Sentencing Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend knows that in my previous role, I unfortunately saw the increased risk of state threats and the pedagogy through which states are committing those crimes. It is absolutely right that a cohort of young men—petty criminals—are being used, and not just by Russia; there are other states that we could mention as well. It is important that those crimes are dealt with.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Before the Lord Chancellor finishes his speech, can I direct him to part 4 of the Bill, which is one of the parts that applies to the whole United Kingdom? It provides for the deportation of criminal offenders. Has he considered the viability of that necessary clause, clause 42, in the light of the fact that in Northern Ireland—because of article 2 of the Windsor framework—those offenders sadly enjoy enhanced protections due to the importation of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights? Will the Lord Chancellor take steps to ensure that part 4 will apply to the whole United Kingdom by imposing a notwithstanding clause, stating that, notwithstanding article 2 of the Windsor framework, the same provisions will apply across the United Kingdom? It really would be preposterous if foreign criminals could be deported from one part of the United Kingdom but not from another.

[Mr Lammy]

Our intention is clear: foreign national offenders must be removed from our system. We will study this issue in detail in Committee. I am proud that on my watch as Foreign Secretary, we increased returns by 14%. It is hugely important that people do not feel able to come to our country and commit crime, unimpeded.

Sentencing Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I speak today to new clause 42, which is in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sitting days in the Crown court and to lay a report before Parliament.

I am pleased to bring this issue before the House. Our criminal courts are crippled under the weight of their caseloads. A system once respected for its fairness and efficiency is now struggling to deliver timely justice. One major cause is the limit imposed on the number of sitting days available to judges. In effect, we are deliberately rationing justice.

Successive Governments have chosen to restrict Crown court sitting days. The previous Conservative Administration cut them drastically up to 2020, and then reintroduced a cap in 2021. The current Labour Government, disappointingly, have continued that practice, fixing the number of sitting days for 2024-25 at 108,500. That figure, announced only in December, was thousands below what the courts had planned for, and nearly 5,000 days short of the 113,000 days that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service advised were needed to meet basic operational capacity. Even 113,000 sitting days would not open every courtroom; as Sir Brian Leveson’s review made clear, we would need at least 130,000 sitting days to bring all courtrooms fully into use. Anything less is a conscious choice to leave some courtrooms dark, some judges idle and thousands of victims waiting.

Meanwhile, the backlog grows. The Crown court caseload has reached historic highs, with more than 73,000 outstanding cases, and it is only growing. In the first quarter of 2025, 2,000 more cases were received than were disposed of. One in four open cases has been waiting for over a year, and in some instances trials are not being listed until 2029.

I saw the impact at first hand when I visited my local Kingston upon Thames Crown court. It is one of many courts across the London region that suffer as the region sees its backlog increase by 25%. Staff spoke of the frustration of empty courtrooms, which could be hearing trials but are instead shuttered by bureaucracy. For my constituents in Esher and Walton, that means longer waits for justice for victims of assault, of burglary and of sexual violence, who are left to relive their trauma every time that their trial is postponed. Witnesses lose faith, memories fade, and confidence in justice evaporates.

Caps on Crown court sitting days are not a matter of efficiency, but a false economy. We are paying for court buildings, for security, for staff and for judges, yet we prevent them from working to full capacity, and the consequences are severe. Victims and witnesses wait months or even years for closure, and defendants on bail remain in limbo, their futures in the balance. Some guilty defendants plead not guilty in the hope that delay will work in their favour.

In the process, public faith in the criminal justice system and politics deteriorates. Justice delayed is justice denied. Each time a case is adjourned or pushed back, a victim’s faith in justice dies a little more. Communities lose confidence that the system will protect them, and that loss of trust is corrosive—it undermines everything from police co-operation to jury participation. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have not attached a money motion to this Bill, meaning that Parliament cannot directly remove the cap today. However, new clause 42 offers a constructive step forward. It would require the Government to confront the evidence and to assess, transparently and publicly, whether the cap serves justice or undermines it.

