Sentencing Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 19, and other new clauses tabled in my name and those of Opposition Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for opening the debate. He has drawn attention to an important issue, and something I often ponder. I am aware that many powers are available to tackle the involvement of parents in offending, but I never get the sense that they are working as well as we would want them to. My hon. Friend’s new clause would help us to get to the bottom of that.

It is a privilege to take part in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and to have a further opportunity to do what I can to make clear to Labour Members the enormous negative impact on victims that the Bill will have. The Bill will fundamentally change how we deliver justice for victims of serious violent and sexual crimes in this country. The official Opposition tabled amendments and new clauses in Committee, but we did not get to undertake line-by-line scrutiny in a proper Bill Committee. I suspect that that is because the Government know that the reality of the Bill is so damning that they fear an outright rebellion of their MPs if they cannot continue the pretence about what it does and does not do. Nevertheless, we attempted to provide a limited and more acceptable reform of the early release measures to exclude sexual and serious violence offenders. Labour MPs rejected that, and we are now left only with a new clause to remove those measures entirely.

Why do we persist? Because the consequences if we do not are dire. The Government have said time and again that no person who has committed what they describe as the “most serious” offences would be released earlier, but we know that to be completely false. The change in automatic release rules applies to all standard determinate sentences, and to every person who is on one.

I reiterate that the independent Library briefing note confirms that these releases will be automatic. More than 60% of offenders sentenced to prison for rape receive standard determinate sentences, as do more than 90% of those convicted of child grooming offences. Around half of individuals imprisoned for attempted murder are also given standard determinate sentences. Each year, hundreds of people convicted of child rape or sexual assault, including offences involving victims aged under 13, serve those types of sentences. In total, more than 6,000 offenders are sent to prison annually for serious violent sexual offences, and they will get out of prison earlier under the Bill.

I do not know in how many ways I can explain that to Members to overcome the briefing that it is not true, which is happening outside the Chamber. I have no choice but to take Members through the numbers. I have in front of me the sentencing data for those convicted of the rape of a female aged 16 or over. In total, 590 men on average are sent to prison for that offence every year. One hundred and ninety-seven of them would be excluded from the early release measures because they were given extended determinate sentences or life sentences, but 393 would not. That is 393 rapists—the vast majority—being sent to prison every year who will be let out of prison earlier. That is without including those guilty of the rape of children, many of whom will also be let out of prison earlier.

Many Members have spoken about terrible cases of causing death by dangerous driving. Glenn and Becky Youens from Justice for Victims campaign in memory of their daughter, Violet-Grace, who was killed at four years old by a drug dealer going at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The drug dealer fled the scene then returned, stepping over her as she lay injured on the pavement, to get to their drugs. Are we seriously going to tell people such as Glenn and Becky that those perpetrators can get out of prison earlier in future? Because that is what will happen. Every year, 169 offenders on average are sent to prison for causing death by dangerous driving. Some 163 of them are given a standard determinate sentence and will get out of jail earlier as a result of the Bill, and some of them will serve only a third of their sentence.

I have pages of examples. Out of 228 offenders sent to prison every year for sexual grooming, 211 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 196 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 475 people sent to prison every year for stalking, 458 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 427 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 576 offenders sent to prison every year for the offence of sexual activity involving a child under 16, 502 will get out of prison earlier because of the Bill, and 269 of them will serve only a third of their sentence.

This morning, the Home Secretary said that she was glad that the “vile child sex offender”, as she described him, Hadush Kebatu, is off our streets. She is right to welcome that. Kebatu was convicted of sexual assault offences against women and girls. What do the measures proposed by the former Justice Secretary, who is now Home Secretary, mean in relation to other vile child sex offenders who have been sent to prison for the same offences? I can tell the House that under the Bill, two thirds of the offenders sent to prison for similar sexual assault offences will have to serve only a third of their sentence. The Government celebrate removing those offenders from the streets, while at the same time legislating to put them back on the streets.

It is shameful that Labour Members, with their majority, voted against our amendments and new clauses to remove the early release measures in specific circumstances. Our new clause to remove the measures entirely remains before the House, even if we will not get the opportunity to vote on it today.

New clause 19 seeks to address a clear gap in the law that I believe the majority of Members across the House would agree must be closed. At present, our sentencing framework requires that a whole life order be imposed on anyone convicted of murdering a police or prison officer while that officer is carrying out their duties. That provision acts as both a deterrent and a guarantee of justice for those who risk their lives in confronting dangerous offenders, yet a recent court case has created a precedent that that measure will not be applied if the prison or police officer is not actively on duty at the time of their murder.

I want to describe to the House the disturbing events surrounding the murder of former prison officer Lenny Scott, who was killed by a violent offender he had once supervised. Mr Scott was working as a prison officer at HMP Altcourse in Liverpool. In 2020, Elias Morgan offered him a bribe to keep it to himself that a phone had been found in Morgan’s cell. The vast majority of prison officers do an excellent job and follow the rules, but the House will be aware of examples of corruption in our prison service. Mr Scott could have taken that bribe—he almost certainly knew that Morgan was capable of violent offences and was involved in organised crime—and forgotten his duties and responsibilities, but he did not. He refused the bribe. He was then subjected to death threats by Morgan.

It is a matter of public record that Mr Scott’s time as a prison officer was not unblemished, but when it comes to the question of courage, sheer guts and bravery, refusing to be cowed by a violent thug, and refusing to take the easy way out, Mr Scott was an exemplar, not just to prison officers but to all of us. But Morgan made good on his threats, waiting for years, until 2024, to murder Mr Scott in cold blood. It was a carefully planned murder. Lancashire police found evidence that the month before the murder, Morgan was scoping out locations linked to Mr Scott. He drove close to Mr Scott’s home in Prescot in Merseyside, a gym in the Speke area of Liverpool where Mr Scott sometimes trained, and a gym on Peel Road in Skelmersdale, where the shooting would later take place. Morgan gunned down Mr Scott as he was leaving the gym, shooting him six times. Mr Scott did not stand a chance.

