Future of the Parole Board

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. I thank the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for leading the debate, and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who has had to go to another meeting, for her great knowledge of the subject. If she had been able to make a speech, that would have added to the debate, but her interventions certainly helped to steer it in a certain direction.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton is absolutely right. I will echo his concerns and give some examples from Northern Ireland, although the Minister here today does not have direct responsibility for all that happens in relation to the Parole Board or, as it is in Northern Ireland, the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the Parole Board is complex, and is limited mostly to England and Wales, and it is important to recognise that we have a separate entity in Northern Ireland.

The 2018-19 parole reforms were crucial for the safety of victims during the parole process. They were partly a response to the case of John Radford, a prolific rapist who committed over 100 assaults. None of his victims was informed when he was released on parole, when they should have been. The case resonated with me at the time in terms of the importance of supporting and defending the victims of crime.

I remember a case in my constituency of Strangford in Northern Ireland. A lady was in the major supermarket in Newtownards one day, when she turned a corner to be met with the man who had murdered her son during the troubles. She had no idea that he had been released; she had never been consulted or told. That lady was shocked and traumatised when she turned the corner of the shelves and there he was—blatant, unrepentant and with almost a wink of his eye as he looked towards her. The impact on her was dramatic, and if it were not for the fact she had the trolley and the shelves to lean on, she would probably have collapsed there and then in the aisle of the shop.

In that case, due diligence had clearly not been completed. We must support such measures for any future changes to the Parole Board or the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland. The traumatising of the public or retraumatising of the victim should be at the heart of the discussion. I have extreme concerns about that, as, I am sure, do many across the House. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton clearly and succinctly put that matter on record.

There have been ongoing discussions about whether it is acceptable for the Parole Board to be an executive non-departmental public body or whether it is more appropriate for it to be a part of the court system. The Minister always takes our thoughts on board and tries to respond positively, so will he clarify that point?

In my office, we often have phone calls about matters such as custody of children, family finance issues and marital support. Fortunately—or unfortunately, perhaps —as elected representatives we have no say in relation to legal matters. We have been told to leave such issues up to the courts, solicitors and tribunals. I always do that; I never advise on a legal matter, as I am not qualified to do so. I can give people information about where in the town they can seek legal advice. If it is a work issue, I will refer them to the Labour Relations Agency. The best legal advice comes from people who are qualified to respond.

However, with the parole system, there are circumstances where the Secretary of State can have a say and apply to the Parole Board for reconsideration of a decision that has been made. I am ever mindful that in Northern Ireland, with the troubles we have had, the case for many who have lost loved ones is real. In a small Province like our own, in many cases those who have committed the most beastly, monstrous and terrible crimes walk the streets, so victims will always be paramount in my consideration.

Victims of crimes can ask the Secretary of State for a reconsideration mechanism, but I believe the victims themselves should be able to take these matters forward, as ultimately it is their lives that will be turned upside down. Some victims I know carry the burden of a lost one to their very grave. I have personally known some of those people; I often think of the ones who lost their lives in the troubles. I particularly remember someone whose family member was murdered by the IRA, and he told me that he thought of them every morning when he woke up and every night when he went to bed. That is what it means for victims, and then they see the perpetrators of those crimes walking the streets—I will use the word “unrepentant,” because in many cases they are; there might be some who wish they had never done what they did, but there are many who do not have that attitude.

The changes recommended by the 2022 root-and-branch review of the statutory test for release still must be implemented. The UK Government have argued that in the absence of parliamentary intervention, the application of the current test has drifted from its original intention. In the most serious cases, I believe that Parliament should have a role to intervene where the victim is comfortable and satisfied with Parliament and Government doing so. Again, that is my request to the Minister: is that something that the Government would consider? I think that should be done, and I am keen to hear the Minister’s response.

A more precautionary approach must be taken, with more input from more representatives to ensure the very best outcome. Parole hearings need to take into account what are described as top-tier offences—for example, murder, rape, terrorism or terrorism-related offences, and allowing or causing the death of a child. I find it impossible to fathom, or to understand in its entirety, the pain of those who have lost loved ones for those reasons, and how that traumatises the family—that mum, dad, brother, sister, grandparent, uncle or aunt—forever. In many people’s humble opinion, those sorts of crimes do not warrant parole or release, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said in his introduction. Those crimes are of such magnitude, ferocity and evilness that I probably would not support parole for them, on the grounds that the victims’ families should be paramount in any decision on release. In many people’s humble opinion, not just mine, those sorts of crimes do not warrant parole, or being released but under review. When such a decision is to be made, it must be referred to the Secretary of State and to central Government here.

The onus of this discussion has always been on, and should always remain with, the victims of crimes. It is sometimes easy for behaviour to be assessed after years have passed, and sometimes people can change, but the hurt and torment never go away for those who are left to pick up the pieces. Victims deserve to have their opinions aired at public tribunals, and those opinions must be paramount in all that happens. They deserve to feel safe in the communities they live in; more importantly, they deserve to feel that our judicial system and our Government are working for them and only for them—for the victims, not the perpetrators, of those awful crimes and for the lives that have been changed forever. It is those for victims that I am here today, as is the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton.

Prison Capacity

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

Foreign national offenders are a significant minority of the prison population and it is important that we have a good process to remove them. As my hon. Friend will know, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, we changed the law to enable removal at the nine-month point rather than at 12 months. Of course, we have also signed the agreement with Albania, and we are keen to sign similar agreements with other countries in the EU and the wider world.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. In Northern Ireland, the prison population has increased by 3.2% this year. Justice is devolved in Northern Ireland, as he knows, but nationally prison staff increasingly need help to cope with the prison population. What discussions has he had with his counterpart at the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to prison capacity, to share ideas and thoughts on how to move forward and on steps to reduce the number of those in the prison population in the next year?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a devolved policy matter, but I am open—indeed, keen—to speaking to colleagues in the devolved Administrations and other jurisdictions. I always say that there is no practical limit to how much we can all learn from each other.

