Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on prison capacity.

Today, the Government are publishing the second annual statement on prison capacity, a copy of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The statement reflects this Government’s determination to be open and honest about the state of our justice system—not to hide the problems or downplay the pressure, but to face reality and act decisively.

Today’s annual statement sets out the latest prison population projections and supply forecasts, and the picture that it paints is clear: our prisons are still under severe strain. The risks that we inherited from our predecessors have not vanished overnight, and the figures show that, without this Government’s action, which was opposed by the Conservatives and Reform every step of the way, our law and order system would be in crisis today, with criminals allowed to roam the streets, and victims failed. For the first time in a very long time, we are no longer forecasting a chronic deficit in prison places. When the impact of this Government’s landmark sentencing reforms is taken into account, supply is now expected to keep pace with demand in our central projected scenario. That is real progress, but let me be absolutely clear: this is no time for complacency. The system remains under considerable pressure, the margin for error is slim, and the work to stabilise it is far from finished. The statement only furthers the Government’s determination to fix the system fundamentally.

Let us remember where we came from. This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. At one point in 2024, there were fewer than 100 places left across the entire adult male estate. Had we allowed prisons to overflow—a risk the Conservative party was happy to take—courts would have been forced to suspend trials, police would have been unable to make arrests, and criminals would have been left to run amok on the streets of this country, as we would have been forced to release thousands of offenders as an emergency measure, the previous Government having left no proper plan in place. We were just one bad day—a protest turned ugly or a surge in defendants in custody awaiting trial—from a total collapse of the criminal justice system. This is not alarmism; that was a dangerously real possibility, and it was the direct legacy of 14 years of neglect by the previous Tory Government. In more than a decade, only 500 prison places, net, were added, while demand surged relentlessly.

The shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), whom I welcome to his place, had a role in this sorry mess. In 2016 and 2017, when he was chief of staff to the then Prime Minister, his Tory Government closed 262 more prison places than they opened. Now, in opposition, they oppose every action to fix the problem that they caused. In short, doing nothing—as advocated by the Tories and Reform—would have risked the total breakdown of law and order in this country. We know that the previous Government chose to stick their head in the sand and not face up to the crisis that they had created, but we cannot ignore this. The alternative—doing nothing—would have been a reckless gamble with public safety, which no responsible Government could countenance.

That is why, in September 2024, when we were faced with the immediate risk of gridlock, we took decisive emergency action. We changed the automatic release point for certain standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40%, to ease the intolerable pressure on the system. That was not an easy decision, but it was the responsible one. Emergency action bought us time, and, in December 2024, we set out our 10-year prison capacity strategy—the most ambitious prison-building programme since the Victorian era. We committed up to £7 billion towards the delivery of 14,000 additional prison places by 2031.

Today’s statement shows that that commitment is not just rhetoric, but a reality that the Government are driving forward. Since July 2024, we have delivered around 2,900 additional prison places, including by opening HMP Millsike in March 2025, and a new house block at HMP Fosse Way in December. Around 5,000 more places are now under construction, including new house blocks at existing prisons, and a brand-new prison in Leicestershire, HMP Welland Oaks, is due to open in 2029. [Interruption.] Major infrastructure projects always carry risk, but based on the latest assessments, the Government have retained our delivery target of 14,000 new places by 2031 —[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am interested in hearing what the Minister has to say, as are our constituents.

[Jake Richards]

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We cannot just build our way out of this problem. Without further reform, the prison population is projected to rise by around 3,000 people every year, outstripping supply even while the largest prison-building programme in generations is under way. That is why wholesale reform is essential. This Government had the courage to act. First, we launched the independent sentencing review, led by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke. Secondly, thanks to that work, we delivered the landmark Sentencing Act 2026, which will ensure that punishment works to cut crime and protect the British public.

Those reforms are about being smart, responsible and honest about what works. They will keep dangerous offenders off our streets, end the revolving door of less serious offenders going in and out of prison, and put victims first, with tougher and more credible punishments outside prison. The provisions in that Act include a presumption in favour of suspending short custodial sentences for less serious offenders, which we know do not work in many cases. Almost 60% of those jailed for less than a year reoffend within 12 months—that means more crime and more victims. This reform is expected to have a particular effect on women in prison. Nearly 80% of women who receive custodial sentences spend mere weeks in prison, which causes huge problems for their prospects of rehabilitation and costs the taxpayer millions. We can do much better.

For offenders who do go to prison, their release will depend on their behaviour while inside. Release at the earlier point will be theirs to lose, and those who behave badly can be kept in for longer, right up until the end of their sentence. That model is based on the one used in Texas, where crime is down, prisons are being closed and the taxpayer is saving money. When offenders are released, they will face a strengthened licence period, with swift recall to custody if they step out of line. New strict licence conditions, such as banning alcohol-fuelled offenders from pubs or keeping troublemakers away from football matches, will be tailored to risk. More offenders will be forced to pay back their debt to victims and the communities that they have harmed, through financial penalties or unpaid work. Taken together, those reforms are expected to reduce the prison population by around 7,500 places by 2028, while improving outcomes for victims and keeping the public safe. To take that further, the Act will also make it quicker and easier to deport foreign national offenders from our prison estate. We have already seen a dramatic increase in the number of foreign national offenders leaving our country under this Labour Government, and the Acts that we have passed will expedite that ambition.

Let us be abundantly clear: today’s figures also show that the Labour Government will keep more prisoners behind bars than ever before by the end of the Parliament—a sustainable system keeping the public safe. We cannot solve this capacity crisis if we do not support our Probation Service, which lies at the heart of these reforms. Probation officers supervise some of the most complex and challenging individuals in our justice system. If sentencing reform is to work, probation must be strong, professional and properly supported. That is why the statement also sets out the state of probation capacity—caseloads, workforce and the action that we are taking to strengthen it. The Government are investing up to £700 million more in probation and community services by the end of the Parliament—a 45% increase on current funding, and the largest ever investment in community justice. In so doing, we are delivering on Sentencing Act provisions, workforce growth and expanded electronic monitoring. At least 1,300 trainee probation officers will be recruited in 2025-26. By September 2027, probation officer staffing levels are expected to have risen to around 6,500.

There is no disguising the challenge ahead. There is an inevitable time lag before new officers can carry full, complex caseloads independently, but the Government are committed to rebuilding probation for the long term, and we are using innovative solutions to assist us. More than 30 digital and artificial intelligence initiatives are under way, including Justice Transcribe, which has already reduced the time spent on note-taking by around 50%, allowing officers to focus on the vital face-to-face work that turns lives around and protects the public.

As we promised in last year’s statement, the Government have, through the Sentencing Act, made the publication of this annual statement a statutory requirement. That locks in transparency, forces evidence-based decision making, and holds future Governments to account. Those steps mark a turning point. This landmark reform was never a choice; it was a necessity—doing nothing was never an option. We are increasing capacity, strengthening accountability and tackling problems in our criminal justice system that have been ignored for far too long. The Government are determined to ensure that Britain never again faces a situation in which there are more prisoners than prison places. Only this Government have been willing to take the tough decisions, invest at scale and reform the system to protect the public. We are facing this challenge head-on, and we will see it through. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the new shadow Justice Secretary to his place; I hope he can do a better job than his predecessor. Let me deal with his last question first. If he had read what I said in that interview carefully, he would know that I was talking about the Youth Custody Service; I was not talking about the adult estate. I urge him to go back and read that interview and perhaps come to the House to correct the record.

On the issue of whether prison works, prison can work. I was abundantly clear in the statement that at the end of this Parliament, under this Labour Government, there will be more criminals in prison than ever before, so prison can work. But I gently urge the shadow Justice Secretary to delve a little deeper and look at short-term sentences, for example. Is it the Conservatives’ position today, which it was not by the end of their time in government, that short-term sentences should not be reformed at all? It was proposed in legislation put forward by the Conservative Government in their final year in office that never saw the light of day because of the general election to make exactly the same changes we are making now—but now they oppose it. I am afraid that the Conservative position on sentencing is all over the place.