In 2013, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May—the former Prime Minister and right hon. Member for Maidenhead—announced that we would change the law so that the murder of a police officer or a prison officer would result in a whole life order. Speaking at the time in relation to police officers, she said:

“We ask police officers to keep us safe by confronting and stopping violent criminals for us. We ask you to take the risks so that we don’t have to…We are clear: life should mean life for anyone convicted of murdering a police officer.”

As prison officers carry out similar duties, the measures rightly included them.

However, the sentencing for Mr Scott’s murder has made it clear that the courts have not understood the will of Parliament, because Morgan was not given a whole life order. He was given a life sentence with a minimum tariff. It is true to say that his sentenceis longer than most, at 45 years, but Morgan was 35 when he was convicted, so it is not inconceivable that he could get out one day. I do not believe that Parliament intended for criminals like him to ever get out. I was shocked at that outcome; it had not occurred to me that the measure would not apply. I was very familiar with the measure in relation to police officers, following my own time as a volunteer police officer, so my initial reaction was to believe that it must not have been applied to prison officers, and I raised that in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

indicated assent.

[Dr Mullan]

I note that the Minister is nodding.

We can ensure that criminals know that the fullest possible consequences of the law will follow if they murder a police or prison officer simply because they were doing their job.

New clause 20 seeks to establish notification and offender management requirements for those convicted of child cruelty offences, in effect creating a system similar to the sex offenders register for individuals who have abused and neglected children. I want to be clear why this matters. Every one of us in this House knows that behind the legal language of child cruelty or abuse lie some of the most distressing and life-altering crimes imaginable—crimes in which a child, utterly dependent and vulnerable, gets the worst instead of the best, often from those who are supposed to love and care for them.

This measure will not fix everything—sadly, that is not the world we live in—but before us there is a clear and proven step we can take towards improving how we protect our children. At present, if somebody is convicted of a sexual offence against a child, they are rightly placed on the sex offenders register. They are required to keep the police informed of their whereabouts, their identity and any change to their circumstances, including whether they live with children.

The requirement sits separately from probation requirements. If a person is convicted of an offence to which the requirements apply and receives a prison sentence of 13 months or more, the notification requirements are indefinite. That allows the police service, along with other agencies, better to assess and manage risk and ultimately to protect children and others from harm. If a person is convicted of horrific physical abuse, of neglect, or of causing a child’s death through sustained cruelty, there is no equivalent requirement. Once their sentence and probation is over, they can disappear into the community with no requirement to report where they live, no oversight by those who might need to protect other children, and no legal mechanism for ongoing management. That is a clear gap in our child protection system, and new clause 20 would correct it.

A person convicted of any of the listed child cruelty or violence offences, including causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, child cruelty or neglect, infanticide, exposing children whereby life is endangered, and female genital mutilation, would be required to notify the police of their details within three days of conviction or release. They would have to confirm where they live, any other addresses they use and any names that they go by. They would have to keep that information up to date and confirm it annually, just as child sex offenders already do.

Importantly, that information could be shared between the police and other agencies that work to safeguard children. That would give local law enforcement the information it needs to identify the risk that individuals could pose to the local community and to intervene with any precautionary measures early to protect children before harm could come. It would offer greater protection to the public by ensuring that those who have committed abuse and cruelty to children are treated in the same manner as those who have committed sexual abuse.

Let me say a few words about the reason why we are considering this measure and about an extraordinary lady called Paula Hudgell. Paula Hudgell’s name has been spoken before in this House. She is the adoptive mother of 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, who had both legs amputated after abuse by his birth parents. She has previously campaigned successfully for tougher sentences to be available for child abuse offences, for which she was awarded an OBE. When Paula adopted Tony, the criminals responsible for what happened to him—his birth parents—were not even going to be prosecuted. Paula told me that if anyone had done to her birth children what they had done to Tony, she would have done everything that she could to pursue justice, and that Tony was no different, even though he was adopted. That is exactly what she did for him, and in the end his birth parents were convicted. The maximum sentence they received appalled Paula, and her first campaign began, to change that maximum to a life sentence.

However, during the course of her campaigning and from getting to see the parole system and what it can do to monitor people after they have served their sentence, Paula got an incredible insight into the system’s flaws and what needed to change. Discussing it with a police officer, Becki Taft—I also pay tribute to her—who Paula got to know during the course of the prosecution, they both recognised the glaring omission that we are seeking to remedy today, so Paula acted. She is continuing to act despite facing enormous challenges in her personal circumstances, as she is undergoing treatment for cancer that can no longer be cured. Paula said:

“I’ve been battling cancer, but as long as I have fire in my belly, I’ll keep fighting to protect children by pushing for this register. That’s what keeps me going—knowing that Tony’s legacy can help save other young lives.”

She is an incredible woman who I am honoured to have gotten to know, and her MP, the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), has done so much to help Paula turn her campaign into words on a page—into legislation we can pass. She is someone I am pleased to be able to call a friend.

I sincerely thank the Justice Secretary for taking a direct interest in this issue, and I am sure that the Minister will also want to closely consider it. I want to ensure that the strength of feeling among Conservative Members and others is reflected in the Lobby tonight. It may be that the Government are not ready to support this measure this evening. Labour MPs may feel that that is reasonable at this stage, but I would welcome a commitment from the Dispatch Box that will enable me to conclude that we can agree to work cross-party in the other place to get this done.

