Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

James Wild Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is right that, moving at pace, I have sought to have a targeted Bill that deals with this particular imposition guideline. I have made it very clear that I am conducting a wider review of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council. If we need to legislate further—maybe in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, although other mechanisms are also potentially available—I will do so. I am not ruling out further legislation—in fact, it is very much on the table—but it is right that we are moving quickly in order to deal with the problems that could be caused by the guidelines coming into force, and that I have taken targeted action in this short but focused Bill.

As I told the House a few weeks ago, I had several discussions with the Sentencing Council in the time leading up to 1 April, when the updated guidelines were due to come into force. I reiterate my gratitude to the council’s chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for engaging with me on this issue and for ultimately making the right call by pausing the guidelines while Parliament has its say. I should say again that I have no doubt whatsoever about the noble intentions behind the proposed changes, because I understand the problem that the Sentencing Council was attempting to address. Racial inequalities exist in our justice system and are evident in the sentencing disparities between offenders from different backgrounds, but as the Sentencing Council acknowledges, the reasons for this are unclear. Addressing inequalities in the justice system is something that this Government take very seriously, and we are determined to increase confidence in its outcomes, which is why we are working with the judiciary to make the system more representative of the public it serves.

I have also commissioned a review of the data that my Department holds on disparities in the justice system in order to better understand the drivers of the problem, but although I agree with the Sentencing Council’s diagnosis, I believe it has prescribed the wrong cure. Going ahead with the new guidelines would have been an extraordinary step to take. It would have been extraordinary because of what it puts at risk: the very foundations of our justice system, which was built on equality before the law. The unintended consequences would have been considerable, because the idea that we improve things for people in this country who look like me by telling the public that we will be given favourable treatment is not just wrong, but dangerous. We are all safer in this country when everyone knows we are treated the same. If we sacrifice that, even in pursuit of a noble ideal such as equality, we risk bringing the whole edifice crashing to the ground.

I know there are disagreements in this House with regard to the correct policy to pursue, not least between the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, who opposes the guidelines, and the shadow Transport Secretary, whose support for them I have noted already—though I suppose that does assume that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice really is who he shows himself to be today. I must admit that I have begun to question whether his principles are set or really of no fixed abode. After all, he did pose as a Cameroon centrist for so many years, and only recently became his party’s populist flag bearer. It is enough to make me wonder whether he is, in fact, a Marxist—but one of the Groucho variety. “These are my principles,” he says, and if you do not like them, he has others.

Regardless of our positions on this question of policy, one thing is clear: this is a question of policy. How the state addresses an issue that is systemic, complex and of unclear origin is a question of what the law should be, not how the law should be applied. Let me be clear about that distinction: Parliament sets the laws and the judiciary determine how they are applied, and they must be defended as they do so. I will always defend judicial independence, and as I said earlier, I swore an oath to do so when I became the Lord Chancellor. Given the shadow Lord Chancellor’s recent diatribes, including just hours ago in this place, he may want to acquaint himself with that oath, if he intends ever succeeding me in this position, although I am assuming that it is my job he wants, not that of the Leader of the Opposition.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I think the Lord Chancellor just said that the approach to the guidelines taken by the Sentencing Council puts the foundation of the justice system at risk. Given that, how can she have confidence in a Sentencing Council that takes such an approach?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have engaged constructively with the Sentencing Council and will continue to do so, and I am in the process of legislating to prevent this imposition guideline from ever coming into force. It has currently been paused, and I think that was the right step for the Sentencing Council to take. I am conducting a wider review of the roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and it is right that I take a bit more time to think carefully about that, about what we may or may not want it to do, and about how we may right the democratic deficit that has been uncovered. I think my approach to the Sentencing Council is very clear from the action I am taking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Equality before the law is at the heart of the rule of law. As the great Roman statesman Cicero said:

“For rights that were not open to all alike would be no rights.”