Devolution of Justice: Wales

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Again, I will return to that. This is not just a matter of serving the needs of Wales. Sending thousands of prisoners miles away from home—men or women—does not serve the vast majority of those prisoners well either. If we want a joined-up magic connection with housing, work and maintaining kinship, family and friendship connections, which we know are the routes to successful rehabilitation, we should not send prisoners hundreds of miles away from where they will return, because those links will not be made, be they back home in Wales or in communities in England.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am encouraged by what the right hon. Lady said. When we look across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there are two examples of where it has happened: Northern Ireland and Scotland. Surely those are examples of what has worked, and Wales should have the same opportunity as Northern Ireland and Scotland for the benefit of those in Wales.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am honoured that Members from across parties are pointing out the inconsistency that we are experiencing in Wales.

The UK Government’s prison population projections from 2021 to 2026 anticipate that prisoner numbers in the England and Wales conglomeration will rise to 98,500 by March 2026. Those are extraordinary figures. As part of that increase, the Ministry of Justice anticipates that the number of adult female prisoners in England and Wales will increase by over a third—36%. Disaggregated data from Wales shows that the number of Welsh women in prison will likely increase from 227 to 308. Therefore, the provision that is being planned now for south-west Wales, although welcome—even to those of us who disagree that that number should be arriving in the system—is highly unlikely to deal with the numbers we are anticipating to arrive in the system.

Under the plans that took effect in May, the maximum prison sentence that can be handed out by magistrates has increased from six months to a year, which is also expected to contribute to a rise in prisoner numbers. Disaggregated sentencing data shows that the average custodial sentence length for women sentenced in Wales already increased from seven months in 2017 to 13.6 months in 2021. Although 23% of the Welsh female prison population was serving sentences of four years or more in 2019, that has increased to 29% in 2021. How does that align with the Welsh Government’s stated aim to reduce the number of Welsh women in prison? The answer, of course, is that it simply does not because there is no direct link between the very worthy policy, which most of us support, and the means to bring it about.

I am pleased that the UK Government are working with the Welsh Government to establish a pilot women’s residential centre in Wales as an alternative to custody, and my probation service in north Wales is doing very good work to the best of its ability on the ground, but the policy and structure that we have in place hinder it. In truth, the number of women supported will be small and focused in very specific areas of Wales. Therefore, my second question to the Minister is: given that overall incarceration of women from Wales will increase, does he honestly believe that to be coherent policy making for women in the criminal justice system in Wales? Particularly since the autumn statement, it looks likely that Departments such as the Ministry of Justice will have less capital money to spend in the long term. I wonder where that leaves the development of multiple women’s residential centres across Wales.

Another issue that shines the cold light of reality on the jagged edge is housing. Housing and the responsibility for preventing homelessness lie, as we all know, with the Welsh Government, and have done so for 22 years, but the policy aim is not properly aligned with the Westminster-controlled criminal justice system at present. The removal of priority need for prison leavers in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 was driven by several factors, including low levels of housing stock and pressures on hard-working local authority staff in finding accommodation for prison leavers. It was, however, in part due to the inability of the Welsh Government to control or even influence the upstream factors that affect the rate and timing of demand for housing prison leavers. Even though prison leavers still get let out of prison on Fridays, they get no support at the weekend. The outcomes of that need proper scrutiny.

Those factors include the rapid rise in prison leavers from an ever-expanding prison population, the long distances from home addresses, which reduce the likelihood of prison leavers being able to receive support services, and the fact that Welsh prisoners are widely dispersed across England, making it hard to know when and where the demand will arise when they return to Wales. The same facts apply equally to English-address prisoners held in Welsh prisons. This is not looking at the justice experience just from a Welsh perspective but as a totality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Vickers. I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for leading today’s debate.

As a politician representing Northern Ireland, I clearly appreciate the importance of devolution and its contribution to this great United Kingdom, and that is why I am present in today’s debate, despite it relating to Wales. I want to speak about Northern Ireland and to tell Members what we have done and how it has worked for us. Devolution is all about locality and co-operation between our local Parliaments and Westminster, so it is great to be here to reinforce that importance and explain why the right hon. Lady’s contribution is significant and cannot be ignored.

When the Welsh Parliament was established in 1999, it was not intended to be a Government body, hence the lack of devolution relating to justice. Since then, we have seen the devolution of some matters to the Welsh Senedd, but justice remains solely under Westminster control. In Northern Ireland and Scotland, justice is very much devolved, and I will give some examples from Northern Ireland of how devolved justice can be and has been successful. It has been successful for us and, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) said, for Scotland, so I think it can be equally successful for Wales.

We have our own Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, with the ability to pass and amend laws, and we have our own Minister of Justice and a policing board, which integrates members of all communities in Northern Ireland. It is possible to do that, and we have done it and done it well. The Department covers all aspects of the justice system—most notably policing and community justice.

Community safety is critical for any country, and I believe that that heightens the calls to devolve justice to Wales, which is what the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd requested, and others backed her in that. While police officers answer to the Home Office in England, the division of powers perhaps makes it difficult to align the justice system in its totality with matters that Wales does have a say over, such as health and education.

Since 2009-10, the UK Government’s day-to-day spending on public services has decreased significantly in real terms, with UK Ministry of Justice spending falling by 40%, and the Home Office’s by around 25%, which puts further pressure on the Welsh Administration. For the safety of the people of Wales, which is absolutely key, it is important that they have more of a say in the funding of their own justice system, giving them the scope to allocate their own budget to their own justice system.

On justice matters such as drug abuse or mental health, there should be collaboration with the Welsh health system, but I imagine that that can become increasingly difficult. There are potentially large benefits to devolving justice to Wales, which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd tried to illustrate. If we look at the success of the justice Departments of Northern Ireland and Scotland, we can see that a local, joint understanding of tackling crime is indeed the way forward.