We cannot continue to ignore a crisis that every practitioner, every victim and every judge can see unfolding before their eyes. Removing the cap would not solve every problem in our courts, but it would allow them to function at their full capacity; it would mean fewer empty rooms, more trials heard, and faster justice for those who need it most. New clause 42 is a vital amendment that shines a light on the cost of capping justice and would begin the work of restoring confidence in our criminal courts. Justice delayed is justice denied, and it is time to stop denying justice to the people we serve.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Much of this Bill does not apply to my constituents, because in the main it does not apply to Northern Ireland. However, there is a key component of the Bill that is supposed to apply to Northern Ireland, because the extent clause says that part 4 applies—that is the part of the Bill that deals with the very important issue of deporting foreign criminals. My question to this House tonight is whether it will, in fact, apply to Northern Ireland.

Yes, this is said to be the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is therefore said that when this Parliament decides something, it is decided; when it applies a law to citizens of the United Kingdom, that is the end of the story. Sadly, though, I know—and this House needs to know, and needs to act upon that knowledge—that three times, this House has passed Bills that it said applied to the whole United Kingdom, and three times, the courts in this land overruled Parliament and disapplied parts of those Bills from applying to my constituents and my part of the United Kingdom. Those were the Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and the soon-to-be-defunct legacy Act.

How can it be that this sovereign Parliament decides that it is legislating on issues affecting constituents across this United Kingdom and passing laws that it says applies to them all, but it turns out that they do not? The answer, sadly, is article 2 of the Windsor framework, because article 2 purports to trump this sovereign Parliament. In respect of Northern Ireland, it says that where there are EU laws—laws not made by this House, but in a foreign jurisdiction; laws that we do not make and cannot change—that bestow on citizens or those in Northern Ireland rights that are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom, those rights will trump this sovereign Parliament. That is a frightening reality that this House has been running away from ever since it agreed to the withdrawal agreement and the protocol that is now called the Windsor framework. It comprises a fundamental assault upon not just the sovereignty of this House, but the legitimate expectations of my constituents that they will be subject to the equal citizenship that is supposed to come from being a part of this United Kingdom. Paragraph 1 of article 2 of the Windsor framework states that protections

“enshrined in the provisions of Union law”—

that is European Union law—are “listed in Annex 1”. Many of those provisions are about rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She raised this important issue in a recent Adjournment debate. We are taking steps to provide further work provision in our prisons, working with the private sector, the third sector and others, but we certainly accept that there is more to do.

I will briefly respond to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on new clause 24. He asked me a direct question, and simply put, we do not agree. The Government do not think that this new clause is necessary. Our view is very clear on the legal analysis of the proposed change. The deportation of foreign national offenders will not be prohibited by the provisions of the Windsor framework. If he disagrees with that analysis, I am very happy to meet him to discuss it and look into it. He is absolutely right that it would be wrong if, in the scenario he painted towards the end of his speech, different parts of the country had different provisions for the deportation of foreign national offenders. I want to give him that reassurance at the Dispatch Box.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give us an assurance that, if there turns out to be a distinction in that foreign nationals cannot be deported from Northern Ireland because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, he will undertake to override that legislatively so that we do have equality right across the United Kingdom?

[Jake Richards]

As I have said, we do not accept that there is a problem, but if there is, we will look to fix it, because that would not be right. The scenario the hon. and learned Member painted, which we do not accept will happen as a result of this legislation, is not right.

Amendments 15 and 39 on short sentences are among several tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). They aim to widen the scope of the exemption or to eat away at the 12-month definition of short sentences. That is the wrong direction, and I will set out why. First, we need to clear up some myths that have been shared by the Opposition on this issue. Either they are being wilfully ignorant or they simply do not understand the Bill. We are not abolishing short sentences, as the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), wrongly stated in the House on Monday. He was briefly a corporate solicitor, and I would hope he knows better and that he had read the Bill before commenting on it.

Judges will always have discretion to send offenders to prison, and short sentences have an important function, especially in certain cases of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. The Bill makes it clear that the presumption does not apply where the offender poses a significant risk of physical and psychological harm to a particular individual, where they breach a court order or in exceptional circumstances. In Committee, the Government went further by strengthening this provision to ensure that breaches of all civil court orders, such as the domestic violence protection order, were covered.