The revised guidelines from the Sentencing Council fundamentally went against that important principle. To introduce a presumption that pre-sentence reports would be required not necessarily because of a particular vulnerability of offenders or circumstances related to their offences, but because of the colour of their skin, the region of their ancestors’ origin or the religious beliefs that they held is two-tier justice, no matter how laudable the intentions. This is not about Court of Appeal judgments such as Thompson, which the Lord Chancellor referred to, and it is not about factors that could fundamentally change the effect of a particular judicial sentences on an offender, or factors relating directly to the circumstances of the offence. This is purely about those characteristics.

My right hon. Friend the shadow Lord Chancellor did a huge service to not only this House but our country when he raised this matter from the Dispatch Box on 5 March, because it was clear that the Lord Chancellor was completely blindsided. Neither she nor her Ministers knew anything about the proposals. In fairness to the right hon. Lady, who is not in her seat at the moment, I am sure that she was as appalled as we were at the idea that people should be treated differently purely because of their ethnicity, culture or religion. But this is a lacklustre Bill, which does the minimum needed to clear up the immediate mess of this Government’s making. [Interruption.] As I said, it does the minimum necessary. It is better than nothing—it is a very small step in the right direction—but it does not go as far as the Government should to introduce the reforms that are needed.

The right hon. Lady had been Lord Chancellor for eight months, but she had so little grip of her Department that she not only did nothing to stop the Sentencing Council’s new guidelines, but was not even aware of them. Her representative had met the Sentencing Council just two days earlier. What were they doing at the Sentencing Council, if they were not there to stop such proposals? How is the right hon. Lady running her Department, if she was not even informed of the new guidelines?

The proposals had changed during the process. The Lord Chancellor, unlike me and the Business Secretary, has actually been a practising lawyer. She will understand that there is a substantial difference between saying that a pre-sentence report may be particularly important, and stating, as a requirement, that such a report will normally be considered necessary, given the effect that statement has, and the triggers for appeals against sentences. Those changes were made almost at the point when the right hon. Lady became Lord Chancellor, yet eight months later, she had done nothing to stop them and was not even aware of them.

This Bill stops only the narrowest and worst aspects of the guidelines from applying. If the Government were actually serious about taking action, they could have done so much more quickly. They did not even need to take action; an omission would have been sufficient. On 28 March, when my right hon. Friend the shadow Lord Chancellor brought forward his private Member’s Bill, all the Government Whips had to do was not shout “Object” in order for it to go forward. It would have restored proper ministerial oversight and, through the Minister, parliamentary oversight over sentencing guidelines. That would have allowed Parliament to take control of this fundamental matter.

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend is right; the issue is not just these guidelines. In the last Parliament, we legislated to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment, after an offender killed three members of my constituent’s family and was given a sentence of only 10 and a half years. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a broader power, so that where Parliament’s intent is not recognised by the Sentencing Council, we can act?

[Mike Wood]

Clearly, Parliament needs to have oversight of revisions to sentencing guidelines, so that they reflect the will of Parliament.

The Government failed to act and have now brought forward this lacklustre measure. In the past few months, my hon. and right hon. Friends have uncovered multiple instances of two-tier principles being applied to bail, probation and other judicial matters. This is not a one-off, or a whistleblowing “fix it and move on” situation; it is systemic and endemic. We need much more radical reform than the Government are bringing forward today.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think the country had its say on 14 years of the Tories in charge. To be honest, given their legacy in the criminal justice system, I would not take the same approach, but I am not surprised that they are laughing; the only other thing they could do is to cry.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Why does the Lord Chancellor propose to take only a very narrow power in respect of the two-tier pre-sentencing reports rather than a general power, given that other guidelines and draft guidelines, including for immigration offences, are far below the levels agreed to by this Parliament? The Sentencing Council is ignoring policy determined by this House. What more evidence does she need to act, and to act now?

[Shabana Mahmood]

On the immigration guideline, I will correct something that the shadow Justice Secretary said earlier. Nothing in that guideline prevents the deportation of any foreign national offenders, and this Government have been getting on with the job, having deported more than 24,000 foreign nationals. Our record on foreign national offenders is one of a 20% increase in removals this year compared with the same period last year. I wanted to ensure that the guideline did not come into effect, and that is why I published the targeted Bill. I have acknowledged that there is a debate to be had about the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council, which I will return to in the weeks and months ahead.