To conclude—I am working within the timescale that you suggest, Mr Vickers—I understand the right hon. Lady’s frustrations about why justice has not been devolved yet—but it should be. Perhaps the Government will consider looking at that in the future. Perhaps today’s debate will start that discussion. As mentioned earlier, the devolution of justice certainly makes the running of the criminal and judicial systems in Northern Ireland much smoother. There is also a greater understanding of how the system works when the people running the system were brought up in that environment. We already have that in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and we also need it for Wales.

I look forward to keeping up with developments on this issue. It is great that we can all represent different regions within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and at the same time understand the importance and success of devolution. We all want devolution—the Government are committed to it—so let us see it in action in the justice system for Wales.

Legal Rights to Access Abortion

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for setting the scene. Although in all honesty the hon. Lady and I have two very different points of view, I respect her right to have that point of view. I hope she will respect my right to have a different point of view—I want to make that point today if I can. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) in his place. I hold him in high regard; I think we all do, to be fair. I look forward to his comments and also to hearing from the right hon. and hon. Members who will make their views known.

In my time in the House, I do not think there has been a debate in which I have not made the effort to speak and express views on behalf of my constituents. With respect to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), who referred to Northern Ireland, my understanding is that it is very clear in the polls in Northern Ireland that the majority of people are absolutely opposed to abortion on demand and the system of abortion in Northern Ireland. That system was imposed by this House—I will refer to that, of course, but I just want to put it on the record that that is the case.

I have received literally hundreds of emails, as I know others have, on the debate from my constituents of all ages, both genders, of all political opinions and of all religious persuasions on the importance of speaking up for life and, furthermore, the importance of speaking up for the lives of both the woman and the unborn child. The debates always seem to focus—for some anyway—on the rights of the woman, but the rights of the unborn child are disregarded as though they did not matter.

I want to put my position on the record: it is important to protect the lives of both the ladies and the unborn child. I will refer to that later on, too. I will always be a voice for the unborn child. I believe totally in the right of life and I thank Right To Life UK for its help in preparing evidence-wise for the debate and for some of the things it has made me aware of. I will continue to do this; it is the right thing to do.

I want to address an important point that is often misunderstood in the debate. It is fundamental to what we are talking about. There is no right to abortion in international law. The House has come under intense pressure to change the UK’s abortion laws so that they conform with international law, but let me be clear—let us all be clear—that the European convention on human rights does not recognise a right to abortion. The UK is under no obligation, as was mentioned by the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) in an intervention, to change this law to conform to international law.

Members should not take my word for it, of course. They should look at the evidential base. The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that there is no right to abortion in international law. It has maintained that position for the last 30-plus years. The USA, which others have referred to, cannot and should not influence the law in the UK. I am glad to say that the UK retains its own jurisdiction to make its own laws, and there is neither the need nor the demand to change those laws to recognise a right to abortion.

We in Northern Ireland have the jurisdiction to make our own laws on most occasions. On other occasions, we do not have jurisdiction, because other Members think it is better for them to make the decision here rather than the elected representatives back home in Northern Ireland. As my party’s spokesperson for health, I want to get across that points on behalf not just of my constituents but of all those in Northern Ireland, a vast majority of whom feel that their democracy has been overruled. The decision could be made in Scotland, Wales and here in England, but somehow not in Northern Ireland. I want to speak for women in my constituency and Northern Ireland who oppose abortion and do not agree with the legislation that has been imposed on them by Westminster.

I ask the Justice Minister how and why it should be right that legislation on abortion should be passed in Westminster that disrespects the animosity and opposition of those in Northern Ireland. It was in the paper last week that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could not find a way to ensure the money for energy price increases would be available in Northern Ireland, but guess what? He could find the money to finance abortions in Northern Ireland. With great respect to the Secretary of State, how can he do one thing but not another?

With the recent introduction of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 and the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, women can now obtain abortions in Northern Ireland. Abortion is available de facto on demand up to 24 weeks’ gestation. That was opposed in this House by us and by others, many of whom are here tonight. I find it shocking and very saddening.

I have a constituent who had her daughter at 26 weeks. I have met that lady, and I think others have referred to her. When her daughter was born, she could fit in the palm of her daddy’s hand. That is how big that wee morsel was. She is now a full-grown lady. She has a job, drives and lives as happily as anyone else. She is alive today because of the NHS and the system we have. In many years past, a premature baby would not have lived. The point I am making is that if she can survive being born at 26 weeks, why are terminations available at 24 weeks? Allowing on-demand abortions up to 24 weeks does not give the baby a right to life.

In Northern Ireland, 100,000 people are alive today because abortion was not available in Northern Ireland. Those 100,000 people have made a significant contribution to society, have married and have jobs, and they have a positive attitude to life because of that. Those people are alive today. I say again that I believe what has happened to us in Northern Ireland is totally outrageous.

Many people on the other side of the debate, particularly those who take a more globalist view—for want of a better description—try to claim a right to abortion in international law, but the European Court of Human Rights has been crystal clear. Its decisions confirm that article 8 of the European convention on human rights, the right to a private and family life, does not confer a right to abortion. The Court has also ruled that countries can pass laws that ban or restrict abortion, even where the health and wellbeing of the woman is at risk. Such laws would and could not offend article 8.

There is a claim that the public and medical professionals overwhelmingly support decriminalisation. That is simply not the case. Evidence shows that 91% of women agree that sex-selective abortion should be explicitly banned by the law. The support of the Royal College of Midwives for the BPAS campaign on abortion up to birth saw a backlash from over 1,000 midwives protesting the RCM position and faced national opposition. In his two interventions, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) mentioned that very case of selective abortion. He and I share the same concern over the potential for that in the future and the impact it will have.

This is a sensitive subject, and there are many strong and emotive views. One issue I set out to put on the record is the matter of coerced abortions from home and the issue of easy access to abortion pills. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and others expressed concern directly to the Minister, and we met on a number of occasions to activate that point of view. As became more noticeable throughout the pandemic, women were subjected to phone calls to discuss their options and were sent pills, often without requesting them and usually under duress. Our concern was—it always was—that that approach is being used maliciously and wrongly. No face-to-face discussion or assessment is a step backward, not forward.

