Sentencing Bill

Esther McVey Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

I simply say to the hon. Lady that when we delegate that kind of authority to those who are unelected and unaccountable, we are no longer doing our job. Her view, which has prevailed for a very long time, is not entirely the fault of Labour; it is a problem with the whole political class. We have created every kind of body imaginable in every aspect of government to do things that should be done by this House and by Ministers of the Crown.

The Sentencing Council is just another of those bodies. Who knows who is on the Sentencing Council? Certainly most of the hon. Lady’s constituents and most of mine would not have a clue, and they certainly would not know how to influence them in any way. Of course, it is working people who are most disadvantaged by that, not the privileged few who occupy the social circles that the Sentencing Council no doubt occupies. It is the hard-working, patriotic and law-abiding majority in my constituency and hers who are frustrated by a criminal justice system that persistently excuses the worst kinds of crimes rather than punishing them as they deserve to be punished.

There is a new future emerging in the post-liberal age as we build a new order. That order will be inspired by time-honoured truths, rooted in the will of the people and powered by a ceaseless determination to recapture our country for our people. Burke said:

“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

The tyranny of the cruelty of crime and disorder will haunt places and people across our country as the vile and vicious are let loose. I urge the House to accept the variety of amendments that I have mentioned and the many others on the amendment paper that are attempts to rescue the Bill from that horror.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I rise to speak to the amendments that I have tabled. I am delighted to have another attempt to stop the Government doing something that defies justice as well as common sense and that will make our streets less safe. As I said in Committee, my amendments would mean that some serious offenders would not be given the “get out of jail free” card proposed by the Government.

Since Committee, we have had the ludicrous situation involving Hadush Kebatu, who was released from prison after being jailed for sex offences. Quite rightly, there was a public outcry and widespread condemnation from politicians. The massive irony is that if the Bill had already been passed, he would have qualified for the presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence and would not have been in prison in the first place.

Under my amendments 15, 16, 24 and 25, foreign offenders and sex offenders would not be included in the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence when an immediate prison sentence was deemed to be the right outcome by the courts, so someone like Kebatu would still be sent to prison. I hope that Labour Members agree with those amendments, especially given that the Health Secretary said:

“This man was behind bars because of serious sex offences…So the idea that he’s loose on the streets is incredibly serious.”

Perhaps the Health Secretary will back my amendments, and perhaps he will have a word with the Justice Secretary to get him to back my amendments as well.

Following the Kebatu debacle, people have blamed the incompetence of prison staff in releasing him, yet if the Government do not accept my amendments we will not need to be concerned about the incompetence or otherwise of our Prison Service, because such offenders will not even go to prison. However, we can be sure of the incompetence of the Government in allowing these sentencing changes to happen and in not sending offenders like Kebatu to prison. Even the Secretary of State for Justice said:

“Let’s be clear, Kebatu committed a nasty sexual assault involving a young child and a woman, and for those reasons this of course is very serious.”

On Monday, he said to the House:

“Mr Kebatu’s victims are rightly outraged about what has happened. I am livid on their behalf, and on behalf of the public.”

He also said:

“He is back where he belongs: behind bars.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 43.]

If it is so serious, and the Justice Secretary really means that Kebatu belongs behind bars, why on his watch will the Bill ensure that the next Kebatu will not be behind bars, and will not be sent to prison in the first place? These are serious questions that need to be answered. It is not too late for the Government to stop this dangerous aspect of the Bill and prove to everyone outside this Chamber that they are not hypocrites, by accepting my amendments.

While they are at it, the Government need to seriously consider accepting my amendments 20 and 29, which would prevent those who commit knife crimes from being eligible for suspended sentences. The Government should hang their head in shame for proposing a non-prison sentence for the offence of carrying a knife on our streets, and even for those who commit the offence more than once. I am sure that many Members will know of cases where someone has been injured or killed by a knife. Everyone who votes for the Bill without amendment will be voting to enable someone who carries a knife or threatens people with a knife, even repeatedly, to avoid prison.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

While I do not doubt for a second the right hon. Lady’s impassioned belief in the need to keep dangerous offenders off our streets, does she agree that it was actually the Conservative Government that cut funding to our prisons? There was a 24% real-terms cut from 2010 to 2015, resulting in 30% cuts in staffing. That has clearly had an impact on the ability of any Government to send individuals to prison, and it happened under the last Government.

[Esther McVey]

I shall remind the hon. Member what happened. The last Labour Government collapsed the economy, and the coalition was brought into power to get the books back on track. Unfortunately, as always happens after a Labour Government, spending had to be cut because they had bankrupted the country. When there was more money in the bank, we did need to invest more, and that is why the last Conservative Government put £4 billion into building more prisons. Three have now been completed and there are a further three left to be completed.

Do Members really want it on their conscience that they are changing the laws for people with knives or who threaten with knives? I think not. Labour has always talked tough on this matter, but now that it is in a position to do something about it, it fails. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) stated:

“Under a Labour Government, there will be tough consequences for carrying a knife. A Labour Government will end the empty words and apology letters for knife possession, and will guarantee sanctions and serious interventions for young people who carry knives.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 750, c. 332WH.]

Those were the words of the Labour party, but sadly, Labour will not do that. Time and again, Labour is proving to be a party of empty words and broken promises, and this will be yet another example. There will be plenty of people ready and willing to remind Labour Members of this, especially an outraged public. There will be no words of comfort for the family of a needless victim of this type of crime.

Members should also think twice about the fact that those who assault emergency workers will be included in this prison avoidance Bill. I know that many Labour MPs very much supported the introduction of the offence of assaulting an emergency worker, with its increased sentence for those who are convicted, yet all of that will have been for nothing if the Bill is passed in its current form, because people who assault emergency workers and receive sentences of 12 months or less will be likely to avoid prison altogether. Having worked hard to increase the sentence to 12 months in prison for assaulting an emergency worker, Labour will now effectively be agreeing to zero months in prison in many cases. The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, did so to ensure that those assaulting emergency workers felt

“the full force of the law”.—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1159.]

The right hon. Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves) supported the legislation and said that it was “long overdue”. The trade unions supported it. The GMB national officer said at the time:

“It’s welcome to see arrests taking place, but we also need to see an increase in prosecutions and tougher sentences handed down for these unacceptable assaults.”

My amendments 17 and 26 would exclude the offence from the Bill and show support for those who risk their lives to keep us all safe. What a kick in the teeth it will be for emergency workers to know that this Government do not have their backs at all. It seems the Government would rather be on the side of many of those who assault our emergency workers or to keep them from being sent to prison—as they should be. The amendments would also exclude assaults on those generally providing a public service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

Again, as the shadow Minister knows, for each offence the judge will have full discretion over the sentence. When I have spoken to victims of domestic abuse—I have worked with and represented victims of domestic abuse in court—what they feared most was that, when the prison system was on the verge of collapse, some of the most serious offenders would never face prison at all.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Richards]

I will finish this point before I give way, because I am dealing with the right hon. Member’s amendments.

More broadly, we know that suspended sentences and community sentences can be more effective at reducing reoffending. The level of reoffending among those who serve short sentences is staggeringly high. As I have said already, research commissioned by the last Conservative Government—shadow Justice Ministers continue to cite it—shows that short sentences lead to more reoffending, meaning that tens of thousands more criminal offences are committed each year.

If the Opposition vote to drop this provision from the legislation—legislation that the last Conservative Government put forward—they will be voting for more crimes blighting our communities. They know that the measure is common sense because, as I have said, they proposed it; it was a Conservative proposal towards the end of the last Parliament, and they are now opposing it for opposition’s sake. This provision on short-term sentences will begin to break the cycle of reoffending that does such damage to communities across the country, so we reject the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton.

[Esther McVey]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to speak now. Members on both sides of the House were concerned about attacks on emergency workers, and such offenders who are sentenced to 12 months or less will now get suspended sentences. Can he state on the record that that will not be the case—that those offenders will still go to prison, as Members on both sides of the House want? Will he protect emergency workers or will he let them down?

Sentencing Bill

Esther McVey Excerpts

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

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out “not more” and insert “less”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 47, page 1, line 14, after “months” insert

“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.

Amendment 50, page 1, line 17, after “order” insert

“with the maximum operational period”.

This would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.

Government amendments 2 and 3.

Amendment 48, page 3, line 8, after “individual” insert “or the public”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at significant risk of harm.

Amendment 49, page 3, line 8, after “at” leave out “significant”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at risk of harm.

Amendment 51, page 4, line 3, leave out “not more” and insert “less”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.

Amendment 52, page 4, line 3, after “12 months” insert

“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea (typically one third).

Amendment 55, page 4, line 6, after “order” insert

“with the maximum operational period”.

This would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.

Amendment 36, page 4, line 11, at end insert

“, or the court is of the opinion that, having considered the basis of opinion provisions in section 77 Sentencing Act 2020, it should mitigate the sentence to one of a community sentence as provided for in that section.”

Government amendments 4 and 5.

Amendment 53, page 5, line 15, after “individual” insert “or the public”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at significant risk of harm.

Amendment 54, page 5, line 15, leave out “significant”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at risk of harm.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Amendment 29, in clause 3, page 10, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—

“(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), “monthly income” means monthly income after deduction of—

(a) such amounts as are required to be paid or deducted from the offender’s income under, or by virtue of, any enactment, or

(b) such amounts as may be specified in the regulations.”