I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to considering amendments tabled by other Members. I hope I have been able to clearly explain our proposals, which relate to prison and police officer whole life orders and the child cruelty register. However, whatever else this Bill achieves and whatever else we might reasonably disagree on, at the heart of the Bill is the biggest step backwards in securing justice for the victims of serious crime in a generation. For it to pass unamended would represent a betrayal of victims. I do not believe that Labour Members want that, and it is not too late. I am confident that the Lords will not let this Bill pass unamended, so at some point, Labour MPs will again be able to decide to say no to the Prime Minister and his plan.

MPs always have choices, and this Government spend £1 trillion a year on various services. Whatever the positive and honourable intentions Labour Members have when it comes to securing justice for victims, and whatever positive measures they suggest, they will be disastrously undone if they do not work collaboratively to make clear that they will not support measures that will let thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

My new clause 36 seeks to implement a key recommendation of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, on which the measures in this Bill are based. The new clause proposes that release at one third of a sentence should be conditional on positive actions and purposeful activity, such as attending education classes, engaging in voluntary work and participating in drug rehabilitation.

My amendment seeks to address the prison capacity crisis by embedding an emphasis on rehabilitation into the earned progression model from its very first stage. Incentivising purposeful activity will do two things. First, it will actively reward better behaviour within prison, leading to fewer instances of additional adjudication days being added.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Bill illustrates a wider theme that we see across a number of debates in the House, which is the gap between the Government’s words and how they vote. Indeed, that is illustrated by a number of the new clauses that colleagues on the Opposition Benches have already spoken to.

New clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), highlights the inconsistency within the Labour manifesto that sets out a commitment to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, but then says that even if they commit an offence so serious that it warrants a custodial sentence of four or more years, that person is too young to be named. I asked the House of Commons Library to clarify that. A custodial sentence of four or more years is not given out lightly by the courts, particularly not to those of that age, and it said that this would involve serious sexual offences, murder, or armed robbery. We see tweets from Members of Parliament when a boy or girl is stabbed to death, but Labour Members are not willing to vote to name those who commit such offences. It is wrong to deny victims transparency when such serious offences have taken place, but it is bizarre to do so when also saying that those same people are old enough to vote at that age.

Such inconsistency is not limited to new clause 14, so let me take a second example of new clause 18, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). Many people now look at the Labour manifesto and say, “Well, what it said on energy bills isn’t what they have done; what it said on council tax isn’t what they have done; and what it said to farmers is certainly not what they have done.” With the Budget coming soon, I think that we will shortly see that what Labour said on tax is not what this Government are about to do. And yet the front page of that Labour manifesto had a single word on it: “Change.” I do not think that most voters realised that what Labour meant was change from the manifesto itself, as opposed to change in terms of policy—

[Dr Mullan]

Or for the worse!

[Steve Barclay]

Indeed, change for the worse.

It is bizarre that when serious offences take place, quite often it is the judiciary who get the blame. Perhaps I have an unfashionable view in that I think that we have a very high-quality judiciary, but it is easy for people to look at sentences and then quickly leap to criticise the judiciary, saying that it is their fault that sentencing is wrong. Indeed, there are such cases—the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has highlighted some concerning conflicts of interest of some within the judiciary—but it is far more common that issues arise because the judiciary are operating within the tramlines imposed by sentencing guidelines.

I remember a constituency case where someone was killed by dangerous driving. It highlighted the fact that while this House had increased the sentencing for such crimes, the sentencing guidelines set so many obstacles to getting a maximum sentence that, in practice, hardly anyone ever reached the tariff that the House had intended. Key decisions on issues of public policy should not be outsourced to quangos, meaning—as my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), highlighted—the public often do not have any idea who is making the decisions.

I come back to the Labour manifesto. It promised change, but when it comes to the sentencing guidelines, it will be the same people, applying the same approach; that is anything but change. If the manifesto is to deliver change, it is right that democratic oversight is imposed and that this House and Ministers take more responsibility.

[Dr Mullan]

I do not think that it said anywhere in the Labour manifesto that a Labour Government would cut prison time for serious sexual and violent offenders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the case?

[Steve Barclay]

Indeed.

The new clauses under debate highlight a wider principle that is driving much of the public frustration with the democratic process: the sense of people voting and then seeing decisions that they do not feel were on the ballot paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right that this is not just an issue with this Government; the Government in which I served were guilty of this. Too many decisions were outsourced to quangos. There are lessons to be learned from that, as today’s debate has highlighted well.

Let me turn to two new clauses on which the House will divide. New clause 19 applies to something that unites the House: the horror at the murder of a police officer or prison officer. This is particularly pertinent to me, as I have the privilege of representing a constituency that contains a maximum security prison, HMP Whitemoor, where the safety of prison officers is paramount. The new clause is also important because we all benefit from the safeguarding provided by the police—in my case, Cambridgeshire police. What message do Ministers think is being sent not just to police and prison officers, but to their families, if they decide to vote against new clause 19? It is not enough just to tweet after events to say how sorry they are. The Government have an opportunity to vote to do something, and we will see in the Lobby how they vote.

Finally, I turn new clause 20. I do not think that I was alone in being deeply moved by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant). It is most effective when Members across the House, regardless of which party they are in, speak from their own deep professional expertise about issues that transcend party politics. Anyone hearing about Tony’s case cannot help but feel revulsion, horror and shame about the offence committed, and my hon. Friend spoke with such passion to highlight it.

As a former Minister who has sat where the Minister now sits, let me say that I hope he reflects on the case put forward in new clause 20. I do not believe that any Members want to see loopholes exploited—to see people move around the country to evade accountability and the tracking of any future offences. When someone speaks with the sort of professional expertise with which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling spoke, to raise very practical concerns, it is important that Ministers take those concerns on board.

