Sentencing Bill

Debate between Esther McVey and Wendy Morton

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

[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?

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces

Debate between Esther McVey and Wendy Morton

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend and neighbouring MP makes a valid point; £3.7 million is the equivalent of about 67 police officers. That is a recurring expense, not a one-off. In places such as Devon and Cornwall, the police will face a £6.3 million tax bill each year. Greater Manchester will be hit with a whopping extra tax bill of £11.9 million each year. Those are just a few examples, and the list goes on.

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

The estimated cost for the west midlands is in the region of £12.8 million, which is a huge amount of money. What this Government do not seem to understand is that when the pressure of national insurance is put on to businesses, people cannot squeeze and squeeze profit margins; in the end, that will impact employment, training, and so on. When it comes to the public sector, if we keep squeezing and squeezing, the money has to come from somewhere. Does that mean reduced public services—fewer police officers, as in this case—or will the burden come back on the taxpayer?

[Esther McVey]

My right hon. Friend might have hit on a point, as the burden could well come back to the taxpayer. Remember that this is tax—it is money that will be going on tax, and a bill that the Government are imposing. However we look at it, it is money that the frontline police service are being deprived of. Let us consider the financial burden that the changes will place on the police force. Employer national insurance contributions represent a significant cost for everyone, but they will hit the police especially hard. For police forces that employ a number of police officers and staff to protect our communities, the cumulative cost of the increase will run well into the tens of millions of pounds. To put that into perspective, take West Yorkshire, where the figure of £11.2 million per year is the equivalent of 220 police officers. That is potentially 220 fewer police officers keeping our communities safe as a direct result of the Government’s Budget.

Let me name a few other places, such as my home area of Merseyside—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—Thank you very much indeed. It will be paying an extra tax bill every year of £7 million, which is roughly 130 police officers. Kent will be paying more than £6 million, which is about 100 police officers a year, and Thames Valley police will face an £8 million tax bill every year.