This amendment changes the definition of “monthly income” for the purposes of income reduction orders so that any amount of money that is required to be paid or deducted from an offender’s monthly income as a result of other enactments (such as child support maintenance payments or under an attachment of earnings order) is not counted for those purposes.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 14, line 4, after “(including victims of crime” insert “, ensuring their protection from further physical or psychological harm”.

This amendment would amend the statutory purposes of sentencing to incorporate safeguarding victims from further physical or psychological harm.

Clauses 4 and 5 stand part.

Amendment 30, in clause 6, page 14, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—

“(1) This section applies if—

(a) a court is passing sentence for an offence,

(b) the court has indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse, and

(c) having regard to any evidence and any representations that are made by or on behalf of the offender or the prosecution, the court is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse.”

This amendment introduces two procedural safeguards before a court can record that an offence involved domestic abuse: first, the court must have indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse; and, second, the court must have given an opportunity to the offender and prosecution to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that an offence involved domestic abuse.

Government amendments 6 to 8.

Amendment 31, page 15, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—

“(1) This section applies if—

(a) a court or officer is passing sentence for an offence,

(b) the court or officer has indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse, and

(c) having regard to any evidence and any representations that are made by or on behalf of the offender or the prosecution, the court or officer is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse.”

This amendment introduces two procedural safeguards before a court can record that a service offence involved domestic abuse: first, the court must have indicated that it appears the service offence may have involved domestic abuse; and, second, the court must have given an opportunity to the offender and prosecution to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that the service offence involved domestic abuse.

Government amendments 9 to 11.

Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

Government amendment 12.

Clause 8 stand part.

Government amendment 13.

Clauses 9 to 12 stand part.

Government amendments 14 and 15.

Clauses 13 to 15 stand part.

Government amendments 16 and 17.

Clauses 16 to 19 stand part.

Amendment 24, in clause 20, page 37, line 14, at end insert—

“(ab) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) do not apply to any person convicted of—

(a) rape;

(b) assault by penetration;

(c) rape of a child under 13;

(d) assault of a child under 13 by penetration;

(e) inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity;

(f) paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13;

(g) kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence;

(h) creating or possessing indecent photographs of children;

(i) grievous bodily harm;

(j) grooming;

(k) stalking;

(l) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult; or

(m) death by dangerous driving, and

(ac) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted on and ensured exclusions for all offences considered to be serious violence, offences against children, sexual offences and domestic abuse offences, and”.

This amendment would disapply the clause 20 early release provisions of the Bill in relation to those convicted of the offences listed in the amendment, and would require the Secretary of State to consult on and ensure exclusions for those convicted of other serious violent and sexual offence categories.

Clauses 20 to 23 stand part.

Amendment 41, in clause 24, page 46, leave out lines 20 to 23.

This amendment would leave out the Bill’s provision to give probation officers more discretion in relation to licence conditions.

Amendment 34, page 46, line 23, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—

‘(4B) In exercising any power under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State must have regard to any representations made by the offender.’”

This amendment introduces a right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations as to their necessity and proportionality.

Amendment 35, page 46, line 23, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—

‘(4B) The Secretary of State must not include a condition under subsection (4)(b)(di) (a restriction zone condition) in a licence, either on release or subsequently, or vary or cancel any such condition included in a licence, unless the Board directs the Secretary of State to do so (and must, if the Board so directs, include, vary or cancel such a condition).’”

This amendment introduces a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones which will confine offenders to specific areas in the community while on licence.

Amendment 44, page 48, line 17, at end insert—

“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (4) of this section, undertake an assessment of the potential effects of a driving prohibition condition on a person’s ability to attend—

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

(11) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the assessment carried out under subsection (10) including recommendations on—

(a) offender rehabilitation,

(b) offender reintegration, and

(c) any other matters that the Secretary deems appropriate.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before commencing the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill, to publish a report on their potential effects on the ability of ex-offenders to attend employment, education and rehabilitation providers.

Amendment 45, page 48, line 17, at end insert—

“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (7) of this section, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on a person’s ability to attend—

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

(11) The court may provide for exemptions in a restriction zone condition to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.

(12) A probation officer may vary a restriction zone condition imposed by the court to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.

(13) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on—

(a) the number of people subject to a restriction zone condition,

(b) the number of cases where a restriction zone condition has included an exemption or modification to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme, and

(c) evidence on the effects of restriction zone conditions on reoffending and rehabilitation.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before implementing the relevant provisions, to assess the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on an ex-offender’s ability to attend education, employment or a rehabilitation programme. It would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, and require an annual report on their use and effectiveness.

Clauses 24 and 25 stand part.

Amendment 33, in clause 26, page 50, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 254 (recall of prisoners while on licence), in subsection (1) after ‘prison’ insert—

‘where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance with licence conditions or a specific and imminent risk of harm.’”

This amendment gives effect to the recommendation 4.3 of the Independent Sentencing Review for “stricter criteria and thresholds” for recall.

Clauses 26 to 28 stand part.

Amendment 22, in clause 29, page 55, line 5, leave out “both” and insert “more”.

This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 23.

Amendment 23, page 55, line 27, at end insert—

“(8A) The third condition is that the basis for P’s recall is that P has breached a license condition, civil order, or criminal order in relation to the victim of the crime for which P is serving the sentence in question.”

This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 22.

Clauses 29 to 34 stand part.

Amendment 32, in clause 35, page 65, line 33, at end insert—

“(7) Before making regulations under section 46 to bring this section into force, the Secretary of State must issue a code of practice giving guidance to providers of probation services about how to discharge those functions lawfully having regard to—

(a) section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and

(b) the data protection legislation (see section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018).

(8) The Secretary of State may not issue a code of practice under subsection (7) unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has consulted providers of probation services and any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate about a draft of the code,

(b) the Secretary of State has laid a draft of the code before each House of Parliament, and

(c) each House of Parliament has by a resolution approved the draft of the code.”

This amendment prevents clause 35 from being brought into force until the Secretary of State has issued a code of practice to providers of probation services about how to take and publish photographs lawfully in light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the data protection legislation. Before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult providers of probation services, lay a draft before Parliament and obtain approval from both Houses.

Clauses 35 to 44 stand part.

Government amendment 19.

Clause 45 stand part.

Government amendment 20.

Clauses 46 and 47 stand part.

Government new clause 1—Deportation of foreign criminals—

New clause 2—Electronic monitoring: oversight—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In Part 14 of Schedule 9, in paragraph 31 (Electronic monitoring: person responsible for monitoring), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

‘(3) Regulations under this section must ensure that—

(a) electronic monitoring is overseen by the Probation Service;

(b) the fitting of necessary apparatus for the purposes of electronic monitoring may only be undertaken by those in the employment of an organisation with responsibility for delivering electronic monitoring; and

(c) the fitting of necessary apparatus may not be undertaken by an employee of HM Prison and Probation Service unless the responsibility for the delivery of electronic monitoring is held solely by HM Prison and Probation Service.’”

This new clause would ensure that the probation service oversees electronic monitoring, and that prison officers would not be responsible for fitting tags unless tagging contracts are brought into the public sector.

New clause 3—Unpaid work requirements: community work—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 9 (Restriction on imposing unpaid work requirement), after sub-paragraph (1)(b) insert—

‘(c) that the unpaid work is work undertaken for a non-profit organisation, social enterprise, voluntary organisation or local authority.”’

This new clause would prohibit private sector involvement in unpaid work as part of a community sentence.

New clause 4—Probation capacity: independent report—

“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, a report must be published and laid before Parliament by HM Inspectorate of Probation (‘the Inspectorate’) determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service to meet provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service.

(2) If the report under subsection (1) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service may not come into force until a further report determines that the Probation Service has adequate capacity.

(3) Following a report under subsection (1), the Inspectorate must publish and lay before Parliament a further report, no less than once every twelve months, determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service.

(4) If a report under subsections (1) or (3) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, the Inspectorate may direct that a prioritisation framework must be issued to the areas in which the capacity concerns apply, in order to provide local services with guidance about which activities to deprioritise.

(5) The Secretary of State must, within two weeks of the laying of a report under subsections (1) or (3) with a finding of inadequate capacity, make a statement to Parliament setting out how probation capacity will be increased to an adequate level.”

This new clause would ensure that the provisions of this Bill likely to increase demand on the Probation Service cannot be implemented until HM Inspectorate of Probation determines that there is adequate capacity to address those demands, and would enable the Inspectorate to trigger the issuing of a prioritisation framework to help local areas to identify which activities to deprioritise.

New clause 5—Further release after recall: offenders eligible for risk-assessed release—

“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 255C, after subsection (3) insert—

(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if the basis for P’s recall is that P has breached a license condition, civil order, or criminal order in relation to the victim of a crime for which P is serving a sentence.

(3B) Where this subsection applies—

(a) at the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which P returns to custody, P must be considered for referral for executive release rather than automatic release;

(b) if P is referred for consideration for executive release, the Secretary of State may release P again on licence, and

(c) if P is not referred for consideration for executive release, or if P is denied executive release, the Secretary of State must refer P’s case to the Board.”

This new clause, along with amendments 22 and 23, would ensure that offenders who have been recalled to prison on the basis of a breach of license condition or of an order related to the victim are risk-assessed, to determine whether it is safe for them to be re-released into the community, rather than being automatically released after 56 days.

New clause 6—Lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—

“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under sections 1, 2B, 3ZB, 3ZC or 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for life.”