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can tell my hon. Friend that many expressions have come to mind as I have been listening to the drivel from some Conservative Members—not all of which would not fall foul of “Erskine May”, so I will keep my counsel on that.

My hon. Friend refers to the Public Accounts Committee report, and I gently observe that I was a long-term member of that Committee. I have the highest regard for the Public Accounts Committee, but I reject its criticism, because this Government clearly have a plan—not just on funding and resources for the Crown court, but on the reform that will ultimately be needed to get the system into balance.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Despite this announcement, the backlog will increase. When cases do go to court, it is important that offenders serve the sentence they are given. Following the Lord Chancellor’s trip to Texas, where some prisoners serve as little as 25% of their sentence, will she rule out adopting such a soft sentencing policy?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Texans had similar problems to those we face today, but they had theirs 20 years or so ago. Their system of good behaviour credits incentivises offenders to engage in rehabilitation activity and to get help for their drug addictions, alcohol problems, mental health issues and so on. If offenders engage with that system and get their good behaviour credits, they can earn their way to an earlier parole hearing. It is the definition of a tough system, because it says to offenders, “You have to do something good in order to earn the possibility of an earlier release.” It is a system that is well worth learning from, because the reoffending rates are very low compared with ours. One of the prisons I visited in Texas has a reoffending rate of 17%. I dream of that number for us in this country, because every time we bear down on reoffending, that is cutting crime. It is a strategy for making sure that we have fewer victims in the future. I hope that if whatever proposals we bring forward lead to a reduction in reoffending, the hon. Gentleman will back those proposals.

Drones: High-security Prisons

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The security and safety of prisoners and prison officers is very important. The Prisons Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), sitting to my right, recently visited Parc Prison, and are well aware of the issues. They are working with the prison authorities to address them.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Two months ago in the House, I raised concerns that HMP Garth had been likened to an airport because of the number of drones illegally flying drugs into the prison. In response, the Lord Chancellor told me that the Prisons Minister was meeting the governor and thinking

“about how to deal with those problems”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 164.]

What precise action has the Department taken since then, and what action will the Minister take today to deal with the problems at HMP Manchester?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Actions are being taken and things are being done. I have mentioned the issues around windows, and netting and bars, but frankly this is a security issue. We are up against organised crime. We will not talk publicly about the measures that we are considering, because that would not be the best way of tackling the issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We value youth services, such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, that enable young people to develop new skills to turn their lives around. In fact, the D of E scheme is available in all five of our young offender institutions, and 36 people in YOIs were enrolled in the scheme in August.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Last week I met former prisoners who had taken part in Greene King’s Releasing Potential scheme, which is now being expanded with two further training kitchens going into prisons to help people turn their lives around. What are the Government doing to boost such programmes, and the employment advisory boards that we set up, to ensure that while prisoners are rightly punished they are also rehabilitated?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Such schemes and initiatives are exactly the sort of thing that this Government want to celebrate as best practice and replicate in other settings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The shadow Secretary of State has not necessarily been in position long enough to have acquainted himself with all aspects of his Government’s performance in this area. We will spend more this year on building the prison places that the last Government failed to deliver, and we have launched our landmark sentencing review to ensure that we never again have to make emergency releases.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

HMP Garth has been likened to an airport because of the number of drones that illegally fly drugs into that prison. What urgent action is the Lord Chancellor taking to end that unacceptable situation?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Drugs getting into prison is a huge issue, and I am very aware of the issues at Garth. The Minister with responsibility for prisons will meet the governors and think about how to deal with those problems in the medium and long term.

Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Working closely with our trade unions is important to us. We have already engaged with the Prison Officers Association. Let me place on record my thanks to all who work in our prisons and our probation system. In our prisons in particular, the rates of violence against prison officers have been too high for too long. I salute the hard work that prison officers do in a difficult job on behalf of us all. My right hon. Friend can be assured of our close engagement with everybody who works in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service going forward.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Parliament legislated for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving, but judges are yet to impose such a sentence, despite such cases as the one in my constituency in which three people were killed by a driver in a case with five aggravating factors. Will the Lord Chancellor ensure that when the review considers longer custodial sentences, it looks at how victims can get justice, and how the maximum sentences legislated for by this place are applied?

Sentencing Bill

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He has raised this issue on behalf of his constituents with such assiduity and so conscientiously, with me personally and, indeed, in the House. He is absolutely right to do so: that crime was truly abominable and utterly atrocious. At its very heart, this part of the Bill caters for precisely those sorts of offences, where there is murder accompanied by sexual or sadistic conduct, so that in such circumstances, when the offender hears the clang of the prison gate, that will be the last time that they breathe free air.

Let me turn to the very worst offenders who kill in the most appalling circumstances. Clause 1 creates a new duty for the court to impose a whole-life order in cases of the murder of a child that involve the abduction of the child, murders involving sexual or sadistic conduct, and murders carried out for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. There will be judicial discretion in exceptional circumstances. The clause will also impose whole-life orders for the murder of a single victim that involves sexual or sadistic conduct, so that murderers like the killers of Sarah Everard and Zara Aleena will never enjoy the freedom that they cruelly denied their victims. The measures will ensure that severe punishments are available for those who commit the very worst crimes.

In my statement to the House on 16 October, I set out the Government’s intention to legislate so that rapists and serious sexual offenders serve their whole custodial terms. Again, the Bill makes good on that promise. Clauses 2 to 5 and clause 7 will mean, when implemented, that those convicted of rape or serious sexual offences will now serve every single day of their custodial term in custody, without the possibility of their case being referred to the Parole Board. That means that the custodial term handed down by the judge on the day they are sentenced will be exactly how long they initially spend in prison. They will then have a period on licence in the community after their custodial term ends. This will ensure that their victims get the justice they deserve and the public can be protected.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

All the offences in clause 2 have a maximum life sentence, so the proposed new power to require offenders to attend sentencing hearings would apply. However, will my right hon. and learned Friend look at extending that power? It would not cover other serious crimes, including serious sexual offences such as the sexual assault of a child under 13, as happened in a case in my constituency, where the offender hid in his cell. He would not be compelled to come to sentencing under the powers we are proposing.

[Alex Chalk]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising that appalling case. It is important to note that in respect of this Bill and the provision to require offenders to serve the entirety of their sentence, clause 2 relates to section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, so that is covered.

On my hon. Friend’s separate point about attendance, we are very clear, following the cases of Lucy Letby and others, that it is a grievous affront to victims and families for defendants who have been convicted, after a fair trial, not to face the music, in simple terms. They need to be there in front of the court so that they can hear society’s condemnation expressed through the sentencing remarks of the judge, and so that the peace that has been denied their victims should be denied them as well. They need to understand that condemnation. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about the scope of the requirement for people to attend court; it is a fair one and we should certainly discuss that.

I turn to the second aim of the Bill: to cut crime. Ultimately, that is how we protect the public. As it stands, the situation is that, too often, offenders are locked up for short periods at exorbitant cost. The experience makes them worse, and they end up committing further offences as a result. Clause 6 will introduce a presumption to suspend short sentences of 12 months or less, directing the courts to hand down a suspended sentence order instead.

The fact is that almost 80% of convicted offending every year is reoffending; much of the crime in our country is committed by someone who has had at least one brush with the law. The criminal justice system is meant to punish wrongdoing—of course it is. But, in the interests of society, it is also there to rehabilitate wrongdoers and set them on the right path so that they do not reoffend and make more victims of crime in the process.

If we want to protect the public and cut crime, the most effective thing we can do is intervene to break the cycle of offending—punish, of course, but rehabilitate too. To do that we must properly examine the evidence available to us.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon]

In recent years the Government have invested an extra £141 million in criminal legal aid, which should expedite a solution to the situation.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

13. If he will make an assessment of the impact of changes in sentencing guidelines on causing death by dangerous driving on the length of sentences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)]

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 increased the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life imprisonment. In June 2023, the independent Sentencing Council published revised sentencing guidelines for motoring offences, including for causing death by dangerous driving. It is too early to assess the outcome of those changes, but we regularly publish sentencing statistics on gov.uk. The Sentencing Council also monitors all guidelines in accordance with its statutory duty.

