Sentencing Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I want to speak in support of new clause 36, which would require offenders to comply with an earned progression scheme before being subject to release. I think that is an important opportunity to enhance the Government’s ambitions for this Bill, because shoplifting, antisocial behaviour and car break-ins continue to plague my constituents in Accrington town centre.

Increases in levels of town centre crime and break-ins are often caused by offenders released early who have failed to receive the rehabilitation they require. They often have drug or alcohol addictions, and they are back on the streets trying to feed those addictions, and stuck in a cycle of lose, lose, lose—for my residents, for the police and for the taxpayer. Although we must be tough on crime, we must also tackle the root causes of crime and ensure that the system delivers for victims and stops the revolving door of our prisons that serves none of us.

The reforms to the community order requirements will lead to less crime and safer streets for my constituents in a number of areas. The Bill will provide a more tailored and effective approach to punishment and rehabilitation, because courts will have expanded tools to tailor community and suspended sentence orders to better fit the individual offender, the offence and the risk posed. The Bill adds new community requirements to the list of options attached to a community or suspended sentence order, such as prohibitions on driving or attending pubs, bars, clubs or public events, and being restricted to geographic zones. That enhanced flexibility means that sentences in the community can be more meaningful and effective—not just a series of generic tasks, but specifically calibrated to the offender’s behaviour, the harm caused and the need to protect the public and victims. It ensures that community-based sentences are not perceived as light or ineffective, but carry real conditions and consequences.

The Bill also strengthens public protection and victim confidence; in fact, bolstering protection for victims and communities is one of the key aims of the reforms. By allowing restriction zones, bans on attending premises that sell alcohol or public events, and driving prohibitions, the Bill enables courts to impose orders that explicitly guard against certain behaviours or contexts associated with risk. Those measures reassure victims that offenders remain under meaningful restrictions and that community sentences carry real weight and oversight, rather than being a passive “watch and wait” approach. In turn, that helps to maintain public confidence in our justice system and supports the principle that people who offend should face real consequences.

Furthermore, the Bill supports rehabilitation while reducing the unnecessary use of custody, which must be for the most violent and serious offenders. It complements the broader move to ensure that custody is used appropriately—not as a default for lower-level offenders, but reserved for cases where it is necessary for public protection. By strengthening community orders and equipping the courts with more tailored requirements, the Bill supports the case that many offenders can be managed in the community through conditions that deter, restrict and rehabilitate. For far too long, the evidence has shown that it is those changes that will tackle the ongoing problems that the courts and prisons are facing, as well as the ongoing issues with that low-level but incredibly damaging crime happening time and again in our communities.

Such approaches help to reduce prison overcrowding, better align our resources, and focus custodial capacity on those who most require it. At the same time, the reforms encourage compliance—for example, by introducing a community sentence progression scheme, under which offenders who fully comply with the requirements and complete their sentence may have their community order terminated early.

There are practical benefits for communities, offenders and the Probation Service. For communities, community orders become more visible and meaningful. The added conditions reflect the reality that punishment and supervision in the community should be not lesser than custody, but different. For offenders, the structured environment of a community sentence with tailored requirements offers the possibility of real change through supervision, conditional freedom and accountability, rather than automatic imprisonment, which can increase harm and reoffending. For the Probation Service, the Bill’s provisions also include strengthened investment in community supervision, better tools for monitoring and enforcement, and clearer mechanisms for rewarding compliance.

In conclusion, the Bill represents a significant advance in our justice framework, offering modernised, flexible and robust community sentencing options that strengthen public protection, shore up victim confidence, support rehabilitation and make more effective and efficient use of our resources. The new community order requirements and community requirements are central to that: by giving courts more precise, meaningful powers, they ensure that justice is done in the community as well as through custody. I am confident that they will make a real difference to my constituents in Hyndburn, who are rightfully frustrated that they see the same people causing the same problems, and no real solutions to the crimes that those people are committing.

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

As we return to consideration of this dreadful Bill, we debate amendments and new clauses that are designed to mitigate its worst effects, in particular new clauses 43, 21, 18, 19 and 20, which I have signed, and new clause 1.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

On new clause 1, will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

It is early in my speech, but such is my regard for my right hon. Friend that I will.

[Edward Argar]

I am very grateful. As a former sentencing Minister, I can see no logical reason why the Government would oppose new clause 1—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my fellow Leicestershire MP—which simply asks for an assessment and recommendations to be made and for them to be reported back to this House. Can my right hon. Friend, who is himself a former senior Home Office Minister, see any reason why the Government could not simply do the right thing and accept new clause 1?

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks about my experience in government, which are far too flattering. I agree that new clause 1 is precisely the kind of amendment that the Government could accept. He will know from his time in government, as I do, that no Act is the Bill as it began, for Bills metamorphose during their consideration. Wise Governments listen to arguments that are made during scrutiny, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and the best Ministers allow the Bill that they introduced to change over time. That is the purpose of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) has done a service to this House in tabling this new clause, thereby allowing the Minister to improve the Bill in the way he suggests.

As we have debated this Bill over time, a distinct difference has emerged between practicalities and principles. The question remains: is this a Bill built on expediency—a necessary response to the unbearable tension between prison supply and the demand for prison places—or a Bill born of a distaste for incarceration as a means of delivering justice? The first is inexcusable; the second indefensible; but neither is inexorable.

In practice, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, if remand were treated in a different way—and that, essentially, is about more court sittings and more court time for faster access to justice—fewer prisoners would be kept on remand. If we do not believe that, we would have to assume that every person brought to trial would be found guilty or imprisoned, which cannot be true.

If we dealt with the huge number of foreign national offenders more swiftly—[Interruption.] I know the Government are making those attempts, but it is not enough, any more than what the previous Government did. If we dealt with that issue more swiftly, we would alter the demand for places, for too much of the debate focuses on the supply of prison places and not on the demand-side drivers that absorb places, which could be eased.

When we last debated the Bill, we talked about my ideas for supply-side change. I will not repeat myself, for you would not allow me to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the amendments and new clauses before us today. However, the Minister needs to think more laterally and creatively. I imagine that he is a bright man—or bright-ish, at least. If he did so, he could look at those demand-side drivers and deal with the practicalities.

As for principles, it is time to end the liberal orthodoxy that has perpetuated the pervasive myth that crime is an illness to be treated, and not a destructive, deviant decision that warrants punishment. In the previous debate we heard many times the argument that everyone deserves a second chance, which I have no doubt underpins much of the resistance to the amendments proposed today.

As I listened to the powerful case my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) made, I asked myself this: can anyone in this place with a heart believe that those who terrorise and torture children persistently and who maim and murder innocent babes—sometimes their own—deserve a second chance? Can anyone with a heart really believe that those who killed two people dedicated to the service of others—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, Members of this House—deserve a second chance? Does that awful self-deluded Islamist fanatic who plotted and planned and executed little girls at a pop concert deserve a second chance? The only second chance they all deserve is when they stand before their maker and beg for forgiveness. For us to forgive such extreme acts is to play God. Forgiveness at that level and to that degree is beyond any Member in this Chamber, for it is beyond any human being. That is what I think about second chances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Does the right hon. Member realise that the Sentencing Council does not just pluck out of the air its sentencing recommendations? It consults widely with a variety of organisations, people working in the criminal justice system and the public before coming to its conclusions about the right sentences for offences. I would submit that there should be recognition of the work that it does.

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

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

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Monday, he said to the House:

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

He also said:

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

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

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