This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous or careless driving (or related offences) would be banned from driving for life.

New clause 7—Under-18 anonymity for cases involving serious crime—

“(1) This section applies where a person (‘P’) aged under 18—

(a) has been convicted of an offence; and

(b) will receive a custodial sentence of four or more years.

(2) Where this section applies, prior to delivering sentencing remarks, the court must lift any reporting restrictions identifying P.

(3) This section applies notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter IV of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.”

This new clause would require reporting restrictions to be lifted at the point of sentencing for young offenders who have received a sentence of four or more years.

New clause 8—Victim personal statements—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.

(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.

(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.

New clause 9—Duty to collect and publish data on sentencing—

“(1) Within 24 hours of the conclusion of the passing of a sentence, the relevant court must provide HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) with information regarding—

(a) the offence category;

(b) the sentence length; and

(c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations, but which must include—

(i) nationality,

(ii) sex at birth,

(iii) country of birth,

(iv) method of entry to the United Kingdom,

(v) visa route,

(vi) visa status, and

(vii) asylum status.

(2) HMCTS must collect and record the information set out in subsection (1) in a safe and secure manner.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish statistics on the information set out in subsection (1) no less than once every three months.”

This new clause would require HMCTS to collect data and other information on sentencing and sentenced offenders, and would require the Government to publish statistics on that data every three months.

New clause 10—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—

“(1) All transcripts of sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.

(2) All published sentencing remarks must be made freely available, including online.”

This new clause would require all sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court to be published and made available to all.

New clause 11—Prohibited steps orders—

“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 8 (Child arrangements orders and other orders with respect to children), in the closing words of subsection (3), after ‘include’ insert ‘proceedings in the Crown Court or Magistrate’s Court under section 10A or’.

(3) After section 10 insert—

‘10A Duty of a sentencing court to make a prohibited steps order in respect of sexual offences

(1) This section applies where an offender has parental responsibility for a child and the offender is convicted of a sexual offence involving any child victim.

(2) Where this section applies, a court must make a prohibited steps order when sentencing the offender.

(3) A prohibited steps order made under this section must—

(a) cease to have effect if an offender is acquitted on appeal for the offence in relation to which the prohibited steps order was imposed; and

(b) continue to have effect during an offender’s licence period after release for the relevant offence.

(4) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (Proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.’”

This new clause would require the courts to make a “prohibited steps order” (PSO) – preventing a parent from taking a specific action or set of actions regarding their child – after the conviction of a person with parental responsibilities for a sexual offence involving a child victim.

New clause 12—Unduly lenient sentences scheme: victims—

“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) An application may be made to the Attorney General to review any sentence passed by a Crown Court under the terms set out in this section.

(2B) An application under subsection (2A) must be made within—

(a) one year of the sentence being passed, if the application is made by—

(i) the victim of the offence for which the sentence was passed; or

(ii) the next of kin of a deceased victim or a victim who lacks capacity; or

(b) 56 days of the sentence being passed, if made by any other person.

(2C) The Crown Prosecution Service must write to—

(a) any victim of any offence for which a sentence has been passed in the Crown Court; or

(b) the next of kin of any deceased victim;

within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, to provide details of the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, the application process for the scheme, and the deadlines set out in subsection (2B) of this section.’”

This new clause would extend the deadline for applications to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days, or for a year for victims of crime (or the next of kin of deceased victims). It would also require the CPS to notify victims about the scheme.

New clause 13—Sexual offences: offender personality disorder pathway—

“(1) The Prison Rules 1999 are amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 20 (Health services), after sub-paragraph (1), insert—

‘(1A) Provision under subsection (1) must include access, for all eligible prisoners serving custodial sentences for sexual offences, to services provided under the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway.’”

This new clause would require the Government to provide access to the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway to all eligible prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences.

New clause 14—Sexual offences: chemical suppression—

“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on how most effectively to introduce mandatory chemical suppression for certain individuals serving sentences for sexual offences, with appropriate legal and clinical safeguards.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on mandatory chemical suppression for certain sex offenders.

New clause 15—Sentencing Council: abolition—

“(1) The Sentencing Council (established under section 118 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) is abolished.

(2) The Secretary of State may prepare—

(a) sentencing guidelines which may be general in nature or limited to a particular offence, particular category of offence or particular category of offender;

(b) sentencing guidelines about the discharge of a court's duty under section 73 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentences for guilty pleas); and

(c) sentencing guidelines about the application of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences.

(3) The Secretary of State may prepare sentencing guidelines about any other matter.

(4) When developing sentencing guidelines, the Secretary of State must—

(a) promote understanding of, and public confidence in, the sentencing and criminal justice system;

(b) consult Parliament on all draft guidelines; and

(c) publish the reasons for proposing any guidelines that could result in an offender receiving a shorter sentence than that set out in an Act of Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State may report, from time to time, on the impact of sentencing guidelines on sentencing practice.

(6) The Secretary of State must monitor—

(a) the application of the sentencing guidelines; and

(b) the impact on victims of sentencing decisions.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’

This new clause would abolish the Sentencing Council, give the Secretary of State the power to publish Sentencing guidelines, and impose various requirements linked to consultation and monitoring.

New clause 16—Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after ‘duty,’, insert ‘or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,’”

This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim's current or former duties.

New clause 17—Management of offenders: devolution to Wales—

“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In Paragraph 175 (Prisons and offender management)—

(a) omit sub-paragraph (2); and

(b) in sub-paragraph (3), omit ‘probation’

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”

This new clause seeks to devolve probation services and offender management to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.

New clause 18—Reporting on use of electronic monitoring requirements—

“In the Sentencing Code, in Part 14 of Schedule 9 (electronic monitoring), after paragraph 35 insert—

‘36(1) The Secretary of State must as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each calendar year prepare a report on the imposition of the electronic monitoring requirements during that year.

(2) The report must set out—

(a) the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed during the year;

(b) the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed on offenders under 18 during the year;

(c) the rate of compliance with the electronic monitoring requirements during the year;

(d) the cost of administering the electronic monitoring requirements during the year;

(e) the average amount of time taken during the year to activate a device used for the purposes of an electronic monitoring requirement after such a requirement took effect;

(f) the number of devices used for the purposes of the electronic monitoring requirements that malfunctioned during the year.

(3) The Secretary of State must—

(a) publish the report, and

(b) lay a copy of the published report before Parliament.’”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report each calendar year on the use of electronic monitoring requirements. The report must include the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed each year, the rate of compliance and the cost of administering the requirements each year. The report must be laid before Parliament.

New clause 19—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements to ensure that every person serving an IPP sentence, whether in prison or the community, has been re-sentenced in accordance with this section within 24 months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The Lord Chancellor must establish a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).

(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must—

(a) include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice; and

(b) within 12 months of being appointed, lay a report before Parliament on the process of re-sentencing individuals serving an IPP sentence.

(4) The Lord Chancellor may disband the committee established under subsection (2) after a report has been laid under subsection (3)(b).

(5) The Lord Chancellor must disband the committee once all those serving IPP sentences have been re-sentenced under this section.

(6) Subject to subsection (8), a Crown Court designated by the Lord Chancellor (“the re-sentencing court”) must re-sentence a person serving an IPP sentence in relation to the offence or offences for which they were previously sentenced to an IPP sentence.

(7) The re-sentencing court must not impose a sentence more severe than the notional determinate sentence upon which the IPP sentence was based.

(8) The re-sentencing court may confirm the IPP sentence only if—

(a) the re-sentencing court determines that, at the date of the original sentencing, ignoring the alternative of an IPP sentence, the person serving the IPP sentence might appropriately have received a whole life order under section 321 of the Sentencing Act 2020; and

(b) at the date of re-sentencing, there is a substantial risk of P committing a further offence if released.

(9) The re-sentencing court may only confirm an IPP sentence where the judge hearing the matter is authorised to try cases of murder.

(10) The re-sentencing court may recommend that the re-sentenced person may be subject to an extended licence, if the re-sentencing court considers this appropriate.

(11) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (6)—

(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020;

(b) the Sentencing Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).

(12) The Lord Chancellor must, at the end of every twelve-month period beginning with the day this section comes into force, lay before Parliament a report that sets out—

(a) the number of persons who have been re-sentenced under subsection (6);

(b) the number of persons who have had their sentences confirmed under subsection (8).

(13) For the purposes of this section, “IPP sentence” means—

(a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; or

(b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; or

(c) a sentence of indeterminate imprisonment or detention passed as a result of sections 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006;

(14) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Select Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.

New clause 20—Provision for a prisoner to apply to the Parole Board for a licence termination review following expiry of the qualifying period on annual basis—

“(1) The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 31A (imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences), after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) Where—

(a) the prisoner has been released on licence under this Chapter;

(b) the qualifying period has expired; and

(c) if his case has been considered for termination previously by the Parole Board and a period of at least twelve months has expired since the disposal of that application,

the prisoner may make an application to the Parole Board under this subsection.’

(3) In subsection (4)—

(a) after ‘reference’ insert ‘or application’;

after ‘subsection (3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’.”

This new clause would allow a prisoner whose licence has not been terminated by the Parole Board two or three years after their first release to make an application annually to the Parole Board for termination. This would increase the opportunities for licences to be terminated.