[James Wild]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his position. It is over a year since Parliament legislated to increase the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment. However, three members of my constituent Summer Mace’s family were killed in a horrific incident, and in June the offender got only 10 and a half years. That is totally inadequate. As RoadPeace has shown, far too many sentences are too short. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss those sentencing guidelines, so that we can ensure that they reflect what Parliament actually legislated for?

[Gareth Bacon]

I was very sorry to hear of the death of Paul Carter, Lisa Carter and Jade Mace in January 2023 in a collision caused by Aurelijus Cielevicius, and the devastating consequences for their family and friends. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned hard on this issue, and I read his Adjournment debate earlier this month. Sentencing is entirely a matter for our independent courts, based on the facts of each case. In July 2023, after Cielevicius was sentenced, the revised Sentencing Council guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving came into force, following the increase of the maximum penalty introduced by the PCSC Act 2022. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further, should that be helpful.

Prisons

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I very much share that concern. It is all very well for people to say that they are in favour of making these removals, but their actions have to follow their words. I am afraid that, all too often, that is not what we have seen from Opposition Members, as my hon. Friend rightly points out.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I think the Minister said that offenders sentenced to over a year would be considered for deportation. Is it the case that there is a duty to remove those offenders and that that would also apply to anyone with EU settled status convicted for over a year—they would be returned to their home country and barred from coming back to the UK?

[Damian Hinds]

Of course, the rules are as per the broader immigration rules and people’s citizenship rights. What we need to make sure is that, at the earliest opportunity, we are making that move and deporting those eligible foreign national offenders to their home country. We estimate that this change will add around 300 foreign national offenders to the early removal scheme’s eligible caseload at any one time. In addition to that scheme, as I mentioned, we have prisoner transfer agreements, including our new agreement with Albania, which came into force in May last year. We are looking to negotiate further such agreements.

We are a Government who are unashamedly tough on crime. By removing more foreign national offenders earlier in their sentence, we will be saving the taxpayer money, banishing criminals from our shores, and ensuring we have sufficient prison places to keep the worst offenders locked up for longer.

Powers of Attorney Bill

James Wild Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on getting it to this stage and on securing cross-party and, importantly, Government support for it. I look forward to supporting its passage today. Although this Bill may not have attracted the same level of attention and celebrity endorsement as the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which I was pleased to support, it is none the less important. It makes provision on lasting powers of attorney and proof of instruments creating powers of attorney.

A lasting power of attorney is a vital legal tool that helps people to plan for their future. It lets the donor choose another person—the attorney—to support them and make decisions on their behalf if they lose the mental capacity to make them for themselves. That might be because of an illness such as dementia, for example, or a terrible accident. The Law Society says:

“LPAs are arguably one of the most important legal documents a person will make, because they delegate such wide-reaching powers over their life.”

For a friend, a relative, a partner or a solicitor, that is an incredible and immense responsibility to take on.

LPAs were introduced in 2007, through the Mental Capacity Act 2005, to balance the need to improve safeguards for the donor with the need to make it easier to secure an LPA. The 2005 Act also created the Office of the Public Guardian, which, as we have heard, is responsible for registering LPAs and taking action where there are concerns about an attorney. LPAs were introduced more than 15 years ago and, given the progress of technology and our move away from paper-based record-keeping, the case for change is clear. With LPAs, MCAs and OPGs, we are not short of TLAs—three-letter acronyms—today.