The concern raised through new clause 20 is shared across the House. There is a defective element in this Bill, and Members have an opportunity to address it. The expectation is that there will be a vote on new clause 20. It is not about people’s words, but how they vote, that will determine the response. I hope that Members across the House will respond to new clause 20, bearing in mind the case of Tony, which was highlighted to the House, and that they will do the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

In that regard, the most important part of the Bill is the domestic abuse identifier. It has been worked on, on a cross-party basis, with outside organisations that are campaigning for it. It is an innovative and important step to ensure that these cases—it is a broadbrush so that different offences can all be covered by the one term—can be tracked through the criminal justice system and out to safeguarding agencies to ensure that women are kept safe from their abusers.

[Dr Mullan]

I note the interest of the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) in domestic abuse and other offences. Will the Minister confirm for her that the vast majority of offenders convicted of offences related to domestic abuse will get out of prison much earlier as a result of this Bill?

[Jake Richards]

Again, as the shadow Minister knows, for each offence the judge will have full discretion over the sentence. When I have spoken to victims of domestic abuse—I have worked with and represented victims of domestic abuse in court—what they feared most was that, when the prison system was on the verge of collapse, some of the most serious offenders would never face prison at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

The judge on any given case, where there has been an awful offence such as that, will have the power under this legislation to send that person to prison. That is absolutely right and that has not changed at all.

I will turn to new clause 19, with which I have huge sympathy. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle gave me the opportunity to meet Lenny Scott’s mother, and I will take him up on that. I am happy to do so and I look forward to it. As he knows, the Law Commission is undertaking a review of homicide law, and it would be wrong to pre-empt that, although I am sympathetic to the motivation behind the new clause. As he noted, that awful offender was convicted to life imprisonment with a minimum of 45 years. I understand the mischief that the hon. Member is trying to tackle with the new clause, but we will await the Law Commission’s review of homicide law.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister is perfectly capable of legislating on this issue and letting the homicide work continue. He says that that would be “wrong”, but it is not wrong—it is just his choice, and it is the wrong choice.

[Jake Richards]

As I say, I am not going to pre-empt the Law Commission’s review of homicide law, but I am sympathetic to the new clause. I look forward to meeting the victim’s family and we will be taking steps in due course.

I will turn to the earned progression model and new clause 36, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and spoken to passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith). I met my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and understand the motivation behind the new clause. There is appetite within Government to go further and to offer positive functionality to the earned progression model, but primary legislation is probably not the appropriate mechanism for delivering a stronger system of incentivising rehabilitation in prisons.

I will briefly explain the current framework as set out in legislation. Bad behaviour, such as acts of violence or possession of a mobile phone, can mean more time in custody. We are making that tougher. To ensure that there is more bite and discipline within our prisons, we are doubling the maximum punishment from 42 days to 84 days per incident by secondary legislation. There will be no automatic release for badly behaved offenders. I accept that I and Lord Timpson should look at the current incentives policy framework to see how we can further incentivise engagement with self-improvement services, whether in work or education.

We expect prisoners to work in prison and, where they have educational needs, to engage in classes that support reading, literacy, maths and vocational skills. That is why we are building partnerships with employers and looking to increase the amount of time that prisoners work in industry to increase employment skills. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in our meeting, I look forward to working with her and others to look at how we can expand and improve that framework to ensure that the earned progression model is as effective as possible.

[Dr Mullan]

Does the Minister accept that he is legislating to let those people out automatically? He expects Labour Members to accept the promise that later, at some point, he might introduce legislation so that some of those people—a small proportion—do not get out, but whatever he says at the Dispatch Box, he is legislating to let them out automatically. That is the consequence of this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

With the leave of the House, I will finish by explaining again that whatever good this Bill may do, the consequences for victims and their families’ sense of justice in this country are grave—the very same victims who want to see prosecution rates improve, who want to see court waiting times reduced, and who want to have a criminal justice system that works better for them in so many ways, but who never agreed to a swap. Victims of crime will welcome the changes and improvements that the Labour party says it can deliver, but they should not have to accept that something is taken away just because something else is given.

I say to Back Benchers that the Government can agree spending settlements and come up with plans, but they cannot create the changes in legislation that are needed for this Bill; Back Benchers do that. When the Government need MPs to change legislation, they can say no, such as the Labour Back Benchers who recently said no to welfare reform.

I remind Members what this Bill will do. This Bill will mean that more than 80% of paedophiles who are sent to prison will get out earlier. This Bill will mean that more than 60% of rapists who are sent to prison will get out earlier. It will mean that, in total, more than 6,000 serious violent and sexual offenders will get out of prison earlier.

I ask Labour Members to imagine that, in a couple of years from now, they have secured all the achievements that they want in relation to the criminal justice system. Perhaps a victim of sexual assault comes to see them—perhaps somebody who feels that their experience was improved as a result of the changes that the Government say they are going to make and who, like many victims of sexual assault, has seen their perpetrator sent to prison for three years. That victim will come and see Labour Members, and say that the perpetrator is getting out of prison after just one year—a third of their sentence.

That will be the reality for two thirds of the people sentenced to prison for sexual assault in this country, because the Bill’s measures will mean that they get out of prison after a year. What will Members say to victims? Will they say what they say to me: “It was the Tories,” “I didn’t know,” or “We had no choice”? How hollow will those words sound to victims and their families? Whatever this Bill might do, the price that victims will pay is simply too high—much too high. The Government have no right to tell victims and their families that they must accept a trade-off: if they want things to improve in one direction, they must accept a betrayal in another.