New clause 21—Further release after recall: requirement for a review—

“(1) Before sections 27 to 30 come into force, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effectiveness of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025, including but not limited to—

(a) an evaluation of its impact on—

(i) public protection;

(ii) rehabilitation;

(iii) reconviction;

(iv) probation capacity and resource; and

(b) an assessment of how any learning from the evaluation specified in subsection (1)(a) will be applied to the implementation of the provisions of sections 27 to 30 of this Act.

(2) A copy of the review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause provides an opportunity for the current legislation for recall to be reviewed prior to new legislation being rolled out, to ensure it is effective and adequately protects the public.

New clause 22—Review of sentence following a change in law—

“(1) Where a person is serving or subject to a sentence imposed for an offence, and—

(a) the offence has been abolished, or

(b) there has been a change in the law which materially alters the sentence that would be imposed for the same offence following that change in the law,

that person may apply to the sentencing court, or to such other court as may be prescribed, for a review of the sentence.

(2) On such an application, the court may—

(a) quash the sentence and resentence the person in accordance with the existing law; or

(b) make such other order as necessary in the interests of justice.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedure and eligibility criteria for applications under this section.”

This new clause would allow a person still serving a sentence under a law that has changed to seek review or resentencing in line with the existing law.

New clause 23—Review of the impact of a change in the law on unspent convictions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—

(a) the effect of changes in the criminal law, whether legislative or judicial, on those serving sentences for offences that would attract a different sentence following the subsequent changes to the criminal law; and

(b) the adequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing any perceived injustice arising from such changes.

(2) The Secretary of State must thereafter lay a further report under subsection (1) every three years.

(3) A report made under this section must include—

(a) recommendations for legislative or administrative steps to prevent any instances of injustice arising from changes in the law; and

(b) data on the number of persons serving sentences in the scenario set out in subsection (1)(a) and, of those, the number who remain imprisoned.”

This new clause would create a statutory duty for the Government to review, on a recurring basis, how changes to the law affect those already convicted or sentenced.

New clause 24—Sentencing Council—

“The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.”

New clause 25—Deportation of foreign criminals—

“(1) A foreign criminal who has been sentenced to—

(a) a custodial sentence of at least 6 months; or

(b) a community sentence of at least 6 months,

must be the subject of an immediate deportation order, subject to subsection (2) below.

(2) The Secretary of State may determine, in exceptional cases, that a deportation order under subsection (1) does not apply.

(3) In this section, ‘foreign criminal’ means a person who—

(a) is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen, and

(b) is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence.”

This new clause is intended to replace Clause 42. It would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six month community sentence.

New clause 26—Criminal cases review—

“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), insert—

‘Part IVB

CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (PUBLIC PETITION)

36A Scope of this Part

(1) A case to which this Part applies may be referred to the Court of Appeal under section 2 below.

(2) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under section 36B shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this Part shall be construed as references to that division.

(3) This Part applies to any case—

(a) of a description specified in an order under this section; or

(b) in which sentence is passed on a person—

(i) for an offence triable only on indictment; or

(ii) for an offence of a description specified in an order under this section.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that this section shall apply to any case of a description specified in the order or to any case in which sentence is passed on a person for an offence triable either way of a description specified in the order.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(6) In this Part, “sentence” has the same meaning as in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, except that it does not include an interim hospital order under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983, and “sentencing” shall be construed accordingly.

(7) In its application to Northern Ireland, this section shall have effect subject to the modifications set out in subsections (8) to (11).

(8) Subsection (2) shall not apply to Northern Ireland.

(9) In this section—

“offence triable only on indictment” means an offence punishable only on conviction on indictment;

“offence triable either way” means an offence punishable on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction; and

any reference in subsection (4) to the Secretary of State must be construed as a reference to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

(10) For subsection (5), in Northern Ireland an order under subsection (4) shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (and not a statutory instrument), and any such order shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).

(11) References in subsection (6) to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall be respectively construed as references to Part I of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 and Part III of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

36B Criminal cases review (public petition)

(1) If it appears to any adult British citizen aged 18 or over—

(a) that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the Crown Court (“the person sentenced”) has been unduly lenient or unduly harsh; and

(b) that the case is one to which section 36A applies,

that British citizen (“the petitioner”) may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“the Commission”) for it to review the sentencing of the person sentenced, in accordance with section 36C below, and if the Commission refers the case to the Court of Appeal, upon such a reference the Court of Appeal may—

(i) quash any sentence passed on the person sentenced; and

(ii) in place of it pass such sentence as they think appropriate for the case and as the lower court had power to pass when dealing with the person sentenced,

provided that the petitioner has filed the reference with the Commission in writing, signed by at least 500 signatures (“the co-petitioners”) including his own.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations stipulate the information and form that the petitioner must provide when filing the reference.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the condition specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection may be satisfied whether or not it appears that the judge—

(a) erred in law as to his powers of sentencing; or

(b) failed to comply with a mandatory sentence requirement under section 399(b) or (c) of the Sentencing Code.

(4) For the purposes of this Part, any two or more sentences are to be treated as passed in the same proceeding if they would be so treated for the purposes of section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

(5) Where a reference under this section relates to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code, the Court of Appeal shall not, in deciding what order under that section is appropriate for the case, make any allowance for the fact that the person to whom it relates is being sentenced for a second time.

(6) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of, or shall determine any application in proceedings incidental or preliminary to, a reference under this section of a sentence passed by himself.

(7) Where the Court of Appeal has concluded its review of a case referred to it under this section, and given its judgment thereon, the Court of Appeal, the petitioner or the person sentenced may refer a point of law involved in any sentence passed on the person sentenced to the Supreme Court for its opinion, and the Supreme Court shall consider the point and give its opinion on it accordingly, and either remit the case to the Court of Appeal to be dealt with or itself deal with the case.

(8) A reference under subsection (6) shall be made only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal that the point of law is of general public importance and it appears to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (as the case may be) that the point is one which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.

(9) For the purpose of dealing with a case under this section, the Supreme Court may exercise any powers of the Court of Appeal.

(10) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—

(a) subsection (2)(b) shall read as if for the words after “failed to” there were substituted “impose a sentence required by—

(i) Article 70(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004,

(ii) paragraph 2(4) or (5) of Schedule 2 to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006,

(iii) Article 13 or 14 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, or

(iv) section 7(2) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015”.

(b) the references to sections 11 and 35(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall be read as references to sections 10(2) and 33(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, respectively; and

(c) the reference in subsection (3A) to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code shall be read as a reference to an order under Article 5(1) of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.

36C The Commission

(1) The Commission under section 36B is the same body as that established under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the provisions of section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to the role of the Commission under this Part.

(2) Sections 9, 10, and 12A to 25 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to this Part.

(3) The Commission must review all cases referred to it within 8 weeks of receiving any such referral and must, within that time, make its decision.

(4) If the Commission decides that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal by reason of an unduly harsh sentence then, immediately upon receipt of the referral, the Court of Appeal must make an order that the person sentenced be released on temporary licence (“ROTL”) until further order of the court, and the Court of Appeal must also determine suitable bail conditions, if any and the person sentenced must remain ROTL until the Court of Appeal has determined the referral.”’

New clause 27—Foreign criminals: stalking—

‘(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—

“32A Deportation following stalking offences

(1) This section applies where a foreign criminal—

(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and

(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.

(2) Where this section applies, prior to deportation, a risk assessment must be prepared to assess the likelihood after deportation of the foreign criminal—

(a) committing an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or

(b) contacting or seeking to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.

(3) A risk assessment prepared under this section must be shared, subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, with the relevant authorities in the country to which the foreign criminal will be deported.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’”

This new clause would require the preparation of a risk assessment for any foreign criminal being deported after a stalking conviction, and for the assessment to be shared with the authorities in the country to which the offender is returning.

New clause 28—Gambling treatment requirement—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In section 201 (community order: community order requirements table), after the entry in the table relating to the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement, insert—

‘(3) In Schedule 9 (community orders and suspended sentence orders: requirements), after Part 12 insert—

“Part 12a

GAMBLING TREATMENT REQUIREMENT

26A(1) In this Code “gambling treatment requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement that during a period specified in the order the offender must seek gambling addiction treatment through the National Health Service.

(2) In this paragraph—

(a) “gambling treatment”, in relation to an offender, means—

(i) treatment provided through a specialist NHS gambling service or gambling clinic; or

(ii) another form of NHS treatment determined by a qualified clinician to have the best chance of reducing or eliminating the offender’s gambling addiction; and

(b) ”qualified clinician” means an NHS clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist with appropriate professional qualifications.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) apply to a relevant order which imposes a gambling treatment requirement.

(4) The order may specify separate periods comprising the period specified under sub-paragraph (1).

(5) For each treatment period, the order may specify the treatment provider but must not otherwise specify the nature of the treatment.

(6) In sub-paragraph (5), “treatment period” means—

(a) if the order specifies separate periods under sub-paragraph (4), any of those periods;

(b) otherwise, the period specified under sub-paragraph (1).”’”

This new clause would introduce a new gambling treatment requirement, requiring an offender to seek NHS gambling addiction treatment as part of a community order.

New clause 29—Gambling addiction: support for offenders—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on how the Government will ensure that—

(a) sentencing courts treat gambling disorder as a mental disorder for the purposes of section 232 of the Sentencing Code;

(b) sentencing courts have access to appropriate clinical advice on the impact of a gambling disorder on offending behaviour, where relevant; and

(c) offenders have access to treatment and peer support for gambling disorder, both in prison and in the community.

(2) Within twelve months of the publication of a report under subsection (1) above and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report on progress against the objectives set out in subsection (1).”