It was not and never should have been the position of Westminster to take any decision on abortion for the Northern Ireland Assembly and my constituents in Strangford, who overwhelmingly oppose this legislation and change. They did not want to see the abortion on demand that we have in Northern Ireland; they stand clearly for the right to life of the unborn child. There must be an element of respect for the thousands of my constituents who said that they do not want abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.

I and many others in this debate, I am glad to say, will stand up on every given occasion and speak up for those constituents and the life of the unborn child. I will also speak up for the constitutional value of Northern Ireland in this United Kingdom, and its place as a legislative body where any decisions on abortion should have taken place in any case. I look forward to the Minister’s response, ever mindful that we must protect the woman and the unborn child equally—not to the detriment of one against the other, which is what some Members have proposed today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

It is very interesting that a large number of organisations, as my right hon. Friend has mentioned, are joining together in what I referred to earlier as a national and, indeed, international campaign to see the law changed on abortion. It is all part of a co-ordinated move to reduce the protection that already exists in our country today for the unborn child.

[Jim Shannon]

I fully support what the hon. Lady is saying. In my contribution I referred to the Royal College of Midwives and the 1,000 midwives who expressed concern the direction this is going. Opinion is divided between those in favour of abortion and those who are against. Clearly, we cannot move forward when there is division among the doctors and nurses themselves.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. In this country we already allow abortions to term where the unborn child has a relatively minor and correctable physical condition. I have spoken about that many times before in the House because I have a son who was born with a club foot. Some 90% of babies with Down’s syndrome are aborted. A right to abortion would open the door to even more abortions after 24 weeks —a period of time inconsistent with medical advances that now enable babies prematurely born before that time to survive to 22, and in some cases even 21, weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

If my right hon. Friend will give me a little space, I was going to come to her remarks on that, and also on the position of the Department of Health and Social Care. The recent legislation in Northern Ireland was implementing the will of Parliament rather than Government, and I will come to that. She tempts me on the issue of the Government taking a particular view on the issue. I will turn to that in a moment if she will let me make a little progress, but I will of course address her points.

In practice, the framework means that access to an abortion is available to those who need and want it. Abortions at above 24 weeks are also possible in more limited circumstances, and it is of course open to Parliament to change the law if it so desires. As was mentioned, abortion law is devolved to both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I would usually not set out the position of a devolved Administration on any matter, but due to the relevance of those positions to this debate, I will speak briefly about the recent changes in Northern Ireland that my right hon. Friend alluded to just now.

The Abortion Act 1967 did not extend to Northern Ireland. Instead, abortion law there was provided under section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, which was equivalent to section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 in the rest of the UK. The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 decriminalised abortion, and repealed sections 59 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Following that, the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 came into force, which meant that those in Northern Ireland who wish to can access an abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks of their pregnancy, and can conditionally access an abortion up to the 24th week—and beyond that in more limited circumstances.

Those changes were made because of the very specific context in Northern Ireland, and an amendment, I believe it was, was brought forward on abortion. It was felt that the will of Parliament was that women across the UK should have safe and legal access to abortion, and that the will of the House should be respected.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Edward Argar]

Before I address abortion in the context of the Bill of Rights, I will turn to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke—and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a very complex area—she highlighted that in her remarks. She called for the Government to set out a clear, full and complete framework for moving forward. It remains the Government’s position that this is a matter for Parliament, and that it remains a matter for the consciences and decisions of individual Members of Parliament. I do not like to disappoint my right hon. Friend and I seek not to do so—but I fear I must do on this occasion.

My right hon. Friend raised another question about the Department of Health and Social Care action plan. It has been three or four months since I was last in the Department, but my memory is not entirely rusty. I know that this is something that the Department has been thinking about. In the past three years, sexual and reproductive health services have faced numerous new challenges, including those arising from the covid-19 pandemic. We saw some of that in the recent amendment on abortion and pills at home.

I am advised that Ministers in the Department are taking the time to fully engage with stakeholders from across the system, to understand the impact of that new context in any plan they bring forward. I know from previous conversations with my right hon. Friend her strength of feeling on that, and I will ensure that it is conveyed to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) with the imprimatur from her, if I may, that speed is of the essence and that she looks forward to seeing that plan.

[Jim Shannon]

I know that the Minister is an honourable man; I have always had that opinion of him, as has everyone in the House. But the Government consulted with the people of Northern Ireland on the abortion changes, and 79% of respondents were against any changes. If there is no intention to acknowledge or take on board the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland, when they are very much against the changes, why bother?

[Edward Argar]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s strength of feeling on this issue. I know that several right hon. and hon. Members who voted against the amendment when it was brought to the House, not because they did not support access to safe abortion services but because of concerns about the devolution settlement and the nature of how it operated. The House expressed a very clear view, and it is right that that view is respected. That is why the Government have moved forward with the regulations we have seen enacted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

If the hon. Lady writes to me with the details of that case, I will certainly ensure that she has a meeting with the most appropriate Minister.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

By their very nature, family court cases are sensitive, delicate and complex, but all are urgent. During the time for such cases to be heard, will the courts provide assistance for families who are having difficult times to get them through the process?

[Dominic Raab]

Yes, and if the hon. Member writes to me with the details of his concerns, I would be happy to address them in more detail, on top of the assurances I have already provided to the House about the approach we are taking forward.

Family Law Terminology

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the terminology used in family law.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, not least as I know you are a huge champion of families, and when you looked after relationship work in the Department for Work and Pensions under previous ministerial briefs, you understood the importance of this field of work.

Who does not love a good on-screen relationship drama? Lovers falling out, marriages breaking down and dramatic affairs of the heart are the stock-in-trade of film, soaps and the media. But when children are caught in the middle of storylines, we routinely hear, “I’ll see you in court”, “I’m going for custody of little Johnny and little Sarah”, or the possessive—“She’s my daughter”—and divorce is described as a battle to be won. This language is hugely unhelpful to families who are going through the heartache of separation.