When it comes to prison building, the Conservatives expect to get some praise for panicking in their last year of government, realising that they had not done anything for 13 years, that they had underfunded prisons and that places were not keeping up with demand, so they started doing something about it. But none of those places was delivered under a Conservative Government. Unless I am hallucinating, I have been to these sites— I opened them; I put the shovel in the ground. It is a Labour Government who are delivering where the Tories completely failed.

On foreign national offenders, I do not accept the figures that the hon. Gentleman set out today. Foreign national offender deportations are up under the Labour Government. Through the Sentencing Act 2026, which the Conservatives opposed, we are making it far easier to deport foreign national offenders.

The Conservative Opposition have a real problem. They oppose every single step this Government are taking to solve the crisis they created, and then they step up and moan about it. They should support us. We are getting on with the job—we are reforming sentencing, building prison places and making sure the prison system is fit for the future. They should support us, rather than moaning from the sidelines.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The prison population is comprised in significant part of cohorts of prisoners who, for a variety of reasons, should not be there in current numbers. That includes prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, foreign national offenders, remand prisoners and, according to press reports today, record numbers of recalled offenders, only around 20% of whom have committed new offences. What more can the Government do to reduce the numbers in prison without any threat to public safety? Should the annual statement not also include statistics on rehabilitation, as the Justice Committee called for in its recent report? In the long term, stopping reoffending is the surest method of controlling prison numbers, so will the Minister comment on the hugely disappointing news in his response to our report that core education in prisons—one of the keys to rehabilitation —is being cut by an average of 20% to 25%?

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Let me deal with the education point up front. There has not been a cut to the overall education budget, but it is right to say that there are challenges because the cost of the contract has increased. We are looking at making proposals about how we can ensure that education provision has the appropriate amount of resource. We will make further announcements in due course, and of course, we have an ongoing dialogue with the Select Committee.

On my hon. Friend’s central point about the number of people in prison who some people feel do not need to be in prison, as the provisions in the Sentencing Act—which received Royal Assent just last week—come into force, they will have an effect on some of that population. We have had a regular dialogue about IPP prisoners. Lord Timpson in the other place is leading on that issue and continues to take that cohort under review.

On foreign national offenders, as I have just said to the shadow Justice Secretary, this Government are taking more action than the last Government, and the legislation we have just passed will make it easier to take further action. We have conversations all the time with other nations about prisoner transfer agreements, which will make it far easier and safer to deport foreign national offenders. This is not the end of the way; the Sentencing Act is just the beginning. As I set out in my statement, we continue to work hard to ensure we are never again in the situation we were in 2024.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

This Government inherited a justice system in a shambles after years of Conservative complacency and mismanagement. Overcrowding, administrative failures and cuts to vital services mean the Ministry of Justice too often appears to be moving from one crisis to the next as it tries to fix an entire justice system that has been broken for a long time. We in the Liberal Democrats welcome the long-term provisions the Government have made to reduce pressure on the system, such as the presumption against short sentences and investment in capacity. It is clear from today’s statement that those provisions in the Sentencing Act will have a meaningful impact on demand for prison places in coming years, but I have some questions for the Minister.

The proportion of female prisoners serving less than 12 months is four times that of the male population. Given the presumption against custody introduced by the Sentencing Act, can the Minister outline what, if any, work is being undertaken to consider the capacity that may be freed up in the female prison estate?

The report outlines the Government’s ambition to secure new land for the provision of future prison builds. Can the Minister outline a timeline for that, and for when prison places that are currently under construction will come online?

The Minister laid out plans to increase the number of probation officers to 6,500 by 2027. The retention of officers has been a long-standing issue within the probation system, which has been compounded in recent years by the uptick in less experienced staff. Will he set out what measures the Department will take to improve retention, and whether the Government will meet the HM Prison and Probation Service staffing level of 7,114 officers by the end of this Parliament?

The Minister rightly said that reducing reoffending is key to easing long-term pressure on the system. Education is central to that ambition, as it provides prisoners with the skills they need to rejoin society after their sentences end and avoid making the same mistakes again. Yet prison education is being cut, not strengthened, as the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), said. In fact, last month the independent monitoring board wrote to the Prisons Minister outlining the impact that real-terms cuts beyond inflation rates were having on education. Will the Minister before us please explain how the Government expect to deliver a rehabilitative system and reduce reoffending while prison boards are being forced to make dramatic cuts to education budgets?

Sentencing Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and for the work that he has done in Harlow. I repeat that to my knowledge there was not a Government before us who even cared about tradespeople.

In addition, we are investing up to £700 million more in community punishment and increasing probation funding by 45%. That means better supervision, faster enforcement, and a system that is credible both to offenders and the public, and looks to reduce repeated crimes for victims.

I welcome a number of Government amendments that further strengthen the Bill. As the daughter of a retired police officer—I note my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) is also in his place; his dad was a retired probation officer—I have family and friends still serving in the force and as prison officers. I welcome Lords amendments 1 and 14, which broaden whole-life orders. Murder is the most heinous crime a person can commit, and the amendments ensure that those who murder police officers, prison officers or probation officers, including where the crime is motivated by their current or former duties, face the full force of the law. These crimes strike at the very heart of the rule of law and it is right that sentencing reflects that.

I also welcome Lords amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, which strengthen transparency and accountability around the Sentencing Council. The amendments set a very high bar for rejecting sentencing guidance, ensuring Parliament is informed where decisions are taken, and helping to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Crucially, they sit alongside the reforms that reflect legislation I fought for in my Theft of Tools of Trade (Sentencing) Bill, to ensure that sentencing properly takes account of the full circumstances and the impact on victims. That principle is vital: justice must never lose sight of the harm done to victims and communities when crimes are committed.

Lords amendment 6 is another important step forward. By placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on prison capacity, the Government are ending the culture of secrecy we inherited and ensuring proper accountability to Parliament and the public.

I strongly welcome the Government’s amendments in lieu to Lords amendment 7, which will ensure victims can access transcripts of sentencing remarks free of charge. This is a meaningful improvement for victims, an important move towards a more transparent and humane justice system, and another step in the right direction of putting victims at the heart of our justice system.

The Bill ends the chaos we inherited. It restores confidence in justice and it delivers punishment that works for communities such as Portsmouth now and into the future. I am proud to have worked hard on developing the Bill and I am proud to support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally Jameson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise for inadvertently making an error. At the start of my speech on the Sentencing Bill, I forgot to declare that I remain a member of the Prison Officers Association, following my time in the Prison Service. I hope that the record can be corrected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. Her comments are now on the record and the record is corrected.

Holocaust Memorial Bill (Allocation of Time)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Holocaust Memorial Bill:

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order.

Subsequent stages

(3) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(4) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3) of this Order.

Reasons Committee

(5) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.

Miscellaneous

(6) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

(7) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(8) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Jury Trials

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Criminal Court Reform

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the Secretary of State wants to respond.

[Mr Lammy]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to clarify, I did discuss these proposals with the incoming Victims’ Commissioner. Today, an event on violence against women has been held at No. 10 with many victims organisations. From them and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—she is in her place to make the next statement—there is a wide welcome for these proposals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That concludes the statement.

Royal Assent

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025

Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025

HMP Downview: Female Prisoners

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just been accused of misinformation, and I want to make the point that the information and data I cited was obtained through written parliamentary questions. I can provide that data, so it is not misinformation; it is information that has come from the Ministry of Justice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Minister, you may want to clarify that remark.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily clarify it. I was not accusing the hon. Lady of misinformation; I was saying that there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding this issue, and that it is important that I put on record the facts of the case, which is what I am doing.