This new clause would require the Government to report to Parliament on how it will improve support for offenders with gambling addictions and ensure that gambling disorder is recognised as a mental health condition by sentencing courts.

New clause 30—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).

(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.

(4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence.

(5) But the court may not impose a sentence that is a heavier penalty than the sentence that was imposed for the original offence.

(6) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (4)—

(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under the Sentencing Code (see section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020);

(b) the Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).

(7) In this section—

‘IPP sentence’ means a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act (including such a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of section 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);

‘original offence’ means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.

(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.

New clause 31—Use of funds raised through income reduction orders—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits and costs of directing the funds raised from income reduction orders into a fund that provides support for victims.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of using the monies raised through income reduction orders to fund support for victims.

New clause 32—Probation caseloads—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations to commence the provisions in this Act, establish maximum caseload limits for probation officers supervising individuals subject to—

(a) licence conditions;

(b) community orders; or

(c) any other form of court-imposed supervision by the probation service.

(2) The Secretary of State must, each year, lay before Parliament a report on compliance with the caseload limits set under this section.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set maximum caseloads for probation before implementation of the Act, and to report annually on compliance.

New clause 33—Access to rehabilitation and support services—

“(1) The probation service must ensure all individuals subject to licence conditions, community orders, or other court-imposed supervision have access to—

(a) NHS mental health and substance misuse services,

(b) education, training and employment support, and

(c) approved behaviour change or offender behaviour programmes.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on the availability and use of the services provided under subsection (1).”

This new clause would require the probation service to ensure people under its supervision can access mental health and substance misuse services; education, training and support; and approved behaviour change or offender management programmes, and to report annually on the availability and uptake of those services.

New clause 34—Digital systems for tracking offender progress—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the benefits and costs of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals who are subject to supervision by the probation service.

(2) The assessment must consider the following potential functions of a sentence management system—

(a) tracking offender progress,

(b) providing for the sharing of information between the courts, probation service, and other relevant agencies, subject to the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018,

(c) monitoring compliance with rehabilitation programmes, and

(d) any other functions that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals subject to supervision by the probation service.

New clause 35—Specialist teams for high-risk or complex offenders—

“(1) The probation service must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise—

(a) high-risk offenders,

(b) offenders with complex mental health needs,

(c) offenders with substance misuse needs, and

(d) young offenders who are transitioning to adult supervision.

(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits of specialist probation teams having lower average caseloads per probation officer.

(3) The assessment must consider the potential arrangements for specialist probation teams accessing support from other relevant agencies.

(4) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the probation service to assess the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise offenders who are high-risk; have complex mental health or substance misuse needs; and young offenders transitioning to adult supervision.

New clause 36—Domestic abuse aggravated offences—

“(1) A court must treat an offence committed in England and Wales as domestic abuse aggravated, if—

(a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other; and

(b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse.

(2) In this section—

(a) ‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and

(b) ‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”

This new clause would require a court to treat a domestic abuse offence as aggravated.

New clause 37—Rehabilitative programmes for offences relating to violence against women and girls—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for—

(a) assault;

(b) battery; or

(c) actual bodily harm

when the victim is a woman or girl.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for certain offences.

New clause 38—Screening for traumatic brain injuries—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of screening all prisoners for traumatic brain injuries at the start of their custodial sentence.

(2) The assessment should consider—

(a) how screening for traumatic brain injuries could inform the management of a prisoner’s sentence,

(b) the health services and rehabilitation programmes available for prisoners with traumatic brain injuries, and

(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment made under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of introducing standardised screening for traumatic brain injuries for prisoners starting a custodial sentence.

New clause 39—Suspension of driving licences during bail for driving related offences—

“(1) This section applies where an individual has been granted bail in respect of one of the following offences—

(a) dangerous or careless driving;

(b) drink driving; or

(c) drug driving.

(2) The court may suspend the driving licence of the individual, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings.”

This new clause would allow the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged for certain driving offences, pending the outcome of the trial.

New clause 40—Access to rehabilitation programmes and education for individuals held on remand—

“(1) Where an individual is held in custodial remand pending sentencing, the probation service must provide access to the same rehabilitative programmes that are available to prisoners after sentencing.

(2) Where an individual is held in custodial demand pending trial, the probation service must provide access to the same—

(a) education;

(b) therapy; and

(c) any other support that the probation service deems appropriate,

that is available to prisoners after sentencing.”

This new clause would allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence.

New clause 41—No presumption of suspended sentence—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”

New clause 42—Tagging of offenders receiving suspended sentences—

“Where a court has imposed a suspended sentence, it must impose a condition that an offender must be subject to electronic monitoring for the duration of that sentence.”

New clause 43—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 2)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is an offence under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996.”

New clause 44—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 3)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, either involves possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon.”

New clause 45—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 4)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”

New clause 46—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 5)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has committed or been convicted of three other offences in the 12 months preceding the offence.”

New clause 47—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 6)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has committed 10 or more other previous offences at the time of the offence or at the time of conviction for the offence.”

New clause 48—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 7)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has previously received a suspended sentence order for the same offence.”

New clause 49—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 8)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has previously received a custodial sentence for the same offence.”

New clause 50—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 9)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, has a mandatory minimum sentence.”

New clause 51—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 10)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, involves a firearm or ammunition including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”

New clause 52—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 11)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is one of burglary.”

New clause 53—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 12)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, has a connection to terrorism, including but not limited to offences relating to terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Explosive Substances Act 1883.”

New clause 54—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 13)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is one that falls under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.”

New clause 55—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 14)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has breached previous suspended sentence orders three or more times, either by failing to comply with the requirements of the orders or by re-offending during the order’s operational period.”

New clause 56—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 15)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was subject to a supervision order.”

New clause 57—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 16)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).”

New clause 58—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 17)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”

New clause 59—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 18)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has a history of poor compliance with court orders.”

New clause 60—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 19)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender is being sentenced for three or more offences.”

New clause 61—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 20)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has already been convicted of committing the same offence three or more times.”

New clause 62—Expiry—

“This Act expires at the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”

Schedules 1 to 4 stand part.

Government new schedule 1—Sentence with fixed licence period in Scotland or Northern Ireland: consequential provision—

Government amendment 21.

[Esther McVey]

I oppose the whole idea of forcing courts to give suspended sentences when they should be sending offenders to prison. We all know that it is hard to get sent to prison in the first place, and judges and magistrates do not send people to prison lightly. In fact, they do not send people to prison enough, as far as I can see, so it is extremely worrying that we are to force them to send even fewer people to prison. My amendments seek to address this issue.

We cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so it will not be possible to transform this disastrous Bill into a good one—all we can seek to do today is make it less bad. Hon. Members should be under no illusion: the Bill takes a sledgehammer to our justice system, and will dismantle law and order in this country. To call the Bill a “sentencing” Bill makes a mockery of us all. It should be called the “avoid a sentence” Bill, because it is a slap in the face to victims and will embolden offenders, who will quite literally be laughing all the way to their next crime.

Let me put on record my support for amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), particularly in relation to the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the deportation of foreign criminals, but because of time constraints I will speak only to those amendments tabled in my name.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Lady suggests that the Bill will bring law and order into question, but as a former prison officer I would say it was the previous Government running our prison system to a boiling point that nearly brought law and order crashing down, with fewer than 100 bed spaces available last summer. It might be poignant for Conservative Members to reflect a little during the debate on what they did to His Majesty’s Prison Service while they were in office—and while I was serving.

[Esther McVey]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, although I would point out that under the last Government three prisons were built—HMP Five Wells, HMP Fosse Way and HMP Millsike—which added an extra 8,500 places. Three further prisons will also be built.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The active management of the prison service at those levels of occupation was of course hard work, but that hard work was absolutely necessary, and far preferable to simply taking a view that we will not have all those criminals in prison at all. The reality is that what we are doing now is much worse.

[Esther McVey]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. This disgrace of a Bill will not be sending people to prison, and at the same time it will be letting people out of prison.

Amendments 46, 47, 51 and 52 would change the length of sentences that qualify for the “get out of jail free” suspended sentences to those of less than 12 months and only before any credit is given for a guilty plea. Sentences of 12 months or more are obviously given for more serious offences. As the Bill stands, I understand that those for whom a sentence of 18 months would be appropriate could hit the jackpot, because the credit of a guilty plea will be taken into account. That will reduce the sentence to 12 months; therefore, those people will qualify for a suspended sentence under this Bill. Sentences of those lengths are not given for nothing, so I hope the Government will reflect on my amendments, which would reduce the maximum sentence that has to be suspended.

I did a quick scan of my local papers to see who had got an 18-month sentence, which could now become a suspended sentence. They included a lady who caused the unnecessary suffering of an animal and was in possession of a samurai sword, and a lady who glassed a pregnant friend in the face. Another sentence was for coercive and controlling behaviour, and that person also got a five-year restraining order. They could now all get suspended sentences.

The Bill currently states that the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence need not apply

“if the court is of the opinion that making the order would put a particular individual at significant risk of physical or psychological harm.”

Amendments 48 and 53 would extend that to include the public—who are, after all, a collection of individuals. They, too, deserve protecting. If the court is concerned that an offender is likely to be a danger to the public, it should absolutely have the right to ensure that that offender goes to prison, not back into the community on a suspended sentence.