I am pleased that the Bill will bring much-needed modernisation to the process of making and registering lasting powers of attorney, making it easier for individuals to obtain certified copies of powers of attorney. It will create for customers a simpler and faster system that is more resilient to disruption. The modernisation will be made possible by enabling changes to the process to make and register an LPA, by introducing the requirement to verify identity as part of applying to register an LPA, and by streamlining how people can object to registrations. The Bill will also enable different processes and evidence to be accepted depending on whether registration for an LPA is made digitally, on paper, or with a mix of the two. I am pleased that my hon. Friend set out so clearly that the paper-based option will be retained. That is something that Age UK in particular has raised, and it will benefit my North West Norfolk constituents.

The Bill will mean that people find it simpler to create their LPA while, importantly, being protected—through regulations that are enabled by the Bill—from abuse of the powers that are offered. The public will also be better protected from fraud, and the OPG will be able to run a more streamlined process that delivers better value for its fee payers. The fee is currently a relatively modest £82, which is noteworthy given the level of responsibility involved. Overall, the measures will allow more individuals to retain control of their lives by planning for the future.

In 2001, the Ministry of Justice ran a consultation setting out the case for change in the light of the number of LPAs since their introduction. In 2014, for example, just over 390,000 LPAs were sent to the OPG for registration. By 2019, that number had more than doubled to just under 920,000. Increasingly, people expect to be able to access Government services online. It is striking that in 2019, the OPG received 19 million sheets of paper in the form of hard-copy LPAs, and posted out a similar amount. That is not a sustainable or sensible practice to continue.

LPAs are particularly useful for people with dementia. Statistics from the Alzheimer’s Society show that about 900,000 people live with dementia in the UK, and that figure is expected to rise to 1.6 million by 2040. Figures from Norfolk County Council show that in 2019, about 11,000 people with a dementia diagnosis were registered at practices in Norfolk and Waveney. By 2030, that figure is expected to double. Indeed, in King’s Lynn and west Norfolk, dementia prevalence is expected to increase by nearly 24% between 2019 and 2030. The Bill will help to ensure that the process for registering LPAs keeps pace with that expected increase in dementia, while we also, importantly, put medical funding into research to help to treat that condition.

I welcome the digitisation of the process, which will bring many benefits to improve access and speed of service, but we must ensure that there are robust and well-thought-through safeguards. Poor decision making by an attorney could mean the loss of all of someone’s assets or someone being put into a care home, or it could have other serious consequences. The balance between ease of use and protection has to be properly struck, but I am pleased to support the Bill to help to deliver much-needed improvements to the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is an honour to speak on this Bill, brought forward and championed so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), who spoke very cogently on the subject.

I am incredibly glad that this Bill has had full support from the Government during its passage through Parliament. After all, it is a wholly sensible Bill and will bring lasting powers of attorney into the 21st century. In fact, it builds on some sensible recommendations that the Office of the Public Guardian and the Ministry of Justice identified in their recent work on modernising LPAs.

I recently heard from a constituent of mine, Tim, who works as a volunteer for the Paperweight Trust, a charity that provides free services to those needing guidance on legal, financial and welfare issues. Tim is an expert on this subject, so I was interested to hear his observation that the Office of the Public Guardian is taking much longer to process LPAs. Based on his experience, he told me that, for many people, the complexity and accessibility are a constant worry when it comes to this kind of documentation.

Therefore, I want to make some observations. First, how will this Bill seek to address the problems that Tim has highlighted, and will it make a difference? The Bill will deliver two important changes to legislation around powers of attorney and add to the work in the report led by the Ministry of Justice. It will reform the process of making and registering a lasting power of attorney to make it safer, easier, and more sustainable. It will bolster safeguards and explicitly permit a third party to object to the registration of a lasting power of attorney, a very important protection. Moreover, it will modernise the process of filling in a lasting power of attorney, a move that—in my view—is very long overdue.

Secondly, it will widen the group of people who can provide certified copies of powers of attorney to include chartered legal executives. From my point of view, that is most welcome, and works to correct a historic omission: it will mean that chartered legal executives can certify alongside solicitors, which I hope will mean that we can speed up the process, because there will be more professionals involved in it. I say to my hon. Friend who is taking the Bill through Parliament, the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, that these reforms are most welcome. Of course, digitalisation offers the opportunity to create a more efficient service for creating powers of attorney; however, that process needs to put protecting older and vulnerable individuals at its heart. To that end, I emphasise the need for any digital system to place a premium on accessibility. I hope that we will hear from the Minister on that point.