I ask Labour Members to reflect again on the figures I have given them. They are the correct figures and they are the facts, no matter what those on the Government Front Bench have muttered as I have been speaking. I ask Labour Members to force this Government to make different choices. Do not support this betrayal of victims. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can mutter. It will come back to haunt every single one of you when victims ask you, “Why did you vote for something that lets thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier?”

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Draft Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 General Committees

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.

As the Minister outlined, the regulations extend the period during which Ministers can use powers under the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020. The Act allows the Government to implement international agreements on private international law through secondary legislation, rather than by bringing forward new primary legislation each time. Private international law deals with cross-border legal issues, such as which country’s courts can hear a case, which country’s laws apply, and how judgments made in one country can be recognised and enforced in another. It affects families, businesses and individuals alike, helping to provide certainty and clarity when disputes span different jurisdictions.

The Act was introduced by the previous Government as part of the UK’s post-Brexit legal framework. After we left the EU, many of the reciprocal arrangements we had previously participated in stopped applying automatically. The Act therefore provided a mechanism to fill those gaps quickly and efficiently, ensuring that the UK could continue to enter into and implement international agreements that support co-operation in civil and commercial matters.

It was recognised at the time that giving Ministers the ability to implement such agreements through secondary legislation raised important constitutional questions. As a result, Parliament agreed to include the safeguard that the powers would expire after five years unless extended by further parliamentary approval. That is the purpose of the regulations: to extend these powers until December 2030. My understanding is that since the Act came into force, the powers have been used only twice, and I am assured that both instances appear to have been straightforward and to have received broad cross-party support. That limited use reflects the narrow scope and careful oversight that Parliament intended.

Extending the powers will ensure that the Government can continue to give effect to new international agreements in this area without unnecessary delay or legal gaps. It will also maintain the UK’s credibility as a reliable partner in international legal co-operation, giving confidence to those we negotiate with that we have the tools to implement our treaty commitments effectively. However, transparency will help to maintain confidence that the powers will continue to be exercised proportionately and only when necessary, so I have a couple of questions for the Minister.

The Minister mentioned a number of future intended uses, including the Singapore agreement and two UN-related trade agreements. Are there any other agreements on the horizon that the Government intend to use this mechanism for? He also mentioned that the majority of consultees were happy with how things had been promoted to date, which suggests that some people were not. Could he perhaps outline examples of where there have been misgivings about the use of the legislation?

Victims and Courts Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member accept that, actually, there are some victims of very, very serious crimes who do not want a meeting and a resolution, but want to see a very serious offender spend a long time in prison?

[Mr Kohler]

Well, of course, restorative justice is not right for every victim. I have said to the hon. Member that it is right for many victims, including myself. I do not begin to understand why he finds that a difficult point to understand.

As I know from personal experience, when my wife, eldest daughter and I met one of the attackers who subjected me to a murderous attack in my home and terrorised my family, restorative justice is not about forgiveness, although that often happens as a by-product, but in giving the victim time and space to move on from the crime. My daughter, who moved out of the family home following the attack, moved back in after the restorative justice meeting. It allowed her to demythologise the perpetrator: no longer a monster, but a deeply flawed human being who she could look straight in the eye and cast from her nightmares.

That meeting transformed our family and her life. Yet for far too many victims, restorative justice remains out of reach. Sadly, only one in 20 adult victims with a known offender are routinely told about it. That is why new clause 15 is so crucial: it would create a statutory right to a meaningful referral to restorative justice services; not a token leaflet or tick-box exercise, but a proper referral made as soon as reasonably practicable once the offender is identified, and offered subsequently at appropriate times during the criminal justice process. I emphasise again that participation would always be voluntary, but every victim would have the right to be informed and supported to decide for themselves—what is wrong with that?

The Government may argue that they are considering strengthening the victims code; indeed, clause 8 enhances the Victims’ Commissioner’s reporting. That is welcome, but not enough. The commissioner can report only on what exists. New clause 15 would ensure that there is something meaningful to measure: a statutory right to referral. Without it, access to restorative justice will remain inconsistent and uncertain.

While new clause 15 would establish a meaningful statutory right, new clause 16 would ensure a meaningful review process by requiring the Secretary of State to report on the uptake of restorative justice and to make recommendations to improve access. If the Government truly value restorative justice, let them prove it with evidence—let Parliament see the data and the plan to expand its use. The reporting duty would complement the commissioner’s powers while they review compliance with the code. The new clause goes further, reporting on usage, barriers and ways to increase participation. Together, they create both the right and the oversight that victims deserve.

These new clauses carry no cost implications. It is about co-ordination, not cash. The infrastructure already exists; what it is missing is the statutory backbone to ensure that every victim, wherever they live, has equal access to restorative justice.

Let us not forget that while restorative justice is all about putting the victims at the heart of the criminal justice process, it also has the proven added advantage of cutting rates of recidivism. The Government often speak about tackling the causes of reoffending—employment, housing, addiction—but restorative justice tackles the psychology of criminality. It changes behaviour by confronting offenders with the human consequences of their actions—not every offender, of course, but a significant number.

If the Government truly stand with victims and want to cut reoffending, they must not simply make meek promises to review the code or commission another pilot; they must make access to restorative justice meaningful and real. They must support new clauses 15 and 16—if not today, then in the other place—and allow restorative justice to do what punishment alone cannot: heal the victim, reform the offender and mend the system on which we all depend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I will speak in favour of new clauses 13 and 14 and the expansion to clause 3. I served with some colleagues in Committee, but may I begin by thanking all Members who have contributed tonight? We have had a series of impassioned speeches from across the House, and I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for their powerful contributions.

The amendments we are discussing this evening are a significant step forward in protecting victims of serious violence and they will help thousands of people. They will help to ensure the safety of victims of serious sexual abuse and victims of crime who have signed a non-disclosure agreement, and, crucially, these amendments will also protect children.