Amendments 49 and 54 would change the risk level for not imposing an immediate custodial sentence by removing the word “significant”. I would have thought that any identifiable risk should be covered. We are talking about protecting people’s lives; we should not be playing a game of Russian roulette with them. Ironically, it seems that the Sentencing Council has seen things similarly, as it has previously listed this as a reason not reason to suspend a sentence.

Amendments 50 and 55 would mean that anyone not being sent to prison as a result of this change, who otherwise would have been, would have to be given the maximum length of suspended sentence. In other words, the sentence would hang over them for the longest possible time and they should not be given a shorter period, as could be the case with normal suspended prison sentences.

New clause 42 would ensure that those given the suspended sentences are electronically tagged throughout. Using a tag to monitor someone’s location out of prison could make them think twice about reoffending, and if they were to reoffend it could make detection and resentencing much easier.

Other amendments concern the type of offending that we are allowing to be included in this ridiculous prison avoidance legislation. So many offences will be covered by this exemption that is hard to know where to start. This has to be addressed, and I sincerely hope that the Government will accept my amendments. Most people will believe that we have completely lost the plot if we allow there to be some offences for which prison sentences cannot generally be handed down. New clause 44 would exclude knife crime from being one of those offences.

I cannot believe that I have to table an amendment to prevent a whole load of criminals who carry knives from being kept out of prison—yet without my amendment, that is what this Bill will do. Does no one anywhere think through what is being proposed and how it will affect public safety? It would be completely disgraceful for the Government ever to claim to be serious about tackling knife crime when, under the Bill, the presumption will be that many people carrying a knife will no longer be sent to prison. How will that help to prevent the loss of life on our streets?

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point, because many of us will have examples in our constituencies of families who have been tragically affected by knife crime. Some go on to do amazing work to educate young people, but at the same time it is important that where a sentence has been given, it is carried out and that that deterrent is in place. Yet again, we are seeing the removal of deterrent by the Labour Government.

[Esther McVey]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that this Bill removes a deterrent.

Repeat knife offenders are supposed to get a mandatory immediate custodial sentence of six months, minimum—not a guarantee, effectively, that they will evade prison because their sentence is 12 months or less. Why would anyone think twice about carrying a knife if they know that they will not see the inside of a cell, and that the courts will be powerless to send them to prison?

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I understand and appreciate the effects of knife crime; we have all had cases in our constituencies that demonstrate the devastation that it causes. Does the right hon. Member agree that we should focus on rehabilitation, and on preventing people from carrying knives? Education on this issue is important. It is the way forward in ensuring that knife crime is decreased.

[Esther McVey]

Rehabilitation is key, but so is prison. Prison for people who have committed crimes is essential. Prisons are about removing a danger from society.

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

We hear a lot about rehabilitation from Labour Members, and we hear a lot about recidivism. The most likely spur for recidivism is letting people out who will continue to do harm. We will be told by the Government that those people are being let out on licence, so will my right hon. Friend invite the Minister to predict how many people will be recalled while they are on licence? The Justice Secretary has already described that number as being too high, but will it rise as a result of these measures?

[Esther McVey]

My right hon. Friend makes his point clear. The Minister was listening, and I hope that he will answer that question in his remarks.

People cannot seriously think it is acceptable for those who commit offences involving firearms or ammunition, or even those who commit terror-related offences, to be eligible for a suspended sentence, but as things stand, those offences would be covered by the Bill. My new clauses 51 and 53 would amend that ludicrous position, and new clause 52 would exclude burglars. We do not see nearly enough burglars in court, because of a lack of detection of their crimes, so the ones we do see in court should routinely go to prison, not be spared jail, as they would be under these measures.

New clauses 43 and 45 would mean that those assaulting our dedicated police officers or emergency workers would not be eligible for suspended sentences; they are eligible for them under this Bill, and that is an absolute disgrace. When the Government were in opposition, they made a huge noise about how those who assault emergency workers, police officers and prison officers should be sent to prison. For example, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) introduced a private Member’s Bill that became the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, under which the maximum prison sentence for assault on an emergency worker was increased from six months to 1 year.

Part of the problem is that all too often people do not feel that there will be justice at the end of the process. When in opposition, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) said:

“the attitude…sadly exists across the criminal justice system…that being punched or kicked is somehow to be expected and accepted....we will never accept that people should be assaulted while they are doing their job and we will do everything in our power to protect them.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1150.]

The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) said:

“We must put legislation in place to guarantee that a tough line will be taken on anyone who assaults an emergency worker.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1172.]

That is what Government Members said when they were in opposition, but they are ensuring the exact opposite now; these offenders will be let out on a suspended sentence. I cannot believe that Government Members would not join me in voting for new clause 43. I would like to test the will and the temperature of the House on that matter, and I will not back down on that.

The presumption in the Bill against immediate custody will also apply to those committing a host of other nasty, violent and sexual crimes, all of whom will be eligible for these get-out-of-jail-free suspended sentences, if they are sentenced to 12 months or less for their crimes. New clause 50 would mean that offences with a mandatory minimum sentence would not be included in the Bill; that would alleviate the damage in some cases.

New clause 54 would exclude from mandatory suspension sentences that can be appealed for being unduly lenient. The unduly lenient sentence scheme covers sexual offences; stalking; putting someone in fear of violence, serious harm or distress; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship; and inflicting grievous bodily harm or unlawful wounding, among other offences. It would be nonsense for crimes included among the most serious under the scheme to be dealt with by way of a suspended sentence, instead of immediate custody. How would the measures in the Bill work on appeal? Would all sentences be overturned as being unduly lenient, or would the new law trump that scheme? My new clause would inject a bit of common sense and avoid all these questions.

My other amendments mainly concern the past of the offender. It is bad enough that a first-time offender who has committed a serious crime will avoid prison, but it is outrageous that under the Bill, serial offenders will be rewarded for reoffending. New clause 46 would mean that any offender who has committed three or more offences in the preceding 12 months would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence, and new clause 47 would stop them from qualifying if they had committed 10 or more offences previously. People are committing multiple offences, yet the Government are letting them off with a suspended sentence.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Eighty per cent of offenders are reoffenders because of the 14 years of mess that this Government are having to clear up. The real travesty of justice is that there are no prison cells available for people who are convicted. The last Government failed to build the prison places that are needed; this Government will ensure that they exist, because they will always be needed. It is as though the Conservatives left the tap running and are whining about the flood that they let happen.

[Esther McVey]

I am glad that the hon. Lady raised that point. When I was brought back into the Cabinet Office, people in the left-leaning civil service, in the Ministry of Justice, said, “Let’s let people out of prison. It’s running too hot.” Thankfully, I stood firm and said no, and so did the Conservative Government, unlike this Government, who have let thousands of people out of prison and are destined to do so again. I am afraid that this is ideological. Labour Members do not think that more people should go to prison; they think that those people should be in the community. That is ideological, and certainly not logical. It does not support law and order in this country, and it is a slap in the face for victims.

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

[Esther McVey]

I will not.

New clauses 48 and 49 would mean that offenders would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence if they had previously been given a suspended sentence or an immediate prison sentence for the same offence. If an offender commits a burglary now and goes to prison for it, and is convicted of committing another burglary after the measures in the Bill come into force, it would be ludicrous if, instead of being given a longer prison sentence—most people would think that was fair—they were given a suspended sentence; however, the courts would not have any other choice, in many circumstances.

New clause 55 would exclude criminals who had previously breached suspended sentences on three or more occasions from qualifying for a suspended sentence. It could be argued that those who have breached a suspended sentence once should not qualify. I completely agree, but I have decided that it should be “three strikes and you’re out”. People cannot keep committing offences and keep getting suspended sentences.

Another strong case for “three strikes and you’re out” is covered by new clause 61, which covers offenders who are convicted of committing the same crime three or more times. Someone who commits the same crime three or more times will now get only a suspended sentence. These people should be getting appropriate prison sentences, not a guarantee of no prison sentence at all.

New clause 59 lists

“poor compliance with court orders”

as a reason not to suspend a sentence. If a court can see that a criminal has not complied in the past with non-custodial alternatives and is therefore highly likely to breach a suspended sentence, it should have the option of imposing immediate custody on the offender. In fact, that is already what current and past sentencing guidelines say about considering an optional suspended sentence, never mind a mandatory one, which criminals will have if this Bill is brought into being. Under new clause 60, offenders being sentenced in court for three or more offences at once could not expect a presumption in favour of a suspended sentence.

All the examples I have given come from judges and lawyers. These are not possibilities, or scenarios that I have dreamt up; they are happening now. These people should go to prison—and they would have done, but the Government are letting everybody out. That is why I say that we will be dismantling law and order in this country if this Bill goes through. There is nothing to stop magistrates and judges handing out suspended sentences if they think that they are appropriate, but these amendments would not force them to hand them out when they are clearly not appropriate. That is what the Government are doing. They are tying the hands of the justice system.

The Government have already made amendments to earlier legislation after presumably realising that they had missed something. I hope that, on reflection, and having heard about some of the disasters that are about to befall the country as a result of this legislation, they will do likewise today. My new clause 56 is very similar to Government amendments 2 and 4, for example, which will exclude those who are already subject to a suspended sentence. They have seen one loophole, but the Bill is like a colander of loopholes, and I hope that they will see a few more.