[James Wild]

So far in this debate, we have all talked about how we are going to be moving to a far more digital system. Unfortunately, the record of the public sector—and in fairness, equally, the private sector—in delivering IT systems has not always been as stellar as we might want. Having been on the Public Accounts Committee for two years, I can certainly attest to that being the case. Does my hon. Friend join me in looking forward to the Minister explaining in his comments where we are in the process of developing this digital system, which, according to the explanatory notes, will only cost £3 million? That is a relatively small figure, so I hope that it is all on track, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is very important?

[Nickie Aiken]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight those issues regarding the digitalisation of the whole process. We all know that Governments, no matter their political persuasion, do not always have the greatest record in improving digitalisation of this kind, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that point. As we all know, he is an able Minister, so I am sure that he is already ahead of the game and knows exactly what he is doing to improve the speed of that digitalisation while keeping it within budget.

The premium on accessibility will be absolutely key for people who are not too familiar with the internet; given that 25% of over-65s do not use the internet, that is a point that we have to make, though as we get older, we are more used to using the internet. A woman who is in her 50s, like I am, is very used to using the internet now. [Hon. Members: “Never!”] I thank my hon. Friends for their kind comments. Likewise, any approach to a multi-channel system needs to work just as efficiently as the digital option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

I agree 100%. We know the progress of conditions such as Alzheimer’s and dementia can be slow or rapid, so it is important that we make the process as quick as possible to give the person at the heart of the decision making the reassurance that their family will do everything in their best interest. It also gives the family the reassurance that they have the power to make sure their loved one is as comfortable as possible in their last years.

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend is being generous in taking interventions. Conversations about lasting power of attorney are very important, but does she agrees it is also important that more people talk about writing a will so that their financial affairs are in good order? It is on my to-do list every year, and I will do it very soon, but I have not got around to it. I encourage others to do as I say and not as I do.

[Nickie Aiken]

I absolutely agree. We never know what fate has in store for us, and I urge my hon. Friend to put writing his will and arranging a lasting power of attorney at the top of his list, and I promise that I will do the same. I urge everyone in this country to discuss with those closest to them whether they should arrange a lasting power of attorney for each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Baynes]

I thank my hon. Friend for an excellent intervention, as always. She makes an extremely important point. Many constituents come to me in Clwyd South, as I am sure they come to other hon. Members, to ask for assistance in accessing such services. I agree that maintaining a paper route alongside a digital route is extremely important.

I do think, however, that the covid pandemic has changed how people embrace interactions with organisations and public services. That is reflected in user feedback that the paper-based process is cumbersome, bureaucratic and complex. I have to say that in the brief two months that I was a Minister I had a lot of interactions with the Office of the Public Guardian, and there are big backlogs in the granting of powers of attorney and lasting powers of attorney. I am sure that the Minister is addressing those backlogs with great efficiency and vigour, but I certainly think that the cumbersome, bureaucratic and complex nature of the process is a real issue. If the Bill can bring greater efficiency to the dispatch of business, it will make a big difference.

[James Wild]

From his experience with the Office of the Public Guardian, does my hon. Friend know whether its senior managers have bonuses and performance measures that are linked to delivering the target of a 20-week processing time? That target is so important to so many people, particularly those who are in a vulnerable situation.

[Simon Baynes]

I think it is for the Minister to comment on that point, and I would not wish to tread upon his territory. However, from what I saw when I held the position, I am sure that the OPG is chasing the backlog with the greatest efficiency it can muster. One problem, which goes to the heart of the Bill, is that when people work from home, as they did at the OPG during covid, a paper-based system creates huge delay and problems. People can work on a digital system on their laptop at home, whereas with a paper-based system they really need to be in the office. The delay is perfectly fair and understandable in the light of the covid pandemic, which had a particularly acute effect in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow for the second time today my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes). As warm-up acts go, it really is quite unfair to follow somebody so articulate and so well-considered twice and try to look good by comparison.