I was a family law solicitor before I came into this place, and I saw the fallout of unnecessarily divisive battles. I am often found shouting at the telly when they get the terminology wrong. My love of “Coronation Street” and “Eastenders” probably needs to be outed here—I am going to write to the producers about the report and the debate today. Language really matters in family law.

In real life, every year around 280,000 children see their parents separate. It surprises many that the term “custody” should have stopped being used 30-odd years ago when the Children Act 1989 came in, but it surprises nobody that the language of war used for separating families is damaging to all involved, with approximately 40% of all separating parents bringing issues about their children to the family court. For too long we have allowed thousands of children to be caught up in an adversarial court system.

The language of the legal system is accusatory and divisive. Parents are described as Smith v. Smith; barristers will talk about “my opponent”; we refer to “the applicant” and “the respondent”; and we have “dispute resolution” rather than problem solving. The most important humans in a child’s life are therefore immediately pitched against each other at a time when co-operation is most needed.

Many years ago while working for the relationship experts OnePlusOne, I wrote an article that explained—there is lots of evidence—that destructive and acrimonious conflict between parents puts children at greater risk of emotional problems such as depression and anxiety. Children may develop behavioural difficulties and become aggressive and difficult. Parents do not want that. For the majority of mums and dads, separation is extremely painful and a decision not taken lightly. The wellbeing of their children is their main concern, and often the first concern when they come in to speak to lawyers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the time I have had the privilege of knowing the hon. Lady, she has addressed these issues with a deep interest and knowledge, and I thank her for that. In children and family courts, children often hear big and complicated words without knowing their meaning, but they know the emotional impact—for example, custody in prison, being in pain, separation, being alone and perhaps even violence. Does she agree that the justice system could and must look at the courts’ choice of words, their impact on young children’s development and the fear they instil about the environment those children are growing up in and the changes that they might face?

[Siobhan Baillie]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for what was, as usual, a thoughtful intervention. He is absolutely right. The language we all use, whether it is in the media or in the legal system and court documents, can be changed. It will not be easy—we all use terminology that is outdated and that we have been told is wrong, and we get it wrong sometimes—but it can be changed, and we have to work towards that.

With that in mind, I encourage everyone to look at the “Language Matters” report by the Family Solutions Group. The FSG was set up by the eminent Mr Justice Cobb in 2020. It is an excellent and constructive multidisciplinary group of experts working with separated parents and children. There is a lot of emotion in this area, but it is trying to find solutions and I recommend that everyone look at its work.

Let us be honest: the courts system that we are working in is stretched to breaking point. Over 66,000 new cases started in the family courts in April to June 2021, which is up 14% on the same quarter the year before. The case numbers are increasing. The pressure on courts in the pandemic was a tipping point because so many hearings were cancelled. Delays in cases involving children are always counter to a child’s best interests, yet despite the best efforts of the Government, the judiciary and lawyers, from 2011 to 2021 the mean duration of disputes and cases involving children increased from over 31 weeks to 41 weeks—up by a third. It is now commonplace for hearings to be cancelled at short notice, and the number of litigants in person are rising exponentially. That gives the judiciary an impossible task in many cases.

Let us imagine how hard it is for emotionally charged parents to go through a confusing court system on their own. When I was practising, people would save up to have one hour of my time. That is all they could afford—hundreds of pounds. They would get as much as they possibly could from me and head into the court system on their own, often terrified and desperate to do a good job. We come back to language in the courts system. The FSG report sets out the archaic language that is familiar to me, the judiciary and lawyers, but court bundles, pleadings and section 7 statements are alien to most people.

In essence, the court should be the last resort for parents, but sadly it is often seen as the first port of call. However, our system can be changed so that parents who do not have legal issues to resolve do not go anywhere near a judge, particularly for child arrangements. Many cases are not about law but about communication or relationship issues, responsibilities, schools, hobbies or the scheduling of a child’s time once they are in two homes. If there is no safety, or if there are domestic violence or protection issues, parents would be best served by being supported to reach agreements as early as possible outside the court system.

I have said for years that I estimate that about a third of private law children cases should not be in court, but I defer to the brilliant judge Sir Andrew MacFarlane, the president of the family division, who I heard on a Radio 4 programme the other day. He estimated that about 20% of families could be helped outside court. If we invested in helping 20% to 30% of families stay out of litigation, we would not only help the children of those families but free up court time for the families that need it most. In the case of Re B, His Honour Judge Wildblood said:

“Do not bring your private law litigation to family Court here unless it is genuinely necessary for you to do so.”

Human Rights Legislation Reform

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure, Ms Fovargue, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for presenting the petition. I am very much in favour of retaining the Human Rights Act as it is. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said that there might be a need to do some tweaking or make some changes. I am not against that, provided we have a chance to discuss it and see what the changes are. However, I am very much of the opinion that the Human Rights Act should be retained as it is.

I start by thanking all the 230,000 people who signed the online petition to stop reform of the Human Rights Act. That is almost a quarter of a million people who voiced their objection to human rights being diluted in any circumstance, and I believe that they reflect the views of possibly millions more people. Certainly, people to whom I speak in my constituency want things left as they are. All these people oppose moves to make the Government less accountable, and support increasing the ability of people in need to make human rights claims; I, too, think there is a need to have that opportunity in the law.

To give an idea of just how many people 230,000 are, that is twice the population of even the largest constituency in the UK, and it is about one in eight voters in Northern Ireland, which has a population of 2 million people. This is not a fringe issue; it is a massive issue. The correspondence that I receive on it tells me that people are deeply concerned about it.

In fact, as a general rule, people want more human rights safeguards in place, not fewer. A third of the population of the United Kingdom believes that the UK Government are not doing enough to promote human rights abroad. I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I will make some comments about human rights abroad. As everyone knows, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, and I am a deep and strong believer that when it comes to making trade deals with any country in the world, the key to that process must be regard for human rights, including people’s liberty to serve and worship their god as they wish. I know that the Government are committed to that; I understand that. However, I still want to put that on the record.