I want to reassert my last point: no exemptions have been granted under this Government. Exemptions that allow transgender women to be housed in the general women’s estate are recommended only when there is a compelling reason, such as a suicide or self-harm risk, or a risk to the prisoner from others, and where a specially trained multidisciplinary panel has carried out a comprehensive risk assessment that concludes that it has a high level of confidence that the prisoner poses a low risk to other prisoners. Again, though, no such exemption has been granted under this Government.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Mr or Madam Deputy Speaker, but use our names. Madam Chair, Chair or Madam Chairman are also acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak once again in this Chamber on the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which creates a modern legal framework that will allow Britain to take every opportunity we can while protecting ourselves in an ever-changing digital age.

The Liberal Democrats support clause 1. It states that a “thing”—including a digital or electronic thing—will not be deprived of legal status as an object of personal property rights merely by reason of the fact that it is neither a thing in action nor a thing in possession. The clause responds to the development of new types of assets such as crypto-tokens, which challenge the traditional categories of property. I am grateful to the other place for scrutinising this legal framework incredibly well. As a result, we have a fine piece of legislation to discuss.

The digital world is often mired in legal ambiguity about how common-law systems treats digital assets. At present, the law recognises two primary forms of personal property: things in possession and things in action. However, digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do no count for a claim against another person, do not really fit easily into either category. The need for clarity is imperative. We risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving cryptoassets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings.

The Bill goes far in ensuring that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the normal categories. Consequently, we also support clause 2, as it requires the Secretary of State to publish codes of practice on the attributes of digital things that confer personal property rights. The clause aims to provide guidance to the courts on how to assess whether a digital asset is the object of personal property rights.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations. Financial Conduct Authority figures indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold cryptoassets—I know because constituency cases are raised with me when things go wrong—and that figure has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, people seeking restitution in insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold, have been operating in a murky legal landscape. The Bill leaves room for the common law to develop in that sphere of property. That will help the law to reflect the evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individual rights and support our economy.

We know that digital assets can also present risks, particularly fraud, volatility and abuse, but we cannot ignore them; we must face them head on. We need a modern legal framework that bolsters confidence in our economy and in the use of digital assets, and supports the rule of law. The Bill is clear, well written and makes doubly sure that UK law remains relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners and by the Liberal Democrats. I urge colleagues on all sides of the Committee to support its passage.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the Minister to wind up the debate

[Sarah Sackman]

With the leave of the Committee, I give my sincere thanks to the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster). It has been a pleasure to discuss the clauses in more detail, and it is good to see constructive consensus about a piece of legislation. I think we all agree that it brings legal certainty, keeps pace with legal innovation, is proportionate, and meets the moment, with the growth of cryptocurrency and other related industries. I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Third Reading

Prisoner Release Checks

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

I would like to make a statement on the release in error of Hadush Kebatu from HMP Chelmsford last Friday morning.

As the House will be aware, Mr Kebatu was apprehended by the Metropolitan police on Sunday morning in the Finsbury Park area of my constituency. He is back where he belongs: behind bars. I thank the Metropolitan police, Essex police and the British Transport police for their swift action to return him to custody, and the public who helped to locate Kebatu after the police appeal. I can tell the House that he will now be transported for deportation back to Ethiopia as quickly as possible. However, that does not change the fact that Mr Kebatu’s victims are rightly outraged about what has happened. I am livid on their behalf, and on behalf of the public. This was a mistake that should not have happened. The victims expect better, the public expect better, and this Government expect better from a critical public service, which plays a vital role in our first duty: to keep the British people safe and free from harm.

On Friday 24 October, Mr Kebatu was scheduled to be transferred from HMP Chelmsford to an immigration removal centre, from which he was to be deported. Due to what appears to have been human error, he was instead released into the community at 10.25 am. Shortly after 12 pm, concerns were raised about the release to the duty governor, and, following checks, staff were dispatched to locate him. When it became clear that he was no longer in the vicinity of the prison, Essex police were notified and a manhunt began.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service instigated an immediate investigation, and I have asked for the initial findings to be with me this week. The House will appreciate that, in the meantime, there is a limit on what I can say. Members will be aware that there are national security considerations within a case like this. I will update the House in the appropriate way as soon as I can. What I can say today is that there must be, and there will be, accountability for what has happened.

When I was first informed of the release in error, I spoke immediately to the duty governor at HMP Chelmsford and senior HMPPS leaders in order to understand what was known and to seek assurances about the immediate measures being taken. I tasked my officials with working through the night and co-ordinated a response with the Home Office and the police, and I put on the record my thanks to the Home Secretary for her engagement over the weekend. I also chaired three operational meetings with the police, and on Sunday I was able to travel to Wood Green police station, just outside my constituency, to personally thank the police officers who caught Kebatu.

I have been clear from the outset that a mistake of this nature is unacceptable. We must get to the bottom of what happened and take immediate action to try to prevent similar releases in error in order to protect the public from harm. First, on Friday I instructed the chief executive officer of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to carry out an urgent review to look at the checks that take place when a prisoner is released, and to identify immediate changes that could be made to the process, in order to mitigate the risks of release in error. As a result, HMPPS has taken steps to make these processes more robust. There will now be more direct senior accountability for ensuring that protocols and checks are correctly applied, including a clear checklist for governors to determine that every step has been followed the evening before any release takes place. These are the strongest release checks that have ever been in place. They will apply to every release from custody and are effective immediately.

Secondly, any foreign national offender being removed through the early removal scheme—the scheme through which Kebatu was supposed to be removed from the country—can now be discharged only when the duty governor is physically present, and there will be no ERS removals from HMP Chelmsford for the rest of this week.

Thirdly, I am today announcing that there will be an independent investigation by Dame Lynne Owens—I spoke to her yesterday. She is a former deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police and a former director general of the National Crime Agency. She will fully establish the facts of Kebatu’s release and whether staff had sufficient experience, training and technology. She will also talk to the victims in this case to understand the effect that this incident had on them. Her report will highlight points of failure and make recommendations to help prevent further releases in error, which have been rising year on year since 2021—from an average of nine per month in 2023 to 17 per month in the period spanning January to June 2024.

I am clear that a single release in error is one too many, which is why we have launched this independent investigation. I can tell the House that it will have the same status as those into other prison incidents, including the awful attack on three prison officers at HMP Frankland in April and the escape of Daniel Khalife from HMP Wandsworth in 2023, under the last Government.

Releases in error are a symptom of the system that we inherited from the Conservative party. Jails were full—almost to breaking point—and there was the threat of a total collapse in law and order. The fact is that we were left with prisons reeling from historic funding reductions: a 24% real-terms cut between 2010 and 2015, and 30% cuts in staffing. Today, we have been left with over 50% of frontline prison officers having less than five years’ experience. When the system has been brought to its knees, it is little wonder that errors like this happen.

We must also be honest about how the previous Government’s approach to this crisis—piecemeal, complex emergency releases in the hope that the system would not collapse—has added a level of complexity and pressure that makes errors more likely. This Government have been transparent about the difficult decisions necessary to fix the mess for good so that prisons can keep us safe and future Governments need not find emergency solutions to free up capacity.

This Government have brought forward the Sentencing Bill, which is currently making its way through this House. It will ensure that we have a suitable criminal justice system, and one that can deliver punishment that works, cuts crime and keeps the public safe. This Government are also building 14,000 additional prison places, so that we have the capacity to lock up the most dangerous offenders. This is the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era, and let us be clear that there will be more people in prison at the end of this Parliament than there ever have been before. We have already built 2,500 additional prison places in just over a year, compared with the 500 added overall to the prison estate under the Tories.