New clause 14 will ensure the protection of children born of rape. On Second Reading, I spoke of a constituent who had had a child as a result of an abusive relationship. She told me of the extreme difficulties she had been facing as she had passed through a long and complex custody battle. She asked me if we, as politicians, could look again at parental rights in the context of abusive relationships. I am very pleased that new clause 14 will protect children born in such circumstances. No longer will children born of rape, or their mothers, be forced to have a relationship with a rapist. Currently, mothers in some cases must co-parent with a rapist. Women should not be forced to include their rapist in decisions on their child’s healthcare, schooling, or any other aspects of a child’s life. Children should not have to be raised by rapists.

Mothers who have a child born of rape should be safe in the knowledge that having a child will not tie them to their rapist. Automatic restriction of parental responsibility will ensure that mothers and children are safer. Rapists should not have the automatic right to interfere with their victims’ lives. This clause frees families from the stress and pain of applying to court by ensuring that this restriction is immediate.

The expansion to clause 3 similarly ensures that any person convicted of serious sex offences against any child has their parental rights removed. The safety of children is the utmost priority, and expanding this measure from those who have abused their own child to those who have seriously abused any child will ensure the safety of the children the perpetrator is closest to. Paedophiles should have no right to look after any child.

I am also pleased to see that new clause 13 will allow us to clamp down on the misuse of non-disclosure agreements, which are used to hide instances where a crime has occurred. Victims of crime should not have to worry about who they speak to regarding the crime of which they are a victim, and non-disclosure agreements should not be used to silence victims of crimes, nor should they stop witnesses coming forward. This change will mean that victims and direct witnesses of crime can speak to their friends, their family and their support system, but they can also speak to their employers and, if necessary, to journalists. I very much welcome the closing of this loophole, which allows criminals to scare victims into not sharing their experiences. The law must not protect those who seek to silence victims.

These amendments will allow us to take significant steps towards the Government’s aim of halving violence towards women and girls. But more than that, these amendments serve to give victims of serious violent crime justice.

[Dr Mullan]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 and the other amendments in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and other members of the His Majesty’s Opposition.

I know the Minister will join me in beginning by thanking all the witnesses who came and gave evidence to us in Committee on the behalf of victims, including Dame Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner; Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner; Katie Kempen from Victim Support; Rebecca Bryant from Resolve; Suky Baker from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust; Andrea Simon from the End Violence Against Women coalition; Farah Nazeer from Women’s Aid; Glenn Youens and Paula Hudgell from Justice for Victims; and Mark Brooks OBE from the ManKind Initiative. We all benefited greatly from their evidence and the victims’ perspective they gave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The shadow Minister is right that there are certain things that victims should be able to say in their victim impact statement—we agree on that—but there are things that are clearly not in the remit of what should be openly discussed in a sentencing hearing. They include information pertaining to the offender’s family, for example. Victims may want to reference that in their victim impact statements, but for the safety of those other family members, they should not be mentioned. It is right that we have strict guidance, and I am willing to work with him and other hon. Members to ensure that the victims have a voice in this.

[Dr Mullan]

We have been clear that victims do not have carte blanche—they cannot say literally whatever they like—but our proposed new clause allows the Government to set what those things will or will not be more clearly in law. That puts the onus back on the judge to disregard things that will not be of relevance to the sentencing. I think that is a perfectly reasonable way to organise things.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The shadow Minister has just outlined exactly why it would be wrong to put this into statute. The issue of victim impact statements is not black and white—there is a large grey area—which is why having a specific list of what can and cannot be put in place is not the right approach. We do not need legislation on this, but we do need proper guidance and training to support victims and families so they can have their say in a sentencing hearing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

With non-exhaustive lists, parts of which are in legislation and parts of which are not, we can agree the things that are vital for people to be able to say, while other things could be determined through guidance. However, legislation is needed because, as the Minister pointed out, there are fundamental things about the definition of a victim personal statement that we think are wrong. That will need to be changed in legislation to give people freedom to comment on those issues. We can go on to decide how the judge might handle that.

I commend my friend the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for his work on new clause 4. I met Eve Henderson, from the charity Murdered Abroad, who has long campaigned for better recognition and support for the families of British nationals who have lost loved ones to murder, manslaughter and infanticide overseas. Far too often, those families find themselves in a position of deep grief, while also having to navigate complex and unfamiliar foreign legal systems with little or no support from home. They can be left without clear information, a voice in proceedings or access to the services that victims of crime in this country are entitled to expect. To correct that injustice, the new clause would set out explicitly how the victims code applies in such circumstances, guaranteeing access to practical and emotional support, clear information about processes and the ability to challenge decisions.

The contribution by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) was unusual. As the consistent Government message against the measure has been that the original proposals were too broad, the hon. Lady has thought carefully and brought forward proposals that are narrow, so disagreeing with the Government objection. I will assume that is her sincere reason for objecting to the measure, and that it is nothing to do with the fact that the Whips have told Labour Members they cannot vote for it.

To conclude, there are a range of measures that we support. We welcome their progress in the House, even when they are imperfect. However, the amendments we have proposed about the unduly lenient sentence scheme and victim impact statements are the right measures at the right time. I trust the Minister’s sincerity when she says that she wants to work on those issues, but I do not trust her Government and their ability to deliver on what they say that they will. MPs have been asked by their constituents to back the amendments and I hope that they do—there is no reason not to. I ask all MPs to support our amendments tonight.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I rise to close what has been an excellent debate on the Victims and Courts Bill. As I said in my opening remarks, this House is at its best when we come together and rise above party politics, to put the interests of our constituents first, and that is exactly what we have done. I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the collaborative way in which they have engaged in the debate, as has been seen throughout the passage of the Bill. The Bill is about people: victims and survivors. The Bill has been created and drafted with them at its heart. It is about putting them back at the forefront of the justice system, where they belong, because without them we would have no justice system.