I wish to pay tribute to, and thank, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for introducing this Bill. I have had the pleasure of participating in the Science and Technology Committee and various other endeavours with him. I know that he takes very seriously any endeavour in which he participates, and this has all the hallmarks of his usual excellent work.

The Bill is pragmatic—it is pragmatism at its finest—as it addresses the key issues and gaps in the current LPA application process through a combination of good sense and innovative technology. I was struck by the fact that the Bill passed its Committee stage on St David’s day and it is having its Third Reading on St Patrick’s day—happy St Patrick’s day, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that its next stage will be closer to St George’s day than it is to St Andrew’s day, because we cannot wait for this much longer.

The measures in the Bill will help to reduce administrative burdens and minimise the likelihood of application errors which, as we have heard, can be tortuous and drag the process out for far too long. Most importantly, they will ease the burdens on applicants and their loved ones who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and for Clwyd South, sometimes these situations can move extremely quickly. When someone is going through a complex and tortuous process, the emotional burden can make it too much to complete the process, leading to the very worst of outcomes.

The Law Society considers these to be some of the most important legal documents that people will ever sign. To that end, I welcome the provision to allow chartered legal executives to perform certification. That will provide more choice and will be much more affordable for people. One of the perversities of the process is that sometimes people feel that they have to commission a solicitor to go through the process and that can be expensive. Someone on a modest income may have financial assets to protect, such as a house, and the wellbeing of a loved one to consider, but may not have the disposable income to get a solicitor. It is wrong that some people may be effectively priced out of the system, and the Bill will go a long way to removing some of the barriers that people have to accessing it.

A case in which that happened came across my desk not long ago. A constituent wrote to me about his experience of a delayed LPA process. During the height of the covid-19 backlog in 2021, I was contacted by a man who had been waiting for more than five months for a decision on his LPA application for his 91-year-old mother who was suffering from dementia. Weary of the process and the delays, my constituent hired a solicitor to complete the application. He had been assured that it was filed correctly. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) flagged a similar case. My constituent waited months for the application decision while his mother’s mental health deteriorated and she was no longer able to manage her finances or health-related arrangements. It then turned out that an error had been made in the process by the solicitor, the forms had all been returned and the process had been in abeyance. My hon. Friend mentioned that he had encountered a similar situation when undertaking this process for a loved one, and he is himself legally qualified. That is how mystifying the process can be. I too have a legal background and have taken a cursory look at what the process involves: it scares the living whatsits out of me. As my constituent’s mother’s dementia became more severe, she had no concept of the value of money or how to pay bills, and was acutely vulnerable to cold callers and scammers, but there were no protections in place for her.

My constituent and his mother are not the only ones dealing with the delays. I am acutely aware that people up and down the country are waiting for certainty. We have all had the conversation—people put off the decision, as they do in making a will, because they do not like to think about their own mortality. They are always waiting for the next time. When my dad was diagnosed with cancer, fairly late, none of these things had been done because everybody thinks that they will live for ever and will get around to it tomorrow. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), “Get that will sorted asap!”

[James Wild]

I am happy to confirm that I will have a conversation with a solicitor to draw up that will next Friday.

[Chris Clarkson]

Being a good friend of his wife, I am sure she will be very pleased and putting roller skates at the top of the stairs after that date—[Laughter.]

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made the interesting point that in some circumstances people do not recognise or accept Scottish lasting powers of attorney. As he probably knows, I got my legal education at Dundee, which is one of the few universities that dual-qualifies its students, so I have a particular interest in ensuring that the two jurisdictions work as closely together as they can. The reality is that most people, when relying on a legal instrument, do not really care whether it is a solicitor in Glasgow or Manchester; they just want to know that their loved one will be looked after. Similarly, people move across the border and have family on both sides. I would welcome a conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside this debate about how we can streamline the process to ensure that this place and the devolved Administrations have some sort of framework to allow it to work properly. I appreciate that there is a legislative consent motion for the Bill.