We are deporting more foreign criminals than the last Government. We changed the law last month to speed up the early removal scheme—which, to be fair, the shadow Justice Secretary called for—so that most foreign prisoners can now be deported after serving 30% of their custodial sentence, rather than the previous 50%. Through the Sentencing Bill, we will go even further to deport foreign criminals as soon as possible after sentencing. I can confirm that, in the year to July 2025, we sent 5,179 foreign national offenders back to their countries of origin, which is a 14% increase on the previous 12 months. This frees up desperately needed prison places and saves the taxpayer the £54,000 per year it costs to hold an individual offender.

This context sets out the scale of the challenge, but I am clear that releases in error are not simply a fact of life. The public will not accept that and neither do the Government. We will get to the bottom of what happened in this case, and we will take whatever steps necessary to tackle the spike in releases in error, so that we can uphold the first duty of every Government, which is to keep the public safe from harm. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

This is a serious issue and that is why there will be a full independent investigation.

The shadow Justice Secretary—I will give him this—is smooth. But as my mother would have said, if he was chocolate he would lick himself. He should hang his head in shame. The crisis in our prisons that we face today is because of 14 years of failure under his Government. As they were packing their bags to leave office—he knows this—there were temporary release failures under his watch. They presided over 17 mistaken releases per month.

This did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable; it was due to the choices made by the right hon. Gentleman’s party over 14 years of chaos. The Conservatives said that they were the Government of security and safety, but again and again they oversaw rising instances of violent crime and crumbling courts and prisons. They promised 20,000 extra prison places, and they managed only an extra 500—500 in 14 years. They promised to remove more foreign national offenders from our prisons, and they failed. They promised investment and expansion in the prison system, but budgets stalled. They promised investment in the police, but we saw police numbers cut by 20,000. They promised increases in access to justice, but we did not see that; instead, we saw almost the collapse of legal aid. Under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch, violence, self-harm and drug abuse went up in our prisons while prison officer numbers were cut, yet he has the brass neck to come here and give the impression that this problem started just 14 months ago.

Let me just pause there. William Fernandez, a sexual predator, was released in error in March 2021. After he was let out of prison, he raped a 16-year-old and sexually assaulted another young woman. Was there an independent investigation? No, not from the Conservatives. When Rayon Newby, another man who was mistakenly released from a category B prison, was released in error in March 2023, was there an independent investigation under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch? No, there was not. When Lauras Matiusovas was released in error in December 2021, was there any independent investigation? There was none at all. The right hon. Gentleman has some brass neck.

I have asked Lynne Owens to look at this incident and to do so in eight weeks, and we will of course come back to the House when that is done. All of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—looking at what happened over this period of time—will be subject to that review.

The right hon. Gentleman also says that the sentencing review will let out more foreign nationals, but he is wrong. We have actually brought down the threshold, so that someone can now be deported with just a suspended sentence. He knows that. If he reads clause 42 of the Sentencing Bill, he will understand that properly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Given the pressure on prison front desks and the complexity of rules for release, this was an accident waiting to happen. One thing that might bring down the number of releases in error is the digitising of prisoner records. On visits to prisons, Justice Committee members are often horrified to find staff relying on handwritten files. While some parts of the justice system are entertaining artificial intelligence, why are our prisons still run on pen and paper systems?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As he knows, there is to this day largely no wi-fi or anything like that available on our prison sites, in part because of concerns over the use of technology by prisoners. For that reason, prisons use a paper-based system, which will always be subject to some human error. In the context of this continued early release scheme being done on the quiet under the previous Government, and indeed because of the changes that we are making in the Sentencing Bill, it is right that we have a proper look at this. I discussed this matter with Lynne Owens when we spoke yesterday.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats are relieved that Kebatu has been recaptured after what must have been a terrifying few days for his victims, and we echo the Justice Secretary’s remarks thanking Essex police, the Metropolitan police and British Transport police. However, Kebatu’s recapture does not excuse the serious mistakes that caused his release to happen in the first place—it is totally unacceptable that the safety of the public was ever put at risk.

HMP Chelmsford is a remand prison that regularly deals with prisoners coming and going, and it should therefore be highly capable of handling situations like this. Yet we know from His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons that there are deep-seated inadequacies at Chelmsford, including inexperienced staff and a lack of adequate training, identified especially in pre-release documents. At the same time, we have seen worrying trends nationally in mistaken prisoner releases, with 262 prisoners released by accident in 2025, up from 115 the previous year.

We Liberal Democrats recognise that the Government inherited a mess when it comes to prisons, but they should have taken serious steps to address the shortfalls and staffing issues in prisons, which are now clearly putting the public at risk. What steps are the Secretary of State’s Government taking to address work culture and training issues in our prisons, especially prisons such as HMP Chelmsford where concerns had already been raised?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an independent investigation, following repeated calls by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), whose constituents were put at risk, but will he confirm what consequences those found at fault will face? Also, pending the outcome of the investigation, does he agree that anyone responsible should face the sack? Does he believe that the new safeguards he is putting in place will prevent this from ever happening again?

Finally, Kebatu’s victims will have spent the weekend incredibly distressed. What support was provided to those victims and their families over the weekend when they were aware of the perpetrator being at large, and will that support continue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

As a statement of fact, the Conservatives recognise that the inheritance we had in this context was poor. The public want to ensure that whoever is in government keeps them safe and that people are not being released from prison in the wrong way. That is why it is important that there is a full and independent investigation into this incident and that the system learns lessons from it. I listed previous cases where there was no full or independent investigation. We could have learned from these cases earlier if the Conservatives had acted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The crisis of small boats crossing the channel is utterly debilitating and is alienating millions of people from the whole political process. Imagine how the whole atmosphere would have lightened if the Government had come here today and said, “This sort of farce cannot continue. We will get out of any convention, and from midnight tonight if you land illegally on these shores, you will be detained and deported immediately back to where you have come from.”

I want to ask about a particular constituency point. Such is the crisis around how to house these people that there are reports today in The Times and other newspapers that the Government are thinking of opening disused military sites and are looking at two or three in particular. The Government gave a solemn promise that they would not use RAF Scampton to house illegal migrants. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that solemn promise still stands?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House today to address this serious issue. Many of my constituents raised it with me over the weekend. I notice that not a single Member from Reform is here, especially not the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). I am assuming that she is still running scared after her horrific racist remarks over the weekend. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the deportation of Kebatu will proceed unhindered and without delay—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to ponder his words. I suggest that he withdraws the remark that he has just made about another hon. Member.

[Chris Webb]

On your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw that remark. To finish my question, will the Secretary of State ensure that there is a swift plan, so that when mistakes are made we can ensure that public trust in the justice system is retained?

Victims and Courts Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 14—Restriction of parental responsibility for child conceived as a result of rape.

New clause 1—Child sexual abuse victims and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme—

(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to—

(a) widen eligibility for compensation to all victims of child sexual abuse, including online-facilitated sexual abuse;

(b) ensure applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded where offences are linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child; and

(c) increase the time limit for applications for compensation from victims of child sexual abuse to seven years from—

(i) the date the offence was reported to the police; or

(ii) the age of 18, where the offence was reported while the victim was a child.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a new draft of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme within six months of this section coming into force.”

This new clause would widen eligibility for compensation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to all victims of child sexual abuse.

New clause 2—Sentencing: duty when giving custodial sentence to offender who has a child—

(1) At the time of passing a custodial sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must instruct HM Courts and Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) to determine whether an offender has—

(a) a dependent child,

(b) parental responsibility for a child, or

(c) a child living in their household.

(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after establishing whether an offender has responsibility for or contact with a child as under subsection (1), HMCTS must notify the relevant local authority and relevant agencies where a child lives with such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include—

(a) offence type,

(b) sentence length, and

(c) the offender’s registered home address and date of birth.

(3) In this Section—

“local authority” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 2004 (see section 65);

“relevant agency” in relation to a local authority area in England, means a person who exercises functions in that area in relation to children.”