Turning to the amendments that have been proposed, I join the shadow Minister in thanking all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Bill Committee. They really helped to shape the Bill. It is because of their contribution and the strength of feeling of victims, as well as of right hon. and hon. Members in this place and the other place, that we have gone further in extending the measures in the Bill. When I and the Government hear the strength of feeling in the House, we are afraid to act. That is why I have committed at this Dispatch Box to going further again, looking at the unduly lenient sentence scheme and victim impact statements. It is right that the Law Commission is currently looking at the unduly lenient sentence scheme but, as I said in my opening remarks, I will be monitoring that closely as the Bill progresses in the other place. We are looking at how we can best support victims, so that they have representation when they feel that justice has not been fully served.

The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti)—I had the pleasure of meeting with his constituent—raised the four-year time limit. This is a novel measure, and I am grateful to Opposition Front Benchers for their support and for recognising that this is just the beginning. We will not fail to go further, following how this is implemented and the potential consequences for the family courts. This is just the start and if it works, the Government will act and go further, but we need to test this properly.

The hon. Member also asked whether the Bill will capture future children. I can confirm from the Dispatch Box that it will cover all children who exist at the time of sentencing for whom the perpetrator has parental responsibility. We cannot bind future children or children yet to be born. However, necessary safeguards will be in place through the family courts. Should that perpetrator come out of prison and go on to have other children, and should they be at risk, the normal route to strip parental responsibility in the family courts will still exist. Unfortunately, we are unable to bind future, hypothetical children, but this Bill will cover any children who exist at the point of sentencing for whom the perpetrator has parental responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

It is my pleasure to speak on Third Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill. Victims and their families should be at the heart of our justice system. The main goal of the justice system—as well as keeping the public safe—should be to deliver exactly that: justice for victims and their families. All too often, for many years, it has not done that as often as it could. The Bill has presented us with a number of ways in which we can at least improve how the system works by doing more to make life easier for victims and their families, helping to respond to their needs and doing more to give them a voice.

The Bill has brought forward measures to support families and children by restricting the responsibility of parents who are not fit to have a presumption of parental responsibility. It will also see an expanded role and powers for the Victims’ Commissioner. I have seen at first hand the effectiveness of that office under Baroness Newlove and I am sure that her successor will make great use of those new tools. The new measures around the victim contact scheme will also help victims feel like they know what is happening with the criminals who have harmed them, with access to information they have a right to.

I am disappointed, however, that the Government and Labour MPs have refused to accept two clear routes forward to further weight the justice system towards victims and their families. The Opposition’s proposed changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme and the victim personal statement had widespread support from across victims’ advocates, including Justice for Victims, the Victims’ Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and Victim Support. Hon. Members will know that had such a wide coalition come forward with proposals for sensible reform when Labour Members were in opposition, they would not have hesitated to back them. There is simply no good excuse for their having voted against them tonight.

The Bill is important and brings forward a range of important measures, so, as I am sure the Minister would expect, we will not oppose it. I pay tribute again to the victims and victims’ organisations. Most of the measures in the Bill started with them. I hope that Labour MPs will reflect on the measures they are still resisting and, in future stages, reconsider their decisions to vote against them. Those measures would improve the Bill, improve our justice system and help future victims avoid some of the experiences that have forced victims and their families into being campaigners. They do not want to be campaigners; they feel that they have to be. The measures that the Opposition proposed with their support were aimed at stopping other people in future from having to be campaigners.

But let us be clear: these measures and the Bill do not sit in isolation. I said at the outset that victims want justice. For the worst offenders, that means being properly punished by being sent to prison for a long time. I suggest to the Minister and Labour MPs that all the victims these measures are aimed to help, and all the people and campaign groups they speak to in support of these measures, will be appalled that at the same time that the Government are giving this, they are taking away with the other hand in a truly appalling way. Many of the campaigns and measures relate to violence and sexual offences, yet this week the Government will ask MPs to vote through clauses that will allow thousands of violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that that is not true, but more than 60% of rapists sent to prison will get out of prison earlier. Today, we had a discussion of the appalling, mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu. He was convicted of sexual assault. More than 85% of offenders sent to prison—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Mullan, we have to make sure that your speech is in scope of this Bill. I assume that you are coming to a sharp conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

It is in scope, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we are talking about measures that apply—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. If I have confirmed that it is not in scope for Third Reading, then it is not in scope. Conclude swiftly!

[Dr Mullan]

As I have said, many of the measures in the Bill are welcome, but we have to be extremely mindful that what we are doing in other proceedings in this House do not fatally undermine them and end up leaving victims feeling worse off after the positive measures that the Bill has brought forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Sentencing Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 24 and the other amendments that I have tabled on behalf of the Opposition. I regret that we have not had the opportunity to hear from important voices on these incredibly important issues through a full Public Bill Committee. Victims groups of all different kinds care deeply about the measures in this Bill. We not only do not get to hear from them as MPs, but the nature of Committee of the whole House means that we do not have the opportunity to put forward for inclusion a whole range of measures that are worthy of our consideration and a vote in support. Anyone reading the amendment paper will see the richness and range of ideas that just will not get the level of detailed consideration they should. It would have been beneficial, and we may well end up giving this incredibly important Bill less than 15 hours of consideration in this House.