The Government have not ensured that the Bill will not apply to those on licence. My new clause 57 says that those who have been released early from prison on licence should not be eligible for a presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence if they offend again; really, they should be locked up.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What the right hon. Lady is putting forward is a very logical and sensible way forward, but I am conscious that young people in particular can do something wrong in life, and then return to the area that they came from. They are subject to peer pressure, and can be affected by all the things that happen in that community. Sometimes, they probably need help from outside the legal system. Has she considered that when putting forward her amendments? Do they ensure that people get a second chance, and get help where they need it—in the place where they live?

[Esther McVey]

We all believe in second chances, and that is where rehabilitation comes into play. We are possibly dealing with continual offending here. People have come before the courts, been given some kind of community sentence or been subject to tagging, and still repeat their crimes. We do not want them to think that there is absolutely no deterrent, and that they can commit crimes as often as they want because they will get only a tiny slap on the wrist.

People need to understand that their actions are unacceptable. There is a victim, and a price to pay. Some people will understand, go on the straight and narrow, and go on to have a good life, but not as a result of what is being delivered today. The Bill says, “Commit a crime and you will not do any time.” That is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is the wrong message to send out. That really should not need saying, but it seems that it does. How on earth can it be right that someone who has been released early from prison will get a second get-out-of-jail-free card? That will happen under this ludicrous legislation.

Under new clause 41, the presumption against prison would not apply to foreign nationals. If people come to this country and commit crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence, they should not be left wandering around our streets freely as a result of this Bill. Foreign offenders should be deported, as protecting the public is one of the main duties of a Government—I will have to repeat that several times to the Government, who do not seem to understand that that is a major part of their duty—and in the meantime, those offenders should be locked up. While we have to put up with our own British criminals, I do not see why we should be lenient to those who have come to this country and committed offences. I do not think the public will agree with the Government’s Bill, either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

The importance of the sunset clause is that it relieves the monstrous contradiction we have had from the Government. They have presented this legislation as an emergency measure because the prisons are too full, yet at the same time they boast about their great, expansive prison-building programme. Clearly the two are at odds with one another. Who will be put in these prisons if this legislation persists? That is why my right hon. Friend’s sunset clause is so important.

[Esther McVey]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why I pointed out that the Bill is all about ideology; it is not about logic.

I mentioned the extra prisons that were started in 2020, when the previous Government gave £4 billion to expand prison capacity, and three of those prisons have been built. There was a delay and it was obviously slow—we were in lockdown for two years, which is why they are coming on board now—but another three prisons will be built.

If people are really serious about cleaning up our streets, getting crime down and supporting victims, they will not vote for this Bill. Prison places are either here or on their way. The Prisons Minister has said he thinks that only a third of prisoners should be in prison and that two thirds of them should be out on the street. That is why I say that this Bill is about ideology over logic and over the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Pochin]

I thank the hon. Lady for the Eton example. I am sure that will resonate very well with my constituents in Runcorn.

[Esther McVey]

Does the hon. Lady agree that if there are not enough prison places, then we should build more of them, not let people out of prison? That is what we should be doing—[Interruption.] Remember, this is a Government who found untold amounts of money to house illegal immigrants. We need to do the same for prisoners.

[Sarah Pochin]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

I said I would talk about the effect of the measures, which is that very large numbers of people will be released from prison. The figures are alarming; we could see over 40,000 people released early. We could see thousands of violent offenders released. I appreciate that they were released on licence and that measures can be taken through the Probation Service and the police to try to limit the harm they might do, but the reality is that there has already been a 36% increase in recalls. My estimation—I would go as far as to call it a prediction—is that that number will rise if we pass the Bill. I think recalls will soar and the police and Probation Service will struggle to deal with that. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister predicted, I would not be surprised if the Minister comes back to the House with an amendment to this legislation to deal with that emergency, for that is what it will become. It will be a profound emergency for people affected by those who are released and commit crime again, because they will not all be petty offences.

[Esther McVey]

My right hon. Friend talks about the number of people who will be released from prison. I spoke earlier about the number of people who will not even be going to prison. All in all it will be tens of thousands of people not in prison. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the public find this out, they will want that Government gone?

[Sir John Hayes]

As my right hon. Friend says with her typical clarity and passion, it may be that the Government bow to public pressure—and there will undoubtedly be public pressure of a kind she describes. We are speaking about people who have done serious harm, including sex offenders of the most extreme kind and violent repeat offenders. These are not people who have committed minor indiscretions; they are very serious criminals. The public will resist their release and protest about it, and the Minister may well feel obliged, as I am sure he is a man of principle, to return to the House and amend the legislation when its effects are truly and fully seen.

My judgment would be that the facts speak for themselves: thousands of people will be let out of prison who certainly should not be. The reasons are as I described them; they are practical, but there is an underlying sentiment that I tried to articulate: it is a fear of punishment and an unwillingness to recognise the retributive nature of criminal justice. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) set out far more eloquently than I ever could, the effects are likely to be devastating for our constituents and communities across the country—and bear in mind that it will happen in every part of this country, every constituency will suffer as a result of the legislation. Each one of us will, as good constituency MPs, have to cope with some of these effects.

The alternative is, as I described when responding to an earlier intervention, to look at every possible means of accommodating people in prison who deserve to be incarcerated—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

On a purely technical point, I am right hon. and so are my right hon. Friends the Members for Tatton and for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), but let us put that to one side. It is a matter of public record that I almost never disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville. The truth is, she is right: we should have built more prisons much earlier. We could have anticipated these things—they can be modelled, after all. By the way, Governments are often surprisingly poor at modelling—I saw that throughout my time in government—but we should have modelled this, given the trend change in the prison population.

[Esther McVey]

It might be helpful to give some of the numbers. Three prisons were built, with 8,500 places—they were delayed because of lockdown—and another three prisons are on the way.

[Sir John Hayes]

I noted those figures earlier. My right hon. Friend is right—we also rarely disagree, and I did not disagree with a word she said earlier—that more prison places were added, but there are two things about that. What we did not really take necessary account of was the effect of sentencing policy. If more people are sentenced to incarceration, perfectly properly, that changes the trend. We certainly could have dealt more effectively with foreign national offenders than we did, which was another growing problem. Furthermore, over a long period of time, while we were adding places we took some prison places out. We need to think about the number of prisons that closed. She is therefore right. [Interruption.] It is not that we did nothing—far from it; we did many good things of the kind she described—but, unfortunately, not enough account was taken over a long enough period.

It is not largely about the immediate policy of the previous Government. It goes back much further than that to a series of Governments of both major parties over a long time indeed. The modelling that I described is decade-long modelling.

It is an extremely difficult business to get planning permission to build a prison. The last Government often struggled with resistance to having a prison built or expanded in a locality. It is usually local constituency MPs—we can imagine such people: Liberal Democrat types—who come here and say one thing—[Interruption.] Notice that I said “types” rather than just Liberal Democrats. They say one thing but go back to their constituencies and campaign against opening a prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his sartorial appreciation some time ago of my green suit, when he went on to ask whether I won it at a village fête.

[Esther McVey]

And did you?

[Josh Babarinde]

I did not, but maybe the right hon. Gentleman can agree on the point that I want to make. He spoke about the challenges that Governments have had when modelling prisoner numbers and the prison population. Does he therefore agree with David Gauke, who recommended in his report that there should be an independent body that does that modelling, and is he disappointed that there is not a feature of that in the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

Madam Chair, I do not think that you were Prime Minister or Chancellor. I do apologise.

The Tory legacy in our prisons was lawless disorder, with not enough prison places to arrest or lock up even the most serious offenders. The Conservatives’ howling opposition today rings hollow in the context of their disastrous legacy. This Government have taken action to fix the mess by delivering 2,500 prison places in the first year, compared with 500 over 14 years of Conservative misrule. But we cannot simply build our way out of this crisis; it requires long-term reform for a more sustainable system. This Bill ensures that we will never again face the impossible situation that we faced last summer, but it goes further: it means we will cut reoffending rates, and we will build prisons that produce better citizens, not better criminals. This Bill will help keep our streets and communities safe. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate.

[Esther McVey]

I am deeply dismayed by what the Minister had to say. This Bill will make the streets of our country less safe. It will both let thousands of criminals out of prison and stop thousands of criminals going to prison. It will have a devastating impact on society. If the Minister is honest and is being truthful about this being an emergency—[Interruption.] I apologise —not “truthful”. If he is being accurate, and the reason really is that there is an emergency because of a lack of prison places, why has he not accepted my new clause 62? That sunset clause would allow two years for three further prisons, initiated by the Conservative Government, to come on line. He has not done so because, as I think we have revealed or exposed, this Government are soft on crime, and they are on the side of the criminal, not the victim.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

Shocking!

[Esther McVey]

“Shocking” actually is the word for this Bill.

As the Minister did not offer any way forward and has not agreed to a sunset clause, I will push my amendment 46 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

7. What discussions she has had with victims’ groups on the early release of violent offenders.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

14. What discussions she has had with victims groups on the early release of violent offenders.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

A victims’ representative was on the panel that conducted the independent sentencing review, which gathered views from victims and survivors. I personally met a number of victims and victim groups and fed their views directly back to David Gauke. Those serving sentences for more serious sexual and violent offences will spend at least 50% of their sentence in custody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

That is not the case. What would be failing victims is if our criminal justice system got to the point of collapse and we did not have prison places for violent offenders. This Government are getting on with reforming our criminal justice system. We are putting victims at the heart of it to protect them, and are making sure that we never run out of prison places again.