This new clause would introduce a duty on courts to ascertain whether an offender has responsibility for, or contact with a child at the time of passing a custodial sentence and for the courts to notify relevant local safeguarding teams details of the sentence passed by a judge or magistrate.

New clause 4—Victim personal statements—

(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.

(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.

(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.

New clause 5—Duty to collect and publish data upon sentencing—

(1) At the time of passing a sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must provide to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) the following information regarding the sentence passed—

(a) offence type,

(b) sentence length,

(c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include—

(i) nationality,

(ii) method of entry to the United Kingdom,

(iii) visa route,

(iv) visa status,

(v) asylum status,

(vi) country of birth, and

(vii) biological sex.

(2) HMCTS must collect and collate the information on the basis set out in subsection (1) on sentences passed in the courts.

(3) Once every three months, the Secretary of State must publish statistics based on the information collected by HMCTS under subsection (2).”

New clause 6—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—

(1) All sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.

(2) All publications must be freely available to all members of the public.”

New clause 7—Extension of Victim Contact Scheme—

(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Victim Contact Scheme is made available to—

(a) victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences,

(b) victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment, and

(c) bereaved families in manslaughter or death by dangerous driving cases.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that information under the Victim Contact Scheme is communicated in a timely and trauma-informed manner.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish data each year on uptake and accessibility of the Victim Contact Scheme.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to extend the Victim Contact Scheme to certain categories of victim. It would also ensure information is provided in a timely, trauma-informed way and require annual reporting on the Scheme’s uptake and accessibility.

New clause 8—Access to free court transcripts for victims—

(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—

(a) sentencing remarks,

(b) judicial summings-up,

(c) bail decisions and conditions relevant to their case.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.

(3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”

This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of sentencing remarks, judicial summings-up, and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case.

New clause 9—Victims of online and technology-enabled crimes—

(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission the Victims’ Commissioner to undertake a review of the support provided to victims of online or technology-enabled offences including, but not limited to—

(a) harassment and threats;

(b) deepfake image generation; and

(c) the premeditated filming and online sharing of violent attacks where the intent is to humiliate or cause distress.

(2) The review should consider the effectiveness of—

(a) the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales;

(b) any guidance on the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system; and

(c) support provided to victims by the criminal justice agencies.

(3) The Victims’ Commissioner must publish a report making recommendations to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the start of the review.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the support provided to victims of online or technology-enabled offences.

New clause 10—Duty to commission support services for victims of abuse and exploitation—

(1) This section applies in respect of victims of offences relating to—

(a) domestic abuse,

(b) sexual violence, or

(c) child criminal exploitation.

(2) It is the duty of relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for victims under subsection (1) in accordance with the Victims Code of Practice for England and Wales.

(3) Victim is defined as outlined in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

(4) The services commissioned and provided for under subsection (2) must include, but are not limited to—

(a) specialist services for adult victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence,

(b) specialist services for child victims of exploitation, sexual abuse and domestic abuse,

(c) specialist advocacy and community-based services for victims with specific needs including (but not limited to)—

(i) child victims,

(ii) Deaf and disabled victims,

(iii) Black and minoritised victims, and

(iv) LGBTQ+ victims,

in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

(5) In this section—

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025;

“relevant authorities” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

New clause 11—Duty to commission support services for caregivers of victims of abuse and exploitation—

(1) This section applies in respect of victims of offences relating to—

(a) domestic abuse,

(b) sexual violence, or

(c) child criminal exploitation,

where the victim—

(i) at the time of the offence, was under the age of 18, or

(ii) is an adult at risk of harm.

(2) It is the duty of relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for the parent, guardian or person who has responsibility for the victim under subsection (1) for the purpose of securing the rights of the victim under the Victims Code of Practice for England and Wales.

(3) Victim is defined as outlined in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

(4) The services commissioned and provided under subsection (2) must be—

(a) appropriate to the needs of the caregiver in supporting the victim,

(b) trauma-informed and culturally competent, and

(c) accessible without unreasonable delay or procedural burden.

(5) In exercising their duty under this section, relevant authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish such guidance within six months of the passing of this Act, following consultation with relevant stakeholders including—

(a) victim support organisations,

(b) organisations representing children and vulnerable adults, and

(c) persons with lived-experience of the effects of sexual or violent offences.

(7) In this section—

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025,

“adult at risk of harm” means a person aged 18 or over who—

(a) has needs for care and support,

(b) is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect, and

(c) as a result of those needs is unable to protect themselves against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it, and

“relevant authorities” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

New clause 12—Application of the Victims’ Code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad—

(1) The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 2, insert—

“2A Application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad

(1) This section applies in respect of victims as defined under section 1(2)(c) who are a close relative of a British National resident in England and Wales, who was the victim of—

(a) murder;

(b) manslaughter; or

(c) infanticide,

committed outside the UK.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue an appendix to the victims’ code, setting out how the code applies to victims in the circumstances set out in subsection (1).

(3) The appendix must set out the services to be provided to victims as defined under subsection (1) by those persons based in England and Wales appearing to the Secretary of State to have functions of a public nature relating to—

(a) victims, or

(b) any aspect of the criminal justice system.

(4) The appendix must make provision for services based in England and Wales which reflect the principles that victims require—

(a) information to help them understand the criminal justice process;

(b) access to services within England and Wales which provide them with emotional and practical support (including, where appropriate, specialist services);

(c) in circumstances where the criminal justice process is engaged in England and Wales, the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process; and

(d) the ability to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them.

(5) In setting out the services to be provided to victims under this section, the Secretary of State must specify the following:

(a) how such services will be provided with accessible information;

(b) how they access emotional and practical support.””

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create an appendix to the Victims’ Code which outlines how the code applies to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK.

New clause 15—Right to referral to restorative justice services—

(1) A victim of an offence has the right, at any stage following the commission of the offence, to receive from a relevant criminal justice body—

(a) information about the availability and purpose of restorative justice services; and

(b) a meaningful referral to restorative justice services, where those services are available.

(2) A referral under subsection (1) must be made—

(a) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the offender is identified; and

(b) at subsequent appropriate stages of the criminal justice process (including pre-charge, post-charge, and post-conviction) or if requested by the victim.

(3) In exercising the right under this section, a victim must at all times give informed consent, and participation in any restorative justice process shall be voluntary.

(4) A relevant criminal justice body must maintain a record (in such form as may be prescribed by regulations) of—

(a) the times when referrals under subsection (1) are made; and

(b) statistical information on how many victims accept, decline, or do not respond to referrals.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “relevant criminal justice body” includes (but is not limited to) the—

(a) police;

(b) Crown Prosecution Service;

(c) His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service;

(d) courts; and

(e) Commissioned victim service providers.

(6) The victims’ code must include provision consistent with this section for—

(a) the form, timing, and content of information to be given to victims about restorative justice;

(b) mechanisms and standards for referral and re-referral; and

(c) oversight and review of compliance with this section.

(7) In this section “restorative justice services” means services facilitating a process through which a victim and offender (or their representatives) may, with appropriate support, voluntarily engage to deal with the harm arising from the offence by means of a facilitated dialogue or meeting such as conferencing, or indirect exchanges of communication via trained practitioners.”

This new clause seeks to strengthen victims’ statutory rights to access restorative justice services.

New clause 16—Duty to report on the use of restorative justice services—

(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the use of restorative justice services by victims in England and Wales.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the level of use of restorative justice services;

(b) recommendations for increasing the use of restorative justice services; and

(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment before Parliament.

(4) In this section “restorative justice services” means services facilitating a process through which a victim and offender (or their representatives) may, with appropriate support, voluntarily engage to deal with the harm arising from the offence by means such as mediation, conferencing, or reparation, under standards of safety and fairness.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the level of use of restorative justice services, and make recommendations for increasing their use.