As I say, a third of people in the UK believe that the UK is not doing enough to promote human rights abroad; I think that the Government are quite active, but people tell me otherwise. Almost three quarters of the British public agree that the UK should take into consideration a country’s human rights standards when negotiating or signing a deal with it. More than half of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland agrees that the amount of foreign aid given to a country should be tied to its performance against human rights standards; I fully support that condition. When I ask questions of Ministers with responsibility for different parts of the world about that, I am encouraged by what they say happens in that regard.

If this Government—my Government—are to reform human rights, they should make the standards higher. Let us do human rights better, rather than water them down. If that is what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West is saying—I think it is—I agree that we should do that, rather than make the legislation more dependent on the Government’s economic and trade interests.

Human Rights Watch said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the repeal of the Human Rights Act would

“weaken human rights protections…and send a negative signal globally about the value of international human rights standards and the worth the UK government attaches to them.”

I am confident that the Minister does not want that to be the opinion of those who look at the United Kingdom from outside. I think many would agree that that is a scathing assessment of the impact that any repeal would have.

Globally, human rights have never been under greater threat. We know about all the things that are happening in Putin’s war in Ukraine. Every one of us is dismayed, disgusted and angered by it, and our Government and our Ministers have taken strong action. We all watched the protests across the villages, towns and cities of Iran. Ladies were often at the fore in those protests; they are the ones feeling the brunt of it. More than 400 people have been killed—most of them women and children—and almost 20,000 have been arrested, all looking for freedom, liberty and human rights. We support that. Then there is China’s treatment of the Hongkongers, not just in Hong Kong but in Manchester, as we witnessed the week before last. We want human rights observed in this country as well as in Hong Kong. The bombings of schools in Afghanistan are human rights abuses. It is really quite annoying. Those are things that have made the headlines in just the past month. If we are to continue to be a global champion of human rights, we cannot let the message be lost. What we do at home is so important.

Hon. Members have made fantastic contributions, and I endorse all of them. Many have a greater knowledge than I do. In my capacity as chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, I am frequently in dialogue with civil society organisations and Government representatives from countries where freedom of religion or belief is a major concern. When I talk to all those groups from across the world, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s leading influence in the defence of human rights that makes bilateral accountability possible. That is vital. I and many others are concerned that replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights would send to those countries the message that the UK does not practise what it preaches. That is the interpretation they will make. I am sure that the Minister will respond positively and lay that to bed. We must see human rights as an absolute good in themselves, and not as a means to an end. Such transparently selfish interests would inevitably undermine attempts to promote human rights abroad, and would do far more harm than good.

The Human Rights Act should be left as it is. There are many in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and many more across this great world, whom we have a duty to protect. We need the Human Rights Act, not a Bill of Rights, but if we change the Act, we should make it better. I cannot and will not agree to the dilution of the current provisions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate the challenge that my hon. Friend fairly makes, and I would say a couple of things on that. First, anybody who is violent towards staff will face the full consequences of their actions and should be properly, effectively and swiftly dealt with—we will ensure that they are. On the age issue, all prison officers who joined the service after April 2001 go through and have to pass an annual fitness test. Obviously, that applies to prison officers over the age of 65, and even some of the people who have applied for those roles at that age range have passed the fitness test and are performing their roles effectively. The service, and the prisoners themselves, can benefit from people with that level of experience, who play an important part as key members of the team.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response. It is not just the prison officers who feel the pain of the attacks and what happens to them—the families do, too. What is being done to help the families, not only of those who are suffering physically, but of those who are perhaps suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder coming out of prisons?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, as he often does in this House; we focus on the frontline service personnel, such as our brilliant prison officers, but their families and friends pick up on this, as they are the people who work with them and are in their social lives and family lives. We do provide post-incident support through our care teams, trauma risk management teams and the work associated with occupational health. Obviously, there is also counselling for staff who are impacted by violence in the workplace. The best way we can crack down on this is by being very clear that that kind of behaviour simply will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted.

Lawfare and Investigative Journalism

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

First, the lawyers clearly do not understand parliamentary privilege. Secondly, what they are doing—I will come back to this in a second—is trying to repress free speech and transparency in this country. This is a clear case of an ultra-wealthy individual using the British legal system to try to scare his critics into silence, and what the hon. Gentleman refers to is their trying to extend that to his actions—proper actions—in this House. The work of those who have been targeted is all the more important considering that Nazarbayev has himself had a law passed in Kazakhstan preventing him from being prosecuted there. What he is doing with this lawfare is trying to extend that protection to this country, which, frankly, is an outrage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. Does he not agree that we can never be in a position where the fear of the personal costs of litigation prevents truth from being revealed by journalists, who are putting their homes and their livelihoods on the line to highlight individuals who will in retaliation sue them until they have not a penny to spare, and that rather than simply saying that this is awful, as we all are, what we really need is the Government to present and bring to this House legislation to prevent it?

[Mr Davis]

I will come back to that very point in a moment, but as the hon. Gentleman implies, defending oneself against a libel claim, especially by an oligarch or other wealthy person, is often cripplingly expensive. In fact, it is typically cripplingly expensive. The risk is not losing the case, which is improbable in most of these cases. The penalty for exponents of free speech is the sheer cost of a vexatious process, which is what Nazarbayev wants.

Child Murders: Sentencing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. As he rightly suggests, a child’s murder hurts every one of us in our heart and we feel for their parent. As a dad of three and a grandfather of six, I understand exactly what he means.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that the only murder charge against a child that warrants life imprisonment is the murder of a child following abduction, or a murder involving sexual or sadistic motivation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be greater emphasis on life imprisonment for child murders that take place within the household and that abduction, while a contributing factor, should not be the only reason for life imprisonment? Any child murderer should be in jail; that should be the only criterion. When the Minister responds to this debate, she should say very clearly that we need to have that in law, because that is what every parent wants—indeed, every non-parent also wants it.