[Esther McVey]

The Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Act 2020, otherwise known as Helen’s law, should prevent the early release of murderers who do not disclose the location of their victims’ remains. However, there are loopholes in the law in cases where the murderer makes a disclosure but no remains are found, as happened in the case of Jean Taylor’s daughter, Chantel. Will the Minister meet me and Jean Taylor, who founded the charity Families Fighting for Justice, to close those loopholes?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for her question. All my sympathies go to her constituent. If she wants to write to me with the details, I will definitely look into the case and come back to her.

Protection of Prison Staff

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is completely right to say that prison overcrowding makes addressing these issues far more difficult. That is why the Government have pledged to continue building the remaining 20,000 prison places, which the last Government failed to deliver. In 10 months, this Government have already added more than 2,000 prison places. The Conservative Government added 500 places in 14 years.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Surely as a minimum, any prisoner who assaults a prison officer should automatically forfeit any right to early release and all privileges. Does the Minister agree? If so, when will he introduce that change? If not, why not?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The right hon. Member is right to say that anything that happens should be dealt with immediately by the prison authorities, and that is exactly what is happening. That is why these reviews are in place: to learn the lessons so that appropriate action can be taken and appropriate steps put in place for the future, taking into account the issues she raised, among others.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the last Government appear to have been asleep at the wheel, rediscovering their mojo only once they were in opposition.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Last week, the Prime Minister announced that he is abolishing NHS England to make sure the NHS is brought back under democratic control. Will the Minister be lobbying the Prime Minister to abolish the Sentencing Council to make sure sentencing is brought back under democratic control?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the former common sense Minister for her question—

[Esther McVey]

You wouldn’t understand common sense.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and the Ministry of Justice will play a full part in the inter-ministerial group.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s attempts to prevent the Sentencing Council from changing the sentencing process, which would lead to a two-tier justice system. If, however, the council will not budge—as appears to be the case—a two-tier justice system will arrive in just 21 days, contradicting the key principle of the legal system that everyone should be equal before the law without discrimination. Will the Secretary of State introduce legislation immediately to ensure that that two-tier justice system does not come about?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have already set out exactly what I am going to do. I have written to the Sentencing Council, using the powers that I have to do so, and I will be meeting it later this week. I have made it very clear that I will consider its role and powers, and if I need to legislate, I will not hesitate to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

It is always the case that people will leave an organisation voluntarily or due to retirement or—[Interruption.] May I finish my point? In some cases, people may leave because they have not been too happy with what has been happening in our Prison Service. A retention plan is available, but the numbers that I gave earlier—868 net new prison officers so far this year—take account of people leaving the service, so we are actually up on last year’s figures.

[Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Having recently met the governor of Styal prison in my constituency, I know that drones are an increasing problem in prisons, as is the illegal use of mobile phones. The two are linked because mobile phones allow for greater frequency and accuracy of drone activity. Does the Minister agree that the way to curb drone activity and stop illegal mobile phone use is to block phone signals in prison? Will he support my private Member’s Bill to do that? The Second Reading is on 1 December.

[Mr Gyimah]

I fully support my right hon. Friend’s Bill. It is what we need to deal with the illegal use of mobile phones, which are used to carry on criminal activity from behind bars.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

5. What recent progress she has made on promoting equality for disabled people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

Recent progress includes our cross-Government disability strategy, “Fulfilling Potential—Making it Happen”, which was published on 2 July, and the launch of our two-year Disability Confident campaign on 18 July, engaging employers and giving disabled people more opportunities in business. I am pleased to say that key measures and indicators show reduced inequalities and improvements in key outcomes.

[Mr Brown]

In recent years, I have on three occasions stepped in when disabled people were on the receiving end of verbal abuse. Recent polling indicates that 17% of disabled people have had such an experience, and that 7% have been physically abused or attacked. What are the Government doing to tackle disability hate crime?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this important issue. The Government are doing a lot to enable people to understand what a disability hate crime is and to make it easier to report. We are doing a lot in this area.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

In July, Ministers said that the London Paralympic games had improved attitudes to disabled people. However, a recent report from Scope says that their legacy hangs in the balance. Some 22% of disabled people say that public attitudes have got worse, and 17% say that they have experienced hostile behaviour, or even been attacked. That is not surprising when Ministers abuse statistics about disabled people and benefits. The Hardest Hit campaign shows that disabled people have been hit nine times as hard as non-disabled people by austerity cuts. Is it not time that the Minister got her Government colleagues into line? Disabled people are equal and valued participants in society. When will the Government start to deliver positive messages about the contribution they make and give them the support they need to participate in society?

[Esther McVey]

What I would like to do is paint the correct picture, which the hon. Lady is not doing. I can give her either the latest international statistics, which show that out of 55 countries the UK is leading in all 23 indicators, or the latest national statistics, from 2 July, which show that the gap closed in nine out of 14 headline indicators. In 2005-06 and 2009-10, that was true of only seven categories. I can therefore tell the hon. Lady that, on the very latest statistics from 2 July this year, inequalities have reduced and equalities have increased in education, employment and social inclusion, and we also have lower rates of relative poverty. Please get the facts right.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

6. What recent representations she has received from the women’s sector on tackling violence against women.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the cumulative effect of the Government’s policies on disabled people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

The Government provide equality analysis of policy changes routinely, as required by the Equality Act 2010. It is not possible to publish a robust cumulative impact assessment separately for disabled people because a number of overlapping reforms are continuing until 2017-18. The caseload is dynamic, and, as under the previous Government, the data are limited. The previous Government did not do it because they did not want to put out incorrect information, and neither do we.

[Bill Esterson]

Let me tell the Minister about a constituent of mine. He was assessed as fit for work after being disabled for 12 years as a result of a degenerative disease. While he appeals, he loses £25 a week in benefits. He has now lost a further £14.71 a week through the bedroom tax and £34 a month as a result of the council tax reduction scheme. That is over £200 a month in total. Like thousands of people with disabilities—

[Bill Esterson]

Does not my constituent’s example show that it is time the Government admitted they have got it wrong about the impact on disabled people?

[Esther McVey]

I would like to refresh the hon. Gentleman’s memory about a couple of points. The work capability assessment was brought in under the previous Government, and we are trying to get it right. Equally, the cumulative impact on housing under the previous Government shows that 1.8 million people were left on waiting lists, a quarter of a million people were in overcrowded housing, and the housing bill doubled. The intention of our cumulative impact is to get it right.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Virtue is not found solely in the amount of money that is spent. Does the Minister agree that it is as important to enable disabled people to fulfil their aspirations and live fully in society as it is to focus on financial payments to a proportion of them?

[Esther McVey]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who does so much in this area. This is about fulfilling potential, protecting the most vulnerable, and helping those who would like to get into work. The budget remains at £50 billion, which is a fifth higher than the average in Europe, over double that in America, and six times more than in Japan. We are world leaders and I am proud of our record.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

The Minister’s answer to the question illustrates why we need a cumulative impact assessment. She said that it is a dynamic, changing situation. A huge amount of reform is coming in, and that is exactly why we must have a cumulative impact assessment.

[Esther McVey]

I agree on certain points, but I want to ensure that correct and robust information is handed out and, for the reasons I have given, that is not possible. We do not want to trade in inaccurate information. Our intention is to ensure that we support the most vulnerable people, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Two thirds of families hit by the bedroom tax are disabled, according to the Minister’s own figures, and for many of them there is nowhere to move to. In Wakefield district, 5,600 households are being hit by the bedroom tax, there are fewer than 200 smaller homes available, and Wakefield and District Housing estimates that it will take seven years to re-house everyone. It is even more difficult for disabled families, because most of the homes do not have disabled access. The discretionary housing fund will not help all of those families. Why do not the Minister and all her colleagues stop hiding behind the nonsense in their briefing papers and go out and hear from the families who are being hit? They have nowhere to go and no way to pay. What does she tell them to do now?

[Esther McVey]

I listened carefully to the right hon. Lady. The discretionary payments, which we have trebled, are going to the right people. We need to make sure that local authorities are very clear in what they do. We have also exempted pensioners, and if a disabled child cannot sleep in the same room as another child, that room will be exempted. Rather than making inaccurate comments and perpetuating myths, the right hon. Lady should get her facts right and get behind the reforms that we are making to replace the mess that she left behind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

4. What plans he has to promote work in prisons.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

6. What plans he has to promote work in prisons.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

9. What plans he has to promote work in prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

One of the things about which we try to be scrupulous is ensuring that work in prisons does not undercut the work done by businesses employing honest employees outside. We would not be able to persuade organisations such as the CBI and our private sector partners to work with us if they thought that we were undercutting British competitors. We will not pay the minimum wage, because the taxpayer would find that he or she was footing the bill for it all. However, the costs of running a business in prison are considerable because of the security that is imposed. We intend to ensure, by means of a code of practice, that fair and proper competition is maintained and that we do not undercut ordinary honest businesses.

[Esther McVey]

Given that, at present, 47% of offenders are receiving out-of-work benefits two years after their release from prison, I fully support what the Secretary of State is doing. What plans has he to ensure that there is a smooth transition from work preparation in prison to actual work outside prison?

[Mr Clarke]

Along with the Department for Work and Pensions, we have just embarked on a system whereby people who are released from prison go straight on to the Work programme. Their receipt of benefits is tied to a programme aimed at getting them back to work if that is at all possible, as it would be for anyone else. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend: all the evidence shows that having a job is one of the main factors that determine whether someone stops returning to crime, and it also stops the taxpayer having to pay benefits to such a high proportion of ex-prisoners.