New clause 17—The Victims’ Code: right to veto licence conditions relating to an offender’s release—

The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, revise the Victims’ Code to ensure that a victim of a serious or violent offence has a right of veto over licence conditions relating to the release of an offender from prison, including temporary release, which fails to reasonably prevent an offender travelling to specific locations and provide adequate protections to the victim.”

This new clause gives victims of a serious or violent offence a right of veto over licence conditions relating to the release of an offender from prison.

New clause 18—Victim navigators—

(1) The Secretary of State must, with six months of the passing of this Act, make provision for each police force in England and Wales to have access to one or more independent victim navigators.

(2) The purpose of an independent victim navigator under subsection (1) is to—

(a) liaise between the police force and potential victims of offences relating to slavery or human trafficking; and

(b) assist in the provision of specialist advice for either the police force or the potential victims.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further guidance on the functions of independent victim navigators.

(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause seeks to introduce provisions for Independent Victim Navigators to be in operation on a national level in England and Wales, acting as a liaison between the police and potential victim of slavery or human trafficking in accessing the appropriate support.

New clause 19—Requirement for Strategic Planning and Funding of Victim Support Services—

(1) Each local authority and relevant authority must prepare and maintain a victim support strategy setting out how they will meet the needs of individuals affected by—

(a) offences related to domestic or family-related abuse,

(b) sexual offences, and

(c) offences related to child criminal exploitation,

in accordance with their rights under the victims’ code.

(2) Strategies prepared under subsection (1) must include—

(a) identification of gaps in existing services,

(b) specific plans to fund and deliver services for adults and children,

(c) measures to ensure accessibility for victims with particular needs, including (but not limited to) those who are disabled, deaf, from racially minoritised communities, or LGBTQ+.

(3) Any body subject to a duty under subsection (1) must report annually to the Secretary of State on progress in implementing their victim support strategy, including outcomes for service users.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“victim” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024;

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025; and

“relevant authority” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

This new clause would require local authorities and other relevant bodies to prepare victim support strategies for meeting the needs of victims of offences relating to domestic or family-related abuse, sexual offences, or child criminal exploitation.

New clause 20—Duty to report on availability of support services for carers of victims—

(1) Relevant authorities must prepare an annual report on the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of support services for carers of victims affected by—

(a) offences related to domestic or family-related abuse,

(b) sexual offences, and

(c) offences related to child criminal exploitation,

provided for the purpose of securing the rights of the victim under the victims’ code.

(2) A report produced under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an assessment of gaps in existing services for carers,

(b) the types of support available, including emotional, practical, and advocacy services,

(c) measures in place to ensure accessibility for carers with specific needs, including those who are disabled, blind, deaf, from racially minoritised communities, or LGBTQ+, and

(d) planned actions to improve service provision where gaps are identified.

(3) Relevant authorities with a duty under subsection (1) must publish the report and submit a copy to the Secretary of State no later than six months after the end of each financial year.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“carer” means any individual providing unpaid support to a victim as defined in section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024,

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025, and

“relevant authority” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

This new clause would require relevant authorities to prepare an annual report on the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of support services for carers of individuals victims affected by offences relating to domestic or family-related abuse, sexual offences, or child criminal exploitation.

New clause 21—Duty of the Secretary of State to make a statement following publication of reviews or reports relating to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system—

(1) This section applies where any review, report, or inquiry—

(a) is commissioned, conducted, or sponsored (in whole or in part) by the Secretary of State or the Victims’ Commissioner, and

(b) relates to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system.

(2) Within two weeks of the date of publication, the Secretary of State must make a statement to both Houses of Parliament setting out—

(a) the principal findings and recommendations of the review, report, or inquiry, and

(b) the Government’s initial response, including any intended actions or further consideration to be undertaken.

(3) The statement under subsection (2) must be made by oral statement unless exceptional circumstances make a written ministerial statement more appropriate.

(4) For the purposes of this section a review, report, or inquiry may be statutory or non-statutory.

(5) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the operation of this section within three months of the passing of this Act.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement to Parliament within two weeks of the publication of any review, report, or inquiry relating to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, including those commissioned or conducted by the Victims’ Commissioner. The statement must summarise the findings and set out the Government’s initial response.

Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 6, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert

“for a serious sexual offence committed against a child.”

This amendment would extend the provision of restricting parental responsibility where a parent is sentenced for a serious sexual offence committed against a child, regardless of whether it is their child or on the length of sentence handed down.

Amendment 1, page 6, line 1, leave out

“of 4 years or more”.

This amendment would ensure that where a person is sent to prison because of a sexual offence the court would be under a duty to make a prohibited steps order.

Government amendment 10.

Amendment 2, page 6, line 2, leave out

“for whom the offender has parental responsibility.”

This amendment would ensure the court was under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where anyone is sent to prison because of a sexual offence against a child, whether or not that child was one for which they had parental responsibility.

Amendment 3, page 6, line 20, leave out from “section” to end of line 25 and insert—

“ceases to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal.

(5A) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more.”

This amendment would ensure that a prohibited steps order would cease to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal. It would also require that a prohibited steps order remain in effect where a sentence is reduced on appeal so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more.

Government amendments 11 to 21.

Amendment 4, in clause 11, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“(aa) in that sub-paragraph omit “28” and insert “56””

This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days.

Amendment 5, page 12, line 23, after “(2)” insert—

“unless an application is made by a victim, or their deceased victim’s next of kin, in which case notice of an application shall be given within one year.”

This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme to one year for a victim of a crime or a deceased victim’s next of kin.

Amendment 6, page 12, line 29, leave out “28” and insert “56”.

This amendment is contingent on Amendment 4.

Amendment 7, page 12, line 39, at end insert—

“(5) In accordance with the provision under sub-paragraph (1) the Crown Prosecution Service must write to the victim, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of the sentence being delivered to make them aware of their ability to apply for a review of sentencing.”

This amendment is contingent on Amendment 5. It would require the CPS to write to a victim, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being delivered to make them aware of their ability to apply for a review.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is truly an honour to open this debate and to bring the Victims and Courts Bill before the House. This Bill is about people—victims who have suffered unimaginable trauma and their families—and ensuring that they receive justice. It is about restoring faith in a justice system that can often feel cold and confusing, and it delivers on this Government’s driving mission for safer streets, making sure that victims are supported, that offenders are held to account, and that justice is delivered swiftly and fairly.

The deep-rooted issues in our criminal justice system need no repeating here. The House knows that the system requires large-scale reform after years of neglect. There is a long road ahead, but this Bill takes an important step forward. At its core are victims’ experiences. This Government are bringing forward real, tangible measures to ensure that victims’ voices are heard, their needs are recognised, and their rights are respected. The Bill will strengthen our courts, improving efficiency and fairness across the system. These are much-needed changes, and I am deeply grateful to hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their time and their insight in considering the measures, and to all the organisations, advocates and survivors who have shared their experiences and helped us shape this legislation.

I am sure that the House will therefore join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, and I welcome to this place Ayse Hussein, Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who are in the Public Gallery today. I also thank Jebina Islam, Farah Naz, the Justice for Victims group—which includes Susan and Jeremy Everard, Glenn and Becky Youens, Katie Brett, Paula Hudgell and Ayse Hussein—and the Bethan family for their courage and strength in campaigning amid immense grief for their loved ones.

Three Government amendments on Report will further strengthen the Bill, delivering clearer, stronger protection for victims, and I will turn to them briefly now. I again thank all those who have worked so constructively with me and officials in the Ministry of Justice to discuss their issues and concerns.