[Dr Mullan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with him; indeed, I will go on to explain how we have made a tiny step in that direction but are still falling far short of what he says should happen.

I return to the issue of how people feel when they or their family have been a victim of serious crime. After the murder of Sarah Everard—who, of course, was not a child at the time she was murdered, but obviously never stopped being a child to her loving parents—her family released the following statement:

“We are very pleased that Wayne Couzens has received a full life sentence and will spend the rest of his life in jail. Nothing can make things better, nothing can bring Sarah back, but knowing he will be imprisoned forever brings some relief.”

That is exactly how I would feel if any member of my family were murdered, not least if it was my niece or nephew. However, what is known as a whole-life order, rather than just a life sentence, is extremely rare in our justice system, whether the victim is a child or otherwise. Such a sentence was given to Couzens because the judge said that his use of his status as a police officer was of extreme seriousness.

Across our entire prison population, only around 60 people who are currently in custody are there for the rest of their life, under a whole-life order. That is the suggested sentence when someone is convicted of the murder of two or more persons involving a substantial degree of premeditation, abduction of the victims, or sexual or sadistic conduct; the murder of a child that involves the abduction of a child, or sexual or sadistic motivation, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned; the murder of a police or prison officer; a murder carried out for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; or when there is a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder. I cannot know, but I suspect that Sarah’s family would have felt exactly the same about wanting to see her killer spend the rest of his life in prison regardless of whether or not he was a police officer and was viewed by the judge as meeting that threshold.

We frequently hear that a murderer has received a life sentence. That is often reported as their being “jailed for life”, but that is not what actually happens; in my view, that term is misleading. As I have said, to support the public understanding and media reporting of sentencing, we need to think about calling those sentences something other than a life sentence, because in reality, a life sentence means that someone is subject to recall to prison for life—that in theory, they could be in prison for life if they are never thought to be safe for release. The minimum term is actually the guaranteed sentence: in reality, people given a life sentence for murder serve an average of just 16 and a half years, which is very far from anyone’s definition of “life”. The idea that being on parole for life is in any way equivalent to being in prison is insulting to victims and their families.

During the time I have been campaigning on tougher sentencing, I have picked up on what I will describe as an intellectual snobbery towards people who think that longer sentences serve justice—that it is small-minded thinking; that to think it, a person must somehow be unable to realise the moral and intellectual heights that can be reached through forgiveness; that it is obviously the wrong approach because it does not allow for rehabilitation, as if by default, no matter the crime, victims and their families should care more about that than they do about justice. That is misguided thinking. A society in which people who follow the law see those who do not punished is a noble and valid society. Making sure that victims of crime experience life with some relief, no matter how small, should be our priority.

Those listening to my speech might be wondering what the point of today’s debate is. They might be aware that the point I am making—that child murderers should spend the rest of their lives in prison—is a deserving call that has already been responded to by the Government. The recently passed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 brought in a whole-life tariff for the offence of child murder, removing the requirement for child abduction or sexual or sadistic motivation. That measure should have been what would save people like Elsie from experiencing the heartache she has suffered watching her children’s murderer walk free.

However, I am afraid that as welcome as that measure is, looking at the detail of it makes clear that it falls far short and will rarely do so, because it can be used only when a murder involves significant premeditation. That is why I have called for today’s debate: I am deeply unhappy that that decision undermines what would otherwise be a positive step forward in ensuring justice for victims and their families. Worse than not addressing an issue is giving the impression that we have done so, when in fact we have not. I am entirely unclear why the decision was taken to restrict the measure in that way. I would be grateful if in her response, the Minister would explain the Government’s thinking, because it only takes a casual observer to realise that that restriction is going to leave the public wondering whether in reality we have done what we pledged in our manifesto to do.

Elsie tells me that her recollection of the case is that the murder of her children was a spontaneous act, without premeditation. More recently, I am sure the Minister and others will remember the horrific murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes at the hands of Emma Tustin, tragically with the help of Arthur’s father, Thomas Hughes. Arthur suffered 130 injuries in the lead-up to his death at the age of six. He was poisoned with salt, emaciated, and forced to sleep on a hard floor and stand all day in a hallway. The amount of violence used on him produced forces on his body equivalent to a high-speed road traffic collision. Tustin was convicted of murdering Arthur in December last year, and was given a life sentence with a minimum term of 29 years, before our measure kicked in. Every person I have spoken to and everyone who contacted me about the case wanted to see her locked up for the rest of her life. However, in his sentencing remarks, the judge was clear: there was no premeditation in the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rachel Maclean)]

I very sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for securing the debate—our first of the parliamentary term—and it is a real pleasure to be here to answer him and to see my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his accustomed place. As a former special constable, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is well placed to campaign and speak out on these issues, based on his personal experience as well as his experience as an excellent constituency MP. He represents his constituents extremely well.

I commend my hon. Friend for his work to stand up for victims, to bring such issues to the attention of parliamentarians and to campaign for tougher sentences. I completely agree that sentencing fitting the crime is vital for public confidence in the justice system. I know that, as an active and engaged member of the Justice Committee, he will have a lot to say on that in the future. I very much look forward to working with him as well.

All murders are terrible acts, but those where the victim is a child are particularly so. The murder of those most vulnerable in our society causes extreme grief and devastation for loved ones left behind. As a parent, it is devastating to listen to the cases set out by my hon. Friend. I know society feels it is necessary to ensure that those responsible for those terrible crimes are properly punished.

It may be helpful if I set out how the sentencing framework in England and Wales responds to the murder of children. Sir Charles, I hope I can abide by your guidance but would welcome your intervention if I fail to do so. I will start by saying that all murder convictions must result in a life sentence. When that life sentence is imposed, the court must determine the minimum period to be served in custody for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. Only when that period has been served in full may the offender be considered for release by the Parole Board. The board will release a prisoner only if it satisfied that it is safe to do so—I will come later to how we have toughened up the Parole Board. The judge will calculate the minimum term by selecting the appropriate starting point as set out in legislation, namely schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

When sentencing adult offenders, the starting points are 15, 25 or 30 years or a whole-life order. Whole life orders are the most severe penalty available in our justice system and someone sentenced to one will spend the rest of their life in prison without the prospect of release. Judges must then consider relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and adjust the minimum term accordingly.

