt best practice from successful courts such as Liverpool. These are all valuable suggestions, and as the Deputy Prime Minister said in his vision speech last week, we are taking them all forward because we have to pull every lever.

Thirdly, the conclusions of the independent review of criminal courts led by Sir Brian Leveson were clear: investment and efficiency alone will make a dent, but they will not bring down the backlogs. We have to bring forward structural reforms to alleviate the growing pressure on our Crown courts. That was caused not simply by covid or by lack of investment; these long-term changes in our criminal justice system have been coming down the track for decades. Crown court trials take twice as long as they did 20 years ago, the police are making more arrests and it is right that we have more procedural protections. All this means that our system is creaking under the demand, as the modelling we have put forward demonstrates.

The way we are going to bring about transformation is through people—the brilliant people who work every day in our criminal justice system. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), to the CPS, the police and the prison staff, and to the defence and prosecution barristers who power our criminal justice system, because we will need them. As many have pointed out, we will also need our magistrates, and I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who demonstrated how magistrates will power our system. These are lay justices—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will give way, but I am mindful of the time. I have to wrap up on time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not expect an answer now, but will the Minister take away one point that I and others made, which is that people of good character should have an absolute right to a jury trial? She need not answer now, but will she at least consider that point?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will not respond to that point now, but I will say that there needs to be equality before the law irrespective of background.

That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) about rushing. We are not rushing. This Bill, as seen in the vibrant debate we have had today, will receive ample scrutiny. I have taken on board the suggestions from right across the House, whether it is the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) about district judges, or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). We will engage in constructive dialogue to strengthen the Bill. One of the most important ways in which we will do that is through a review, to which the Deputy Prime Minister has committed, focused primarily on the racial disparities and the inequalities in our system.

I am not here to defend the status quo. We know that for too long, marginalised communities, working-class communities and racial minorities—

Separation Centres Review

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I agree with everything the Justice Secretary says about making these places safer, but I have been reading the report from the prisons inspectorate, which said that although separation centres were generally safe, there was not enough skilled focus on deradicalisation. This is a highly complex area. Although I do not want to sound like a weak and washy liberal, we believe that prisons are about not just punishment but redemption. The Secretary of State may not be able to reply now, but could he write to me about what skilled psychological pressures we are using on these people to try to change their behaviour. There are many good Muslims who totally abhor violence whom we could perhaps involve in the process. Maybe I am being naive, but I think it is a question that needs to be asked.

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise in the question the power of the right hon. Gentleman’s Catholicism and belief in redemptive capacity. It is important that we have the best psychiatrists and those with the necessary psychosocial skills working with this group of offenders, but I am convinced that we must remain cynical and cautious in relation to that group, recognising that someone can present for years as a passive, compliant prisoner and yet down the line suddenly attack prison officers in the way that we saw.

Right to Trial by Jury

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I served as a young barrister in criminal courts, and I have served on a jury, and I can say that I was deeply impressed by the care that people on the jury, from all walks of life, took to consider the evidence—actually, they were better than the barristers in many ways.

I can understand where the Minister is coming from, but covid was a one-off event. I say to hon. Members that if someone of previous good character is accused of what might seem to be a minor crime such as shop- lifting, having wandered out of a shop—years ago, one of our colleagues was accused of shoplifting—their whole career and whole reputation could be destroyed. Surely the Minister must accept that a person of previous good character must have a right to jury trial. This is 1,000 years of history and the greatest defence against totalitarianism. We must never throw it away. We should consider that carefully before we proceed.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. To use a Latin quip that barristers are fond of, we are ad idem. I agree with jury trials; they bring something of deep value to our legal tradition. That is why, as I have said, they will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes, but we need to have an air of realism about the context. Currently, 90% of cases are dealt with quite properly, quite fairly and quite robustly without a jury trial. That is the norm. We do not have jury trials in our civil system. Again, that is the norm. In reality, only 3% of cases are heard by a jury. The question is about proportionality.

Where we have the sorts of offences that the right hon. Member referred to, we need to treat all defendants—anybody accused of a crime—equally. We must ensure that we address the crisis we have today, where those who have suffered some of the most serious crimes are waiting years for justice. We have got to do what it takes, and part of that, as Sir Brian Leveson contends, is about the need for proportionate use of one of our most precious commodities, which is our jury trial. I agree that it is a good thing, and we need to use it and preserve it for the most serious cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Father of the House, you are better and bigger than that.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I feel so strongly about it.

[Sarah Sackman]

So do I. I spoke to a victim of child sexual abuse who had waited years for his day in court. A couple of weeks before his trial date, he was given the devastating news that the trial had been adjourned for another year. I regret to say that he sought to take his own life upon hearing that. Luckily, his attempt did not work, but if we ever needed a more graphic illustration of the weight that these intolerable delays place on victims —on real people’s lives—that is it. That is why we have to do whatever it takes to bring down these backlogs.

Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

When it comes to terrorists, what is worrying a lot of us is the fact that people are pouring across the channel illegally and there is absolutely no check whatsoever on them. The Minister may not be able to answer this now, but I am interested in the state of the law. Surely it is a very risky thing for our nation that our enemies could be infiltrating our country in this way. Would it be possible under the refugee convention to detain all illegal migrants, do full background checks on them, and put them in separation centres or whatever, so that we can check that these people are actually safe?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We are working very closely with the Home Office on this, and on our proposals regarding reform of the ECHR. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are bringing forward legislation to clarify exactly how article 8 of the ECHR, the right to a private life, operates domestically in relation to immigration rules, to ensure an appropriate balance between the rights of individuals and the national interest. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister speaks from a sedentary position regarding article 3. Again, we are looking at the interpretation of article 3, so that varied prison conditions or access to healthcare is not a bar to extradition or deportation. I reiterate our commitment to do everything we can to keep our national security safe. I will happily write to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) with more information and clarification on those points.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I serve on the Council of Europe, which is a perfectly worthwhile assembly. The convention was framed shortly after the second world war and was designed to counter Nazism—it was not designed to protect illegal migrants entering a country. We all know that this crisis is sapping belief in government. Why does the very reasonable Justice Secretary not work with the even more reasonable shadow Justice Secretary, come before the House and say that we will get a temporary derogation from the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, and that we will detain and deport anyone who enters this country illegally? That would solve the crisis.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman, who is hugely experienced, will know that it is important that we do not do anything that might, for example, undermine the Good Friday agreement, in respect of which the ECHR is fundamentally important. He rightly mentioned the refugee convention, which sits with the United Nations. I will be going to Strasbourg shortly, where I will be taking up many of these issues.

Prisoner Release Checks

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The crisis of small boats crossing the channel is utterly debilitating and is alienating millions of people from the whole political process. Imagine how the whole atmosphere would have lightened if the Government had come here today and said, “This sort of farce cannot continue. We will get out of any convention, and from midnight tonight if you land illegally on these shores, you will be detained and deported immediately back to where you have come from.”

I want to ask about a particular constituency point. Such is the crisis around how to house these people that there are reports today in The Times and other newspapers that the Government are thinking of opening disused military sites and are looking at two or three in particular. The Government gave a solemn promise that they would not use RAF Scampton to house illegal migrants. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that solemn promise still stands?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the Housing Secretary this morning talking about how we are looking at military sites. We are looking at a number of them intently. I am afraid that I am unable to give him reassurance in relation to his constituency because I have not got the list in front of me, but I will ensure that the appropriate Minister makes contact with him.

Sentencing Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman has to read the Bill, because it does not reduce sentences. He really has to get to grips with the detail of the Bill—I hope these things can be discussed in Committee—because it does not reduce sentences.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On that point, will the Justice Secretary give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I am going to make some progress.

The Bill introduces a new progression model for standard determinate sentences, incentivising offenders to behave in prison. It draws heavily on reforms that were pioneered in Texas, which ended their capacity crisis. I was very pleased last week to meet Derek Cohen, a leading Republican thinker.

I refer the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) to clauses 20 and 21, which amend the release point. For regular standard determinate sentences, a minimum of one third will be served in prison. For more serious crimes on a standard determinate sentence, at least half must be served inside. Bad behaviour—violence, possession of a mobile phone and so on—could add more time in custody.

To ensure that the worst behaved offenders stay inside longer, we will double the maximum additional days for a single incident from 42 to 84. This has got to be punishment that works, with sentences that are tougher when offenders show contempt for the rules of prison. What we want, and what I think the public want, are people coming out of prison reformed. That is what we are attempting to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I have a lot of sympathy with the Bill and with the argument that there is no point calling for longer and longer sentences unless we build prisons. I accept that, but I am worried about the presumption that if someone is sentenced to fewer than 12 months, they should not receive a custodial sentence. As a former practising barrister, I understand the arguments for why short sentences often do not work, but people committing offences such as shoplifting are complete pests, and they are causing enormous damage to the economy. It may sound hard, but sometimes we have to issue short sentences for that sort of offence. We should trust the courts and not try as parliamentarians to impose our judgment on them.

[Mr Lammy]

I understand the seriousness of the point the Father of the House makes. Let me say this. First, we are not abolishing short sentences. The presumption to suspend short sentences does apply, but not where there is significant risk of harm to an individual.

In 2019, the last Government commissioned work on this, which David Gauke relied on in his review, and it was deep research. The problem was that the recidivism rate for those who were committing short offences was desperate. They are prolific precisely because prison does not work for that particular cohort. What is also in the Bill—I think this is good, catholic stuff—is the intensive supervision court, where the judge gets to grips with what is happening with the defendant. Is it drugs? Is it alcohol? Is it addiction? What is going on? The judge really grips what is going on to get underneath the prolific offending. I emphasise that we are not abolishing short sentences entirely. I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.

Under the measures, released offenders will still be deprived of their liberty. Immediately after prison, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision by the Probation Service. Clauses 24 and 25 introduce a strengthened licence period with strict conditions tailored to risk and offence, and it will be possible to apply new restrictive licence conditions to stop offenders from going to the pub, attending football matches or driving cars—restricting their liberties and their life in order to prevent them from being prolific.