New clause 14 and amendments 12 to 21 restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for perpetrators of rape, where their crime has resulted in the birth of a child. These amendments will protect children, but will also help shield the victim from their perpetrator interfering in their lives, because those who commit this horrific crime should clearly never be able to use parental rights to control or torment their victim. I take a moment to pay tribute to a woman who I am proud to call my colleague and even prouder to call my friend. Many in this House will already have deep admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), and I place on record that this change is hers. It is for her, her children and those just like them up and down the country—the people to whom she has dedicated her life to fighting tirelessly for.

Sentencing Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I must make progress—I need to bring my remarks to a close.

In plain English, there are more FNOs overall, and more FNO sex offenders in particular, while those on Labour’s Front Bench have spent years campaigning against their removal. That will change only if the Justice Secretary confronts the broken ECHR, which is the biggest legal obstacle to their removal—everything else is tinkering. For the good of the country, I urge the Justice Secretary to support anyone within the Government who seeks change to the ECHR, because he will never resolve this challenge without that change.

The Sentencing Bill is soft on crime, soft on criminals and brutal on the hard-working, law-abiding people of this country. It offers oven-ready excuses to offenders to get out of jail early and cold comfort to victims. The Justice Secretary has a choice: he can plough ahead with this farce and watch as our streets are swept by the coming crime wave, or he can heed our warning—shared by victims groups and rooted in common sense—and think again. The British people deserve safer streets. Instead, under this Bill, they are going to get a jailbreak. A crime wave is coming.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

That is a valid concern. Ministers assure us that performance on the contract is improving in exactly those areas, but we are not just waiting for that improvement; we are introducing a huge additional burden, because all those offenders who will now remain in the community, rather than being incarcerated, will need tagging. I worry that an unreliable contractor with a poor record—even if it is improving—is being given a great additional burden.

Let me turn to another aspect of the Bill. It amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to revise down the statutory release point for standard determinate sentence prisoners to one third, although additional days added to time in custody as a consequence of breaches of the Prison Rules 1999, known as adjudications, will be served after the one-third point. Those changes follow the sentencing review’s recommendation that the Government should introduce an earned progression model for those serving SDSs. The review argued that, as a large proportion of offenders will be released after one third of their sentence,

“custodial sentences should be used to incentivise good behaviour and focus on limiting the risks of reoffending.”

As the sentencing review set out:

“The criteria for compliance should also include the expectation that the offender will engage in purposeful activity and attend any required work, education, treatments and/or training obligations where these are available.”

The review also held the view that,

“as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding.”

I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on what exactly is meant by a “more demanding” regime.

The Justice Committee is currently halfway through its inquiry into the rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders. It has heard of the difficulties that prisons face in administering proper rehabilitation programmes when prisons are full, which results in most of their efforts being focused on dealing with day-to-day incidents and combating widespread drug use. Rehabilitative programmes also vary greatly between prisons.

I welcome the steps taken towards an earned progression model in the Bill and hope they can free up capacity to allow for a better and more consistent rehabilitative regime. It is important that once the changes are made, rehabilitative regimes remain robust and continue to be focused on combating the behaviours that lead to reoffending, rather than being focused primarily on prisoners meeting the goals that lead to their early release—that is a rare point of agreement with the shadow Lord Chancellor.

Under the earned progression model, there is also the possibility that some prisoners may stay in prison for longer than they currently would as they do not meet the new criteria for release and are required to serve additional days. That, of course, will put further strain on the numbers in prison. Prisoners should be provided with clear guidance setting out how they should implement the earned progression model. This will ensure consistency for prisoners subject to the model and ensure that victims are informed of what to expect under the scheme.

In brief, we need to ensure, first, that the reasons for rehabilitation are clear—are they undertaking additional work, or are they simply keeping their noses clean in prison? We need to consider how rehabilitation will be used in prisons in future, and we need look at every aspect of incarceration as to how the earned progression model will work.

The Bill contains two clauses that make provisions relating to the Sentencing Council. Clause 19 introduces a statutory obligation on the Sentencing Council to obtain joint approval from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice for all sentencing guidelines before final definitive guidelines are issued. It is borne out of the disagreement of the former Lord Chancellor with the Sentencing Council earlier this year regarding the revised guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. The revised guideline was the subject of much, and often poor-quality, political debate at the time.

The former Lord Chancellor promised to further review the Sentencing Council’s powers during the Bill stages of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 in April this year. On Second Reading, I expressed my concern that it could cause

“damage to the relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary.”——[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 1012.]

I also expressed regret about how it had been used to support attacks on the judiciary. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact that the Lord Chancellor’s veto in clause 19 could have on the judicial independence of the Sentencing Council.

However, if we are to have a double lock, perhaps we should have a triple lock. One suggestion that was made to me was that the Justice Committee—as well as or instead of the Lord Chancellor—should be granted the power to veto or approve guidelines. That would operate alongside the equivalent power of the Lady Chief Justice. It would go beyond the Committee’s current role as a statutory consultee for ordinary Sentencing Council guidelines, but the logic would be to rebalance power so that democratic parliamentary oversight is given to the guidelines, rather than there being a veto on behalf of only the Executive and the judiciary.

One area not covered in the Gauke review or the Bill is the question of those who are in prison on imprisonment for public protection sentences. It has been 12 years since the last IPP sentence was handed down, yet around 2,500 people are still serving IPP sentences in prison. It is now widely acknowledged that the nature of such sentences causes serious distress for those who are serving them and their loved ones. I welcome the Government’s progress in reducing the numbers of IPP prisoners, with a 9% reduction in the year to 31 March 2025. More could still be done, but the work being done through the action plan by the current Prisons Minister, and indeed the previous sentencing Minister, has gone some way towards achieving that.

In 2022, the previous Justice Committee recommended that a resentencing exercise should be carried out to bring the sentencing for IPP prisoners into line with current sentencing practice. Successive Governments have chosen not to take up that recommendation. My position remains that a resentencing exercise is the most effective and comprehensive way to reduce the number of IPP prisoners, and I think IPP prisoners should have been included in this legislation.

In conclusion, I welcome the legislation and commend the Government for bringing forward these bold reforms. However, I note that there are a number of areas where more detail is needed and where I can see challenges in its implementation. Many of the measures in the Bill will place extra pressures on an already stretched Probation Service. I hope that some of the issues that I have highlighted can be covered during the Bill’s passage through the House, despite the limited time that we will have in Committee of the whole House. I and my colleagues on the Justice Committee will consider ways in which we may be able to press the Government on points of concern through amendments. I hope that the Bill will go at least some way towards solving our prisons crisis and restoring the faith of the public in our damaged criminal justice system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (4).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, to the title, line 4, leave out from “Academy” to end.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Some people may be unfamiliar with the detail of the Bill because it did not receive a Second Reading debate. It went through on the nod on 16 May. It then went into a quite truncated Public Bill Committee on Wednesday 2 July, and it has now come back to the Chamber on Report.

I tabled amendment 1 to highlight my concern about the consultation arrangements proposed in subsection (4). Amendment 2 is a consequential amendment. As people will have noticed, in the Bill’s long title, it states:

“expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy; and to alter the consultation question required when it is proposed to establish or expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy.”

If amendment 1 were successful, the long title would need to be amended, and in anticipation of that, I tabled amendment 2. As ever, I am most grateful to the Public Bill Office for having ensured that I was on the right lines with that and that such an amendment could be tabled.

Amendment 1 arises from the fact that section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 states that before entering into an academy arrangement, the provider

“must carry out a consultation on the question of whether the arrangements should be entered into.”

Clause 1(4) would insert into that provision an exception that

“where the educational institution, if the arrangements are entered into, is to be a secure 16 to 19 Academy…the person is not required to carry out a consultation on that question”.

In other words, it is an exemption from the requirement for a consultation on the question of whether the arrangements should be entered into. I do not see that as a reasonable thing to do.

In the short debate on this matter in the Bill Committee, there was a bit of a misrepresentation when it was stated that

“secure schools do not compete with other schools.”––[Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 4.]