Of course, offenders serving a life sentence may remain in prison beyond the minimum term set by the court, and some may never be released if the Parole Board does not think it is safe to do so. If and when the offender is released, he or she will remain on licence for the rest of their life and will be subject to recall to prison at any time if they breach the conditions of their life sentence. A life sentence, therefore, remains in force for the whole of the offender’s life and it is an indeterminate sentence under which the offender could spend their life in prison.

Coming on to sentencing for the murder of children, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke about, the framework rightly regards the murder of children as particularly serious. Schedule 21 sets out a number of circumstances where a whole-life order is the starting point when considering what minimum term should be imposed by the court. The legislation provides that the murder of a child should have such a starting point if it involves sexual or sadistic motivation, or the abduction of the child.

My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the PCSC Act strengthens schedule 21 by expanding the range of circumstances in which a whole-life order is a starting point when the court is determining how long an offender convicted of murder should spend in prison. That means that the premeditated murder of a child now has a whole-life order as its staring point. Some instances of child murder might also fall within the other circumstances that apply to victims of all ages where a whole-life order is a starting point, for example, terrorist murders or murder committed by someone already convicted of murder.

Judges still have discretion to depart from those points and to impose a life sentence with a minimum term if they consider that to be the most appropriate sentence, having considered all the circumstances. However, it is right that they must first consider a whole-life order when making that decision. Alternatively, it is possible for the court to regard any offending as exceptionally serious and to impose a whole-life order in a case in which the circumstances are not listed as those where such a punishment would usually be the starting point.

Where a murder of a child does not meet the circumstances listed in the schedule for which there is a whole-life order as a starting point, the minimum term will be set according to the remaining starting points, depending on the facts of the case. There are aggravating factors applicable to all murders that could result in an increase to the minimum term due to the victim being a child. They include the vulnerability of the victim due to age, and where the murderer abused a position of trust.

It is important to note that through the PCSC Act, we have ensured that the courts have the fullest range of sentencing powers available to deal appropriately with those who commit other offences against children. It is worth Members noting and remembering that we brought forward Tony’s law, which was named in reference to young Tony Hudgell, who as a baby was abused to such an extent by his birth parents that he is severely disabled. I have had the great privilege of meeting his foster parents, and they are an incredibly inspirational and brave family. I pay tribute to them for all the work they have done.

The 2022 Act increased the maximum penalty for the offences of cruelty to a person under 16 and of causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment. It increased the maximum penalty for causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die from 14 years to life imprisonment.

I fully recognise that my hon. Friend has kindly noted the progress made by the Government, but I recognise too that he would like a lot of these measures to go a lot further.

I do not wish to stray and will follow the strictures of the Chair, but may I make a point about judicial independence? My hon. Friend mentioned the case of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. My understanding is that the judge ruled that those vile acts, although horrific, as my hon. Friend described, were not committed with intent to murder and that there was no premeditation. In our system, judicial independence is a cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy, and we, as politicians, cannot and should not pre-empt sentencing.

Let me refer to the case of David McGreavy, which my hon. Friend also mentioned. It is highly likely that McGreavy would now be given a whole-life order because he murdered three children with the sadistic motivation that was a feature of the case. If a judge determined that an offender was dangerous and the circumstances of the offence were sufficiently serious, a life sentence for that offence would be mandatory.

It is important that we turn for a few moments to the role of the Parole Board, which determines the end of an offender’s term in prison. The Government published a root and branch review of the parole system in March, setting out a number of reforms to the parole release process. It was felt that that process needed to be improved, that it should be tougher and that we should look to see where we could improve the system. The reforms will establish a top-tier cohort of offenders who have committed the worst offences, including murder and causing or allowing the death of a child. The top-tier cohort will be subject to increased ministerial scrutiny at the point of release, with new powers to prevent release if Ministers are not satisfied that the new and stricter release test has been met. That means that in future all prisoners who have committed the murder of a child or who have received a parole-eligible sentence for causing or allowing the death of a child will be subject to additional scrutiny at the point of release. We have committed to legislate for those reforms as soon as parliamentary time allows. Those reforms will be broadly welcomed by the public because they will be seen to improve confidence in the system.

Cases of child murder are rightly punished severely by the courts, and those who are convicted face long prison sentences, possibly with no prospect of release. That is the right thing to do. The Government have increased the powers available to the courts by raising the maximum penalties for acts of cruelty and extending the list of circumstances in which a whole-life order is a starting point to ensure that courts are able to impose severe penalties.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her response to the debate, and I think that the general public across the United Kingdom, particularly people in England and Wales, will welcome what she is saying. Following on from the contribution made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), if someone beats a child over time and he or she does not die, but then one day that person beats the child and it does die, surely that should be taken as murder even though the intention at the beginning was not to murder, because it was certainly murder at the end. I am following the Minister’s line of argument here, and I am looking for clarification, please.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman has gone to the heart of the issue of premeditation, which is relatively new with respect to the PCSC Act and how we have framed the law around sentencing. If I may, I will write to him on the issue in detail. I hope he is sympathetic that I have not been in this ministerial role for a long time, and I do not want to mislead anybody. I want to give the hon. Gentleman the precise facts and the legal position.

It is vital, and right, that we have increased the powers available to the courts in raising the maximum penalties for acts of cruelty and extending the list of circumstances in which a whole-life order is the starting point to ensure that courts can impose severe penalties for such serious offending. It has been a pleasure to speak about this important topic and to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, as well as my friend the hon. Member for Strangford. I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend to do whatever we can to increase public confidence in sentencing and the criminal justice system.

Question put and agreed to.