That may be true, but they can compete with other institutions, particularly those providing alternative provision.

Clause 1(4) adds to section 10 of the 2010 Act that for a secure 16 to 19 academy, the person is not required to carry out a consultation on that question, but

“must instead carry out a consultation on the question of how they should cooperate with potential local partners in connection with the establishment and carrying on of the Academy.”

Those local partners are described as “potential local partners”, meaning

“persons exercising functions of a public nature”—

I think the Bill has in mind organisations such as the health service, the local education authority, councillors and so on—

“and…so far as not falling within paragraph (a), proprietors of educational institutions…with whom the person carrying out the consultation thinks it appropriate to cooperate.”

Again, that discretion is left with the person carrying out the consultation.

I do not understand why we are abandoning the much more fundamental issue of the consultation.

There might be no competition between a secure 16 to 19 academy and an ordinary school, but there may well be competition between that secure academy and another such academy that is already in existence or that may be proposed.

The 2022 legislation on secure academies was introduced in the previous Parliament. At the time, nobody thought there was any problem with having the same arrangements for secure 16 to 19 academies as for other academies. This short debate on amendment 1 will give the Minister an opportunity to explain why that change is necessary, how it is justified, and why there needs to be a deletion of the existing consultation arrangements rather than an addition to the existing arrangements of being subject to consultation, which is the subject of proposed new subsection (2A)(b) to section 10 of the Academies Act 2010, as in subsection (4).

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I now have the chance to talk about the Bill. I did not have a chance on Second Reading, because the Bill went through on the nod, and I was not on the Bill Committee. I am the loser as a result; I was not invited. The hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) steered it through Committee quickly, and now it has come back to the House and she does not feel the need to expand on it in any way.

I will take up one particular challenge, because my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) asked a question in Committee and the Minister said:

“I thank the hon. Members who have contributed so far. On the issues just raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, they are for the Bill as it makes progress. Assuming that it does progress, however, I am happy to write to him with an answer to those points, as they are pertinent.”––[Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 6.]

I do not know whether such a letter has been sent but, if so, I have not seen the contents as I was not a Committee member. When the Minister responds in his usual helpful way, I hope that he will share his answer to my hon. Friend’s question. That is a relatively detailed point.

My greater concern about the Bill comes from being a great supporter of academies and what they have done to transform education provision in our country by removing that provision from the dead hand of so many local authorities. I speak as someone who, early in my political career, succeeded in persuading Margaret Thatcher to abolish the Inner London Education Authority, which was one of the great success stories of my campaigning.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 dealt with this issue and set out the secure 16-to-19 academies. I cannot understand whether it was an oversight that the legislation was not changed then to ensure that there was a guarantee of only two years’ funding. Under the Academies Act 2010, an academy was guaranteed seven years of funding after being set up, and if that was curtailed, there would essentially be compensation for the academy.

More importantly, setting up an academy is an expensive job, as I know from the setting up of what became Parkfield school as an academy in my constituency. It transferred from a free school that started in Bournemouth and did not have premises; it was basically on the third floor of an office block. It could not get planning permission because of hostility from the local education authority, which did not relish the prospect of competition. It then found some premises in my constituency that already had an educational use, because they were the training school for NATS—the national air traffic services—in Christchurch.

The cost of converting those facilities into a premises suitable for an academy was significant. It was time consuming, and critics of the academy system used the fact that so much money was being spent on this provision against the then Government. It was time consuming, and critics of the academy system used the fact that so much money was being spent on this provision against the then Government. However, it was made more secure by the fact that there was a guarantee that the academy could stay in place for seven years.

I am sorry to say that, at the end of this term, the academy known as Parkfield school will no longer exist, because the academy trust that took over the running of it has decided to pull out. The original notice was given a year ago, and last year the school dealt solely with people who are waiting to complete their GCSEs. The buildings there will now revert to the Department for Education. What will happen to them, who knows? The investment is there. Maybe it will be used by the local authority for alternative education provision. Maybe it will be used as a secure 16 to 19 academy.

The point is that an academy would never have been able to get started in the premises at Parkfield school had it been given only a two-year lease of life. Members of this House who were elected one year ago this month think that a five-year duration is pretty short. They cannot really get their feet under the table and invest to be fit for the future if they have a guaranteed existence of only up to five years. If we are talking about premises taking on staff, and everything that goes with that—even more so if we are talking about secured premises—I cannot understand why the minimum notice period under a funding arrangement will be reduced from seven years to two.

The argument put forward is that a two-year termination period will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and have more flexibility, should there be a need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. That has not been expanded upon in any of the debates that I have heard or in the explanatory notes. It is just a statement, and a mere repetition of it cannot be a substitute for a justification of it. How will lowering the termination period to two years prioritise value for money? It may well mean that short-termism prevails because the academy says that it cannot do this or that, and invest for the future, because it has only a two-year potential lifespan.

In articulating the Government’s case, the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth went on to say in Committee:

“Reducing it to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which Government would be committed to continue funding the secure school longer than necessary”—

this is exactly the system for academies: if an academy fails, there has to be an exit period, as has happened in Parkfield school—

“while ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in this environment.”––[Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 4.]

I would suggest that having only a two-year contract is hardly encouraging for potential members of staff. I do not think the number of people aspiring to be Members of Parliament would increase if the knowledge was that there would be an election every two years and they might find themselves retrospectively on a two-year contract.

The hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth then went on to justify the disapplication of section 9 of the Academies Act 2010 in this Bill. That was not the subject of an amendment from me, but she said that it would

“remove the requirement that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new academy funding agreement on other educational establishments in the area for secure 16 to 19 academies. Although it is important that secure schools are established as academies, in order to ensure they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different, as secure schools do not compete with other schools.”

They do not compete with other schools, but they could potentially compete with other organisations. The hon. Lady then said:

“As such, we do not expect them to have an impact on the viability of other local mainstream schools.”

That is fine—I do not expect that—but what about schools that are not mainstream? That is used as an argument to say that this Bill would

“disapply that duty for this particular type of school, to help any future secure schools open with minimal delay.”––[Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 4.]

I come to this Bill in a slightly suspicious state of mind, because we know that the Government are not really enthusiastic about academies. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but if the academy programme—I will not call it an experiment, because it has succeeded —had been in a position to have been brought forward under a Labour Government, I do not think they would ever have done it. This Labour Government are reluctant and realise that they cannot really abolish academies, but I am concerned that what is proposed in this Bill may be the starting point of facilitating the making of academies less financially viable and their withering on the vine by removing that all-important seven-year guarantee of funding or indefinite funding with a seven-year notice, which has to be given under the legislation. Those are my concerns.

The fact that this Bill seems to have consensus across the House makes me even more concerned. When we look at lawmaking in this House, we see that many of the worst laws are those that were introduced with cross-party consensus.

The hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth refers to the issue of time. There is no constraint on us being able to debate this Bill today, which is what we are doing. This is the last sitting Friday that has been allocated by the Government, but I am assured by the Government Whip who deals with these things that this Session of Parliament is likely to continue well beyond the autumn and that there will doubtless be further sitting Fridays. If there are further sitting Fridays and some of the business on the Order Paper today is not reached, we will be able to reach it on the next sitting Friday chosen.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, although there is a limit of 13 days for private Members’ legislation, where a Session of Parliament has been extended significantly there has by convention been an addition of sitting Fridays to compensate for that—in the same way that additional time is provided for Opposition days by convention. Otherwise, strictly speaking, under the Standing Orders there would not be sufficient Opposition days.

I am not suggesting we go on debating this Bill into the next Friday, but I hope that when the Minister responds, he does not feel that he is inhibited by time constraints imposed by the Whips, because those time constraints are artificial in the extreme and can be altered. I look forward to having my concerns addressed. I am open to being reassured, and I look forward to the Minister pursuing such a course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.