I cannot help but feel that the measures related to early release are so unpalatable that the Government are doing their absolute best to rush this Bill through the House to avoid proper scrutiny. I will try, though, to at least give some time and thought to some of the amendments, even if ultimately we will not be able to vote on them. New clause 12 relates to changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. At present, the ULS scheme allows anyone to appeal most sentences to the Attorney General’s Office if they consider them to be unduly lenient. I and other Members of this House have made use of this scheme, as have others. It can and does lead to sentences being changed, but there are two major problems with the scheme as it operates.

First, too many victims are unaware of the scheme and do not get long enough to make use of it. At this point, I pay tribute to the amazing campaigners who have done so much to raise this issue. Katie Brett secured thousands of signatures to a petition to change the scheme in memory of her sister Sasha. I pay tribute to Ayse Hussein and other members of the Justice for Victims group. The issue has also been raised for many years by Tracey Hanson, who I had the pleasure of meeting recently, in memory of her son Josh Hanson, who was the victim of an appalling murder. I know that other campaigners are similarly inclined. All of them are clear about the fact that the current scheme does not work. Our amendment will require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify victims, and also extend the time available to appeal to up to a year for victims and their families if the victim is deceased.

[Sir John Hayes]

I pay tribute to that campaign, and in particular to my hon. Friend’s commitment to victims, which I know is outstanding. Will he acknowledge, too, that many of the people who suffer are suffering at the hands of repeat criminals—career criminals? Sometimes people who have been let out on licence breach the licence conditions. For instance, in my constituency a young woman was killed by a dangerous driver, on licence, who had been banned from driving. There are many like her, and my hon. Friend is standing for them. Will he therefore impress on the Government that they are letting out people who cause grief, harm and hurt? That is just not good enough.

[Dr Mullan]

As my right hon. Friend says, we can do what we want when it comes to placing conditions on people and expecting them to behave differently, but the only place where we can be sure they are not out committing further offences is prison. Across the board, this measure will let very many serious offenders out of prison earlier, and I shall say more about that towards the end of my speech.

In respect of the undue lenient sentence scheme, the Government have previously said that they will await the outcome of a review of criminal appeals—a review that has already said that the system is working fine, and for the implementation of whose recommendations we have no timetable or plan. The opportunity to make that change is here, and I urge Ministers to take it.

New clause 8 relates to what are clearly unacceptable restrictions on what people can say in victim personal statements, often described as impact statements. This is a further issue that the Justice for Victims group and others have raised. The parents of Sarah Everard, Susan and Jeremy, have made it very clear that the people advising them on their statements were doing their best to act in their best interests, and to help secure the best possible outcome for justice for Sarah, but the system and the rules around this are leading to too many people, like Susan and Jeremy, being told that they cannot say what they should be allowed to say. Glenn and Becky Youens, also from Justice for Victims, had the same experience when making statements about their feelings towards the vile criminals who had killed their precious daughter Violet-Grace. Our new clause will ensure that the Government can help victims to secure the best possible opportunity to say what it is that they want to say, while recognising that the statement is still being made in a court.

New clause 16 is intended to close a loophole that I think all Members agree needs to be closed. Our current sentencing laws require a whole-life order to be passed for those who murder a police or prison officer in the line of duty. That is an important deterrent, and enables the delivery of justice for people who put themselves in harm’s way, dealing with violent criminals, should the worst happen. However, it is clear to me that the courts have not interpreted the meaning of that legislation as I—and, I think, most other Members—would have wanted them to.

In 2024 a former prison officer, Lenny Scott, was murdered. He was murdered by a seriously violent criminal for doing his job as a prison officer. Lenny had bravely stood up to threats from this criminal while he supervised him in prison, as he had reported that he had contraband. Years later, this despicable person came back for his revenge. He was convicted of Lenny’s murder, but the courts decided that the whole-life order tariff did not apply because he had not been actively on duty when the murder took place. I think that is counter to the spirit of the measure. Our new clause would remove the loophole, so that in future if a prison or police officer is murdered because of something they did in their role, whenever that might be, the sentence will be a whole-life order. I imagine that of all the measures we are proposing, that will secure the greatest amount of cross-party support—not at this stage of the Bill, but during future stages in the Lords.

New clause 10 supports greater transparency in our justice system by ensuring that sentencing remarks in the Crown court are available to everyone, and transparency is also at the heart of new clause 9. For too long, for the wrong reasons, we have not been transparent about criminals’ backgrounds. We know that political correctness led to the vile grooming gangs scandal going unchallenged, which should never have been allowed, for many decades. Part of the issue is that we did not have the data and the information that would have enabled us to understand what was happening and who was committing those offences. Why should we not have basic information about criminals that would enable us to have an honest debate about different patterns of criminal behaviour in different communities and different parts of the country, especially when we know that if we refuse to do this—if we refuse to be transparent—all that we do is give fuel to the wrong people? At best, indifference to the need to share this data is looking more and more like a desire to cover up what it might reveal. That has to stop, and our new clause will ensure that it does.

New clause 11 relates to steps that the courts should take to limit parental responsibility for those convicted of child sex offences. In the last Parliament my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) campaigned on this in support of a constituent who met Ministers in that Government to discuss it. In the current Parliament, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has joined the campaign, along with other Members. I understand that yesterday the Government tabled an amendment to the related Victims and Courts Bill, which is due for further consideration, and of course we will look closely at that to consider whether it meets the reasonable expectations of parents seeking to protect their children from child sex offenders. New clauses 13 and 14 also relate to child sex offenders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is now coming to the nub of the issue. There are different views across the House. There are those of us who believe that the justice system should be retributive, that punishment matters and that punishment should fit crime, and there are those who do not. There are those who do not think that the justice system should be punitive, whereas I think that it should be punitive. I think that more people should go to jail and should go for much longer, not just because it is a deterrent but because it signals public outrage at these heinous acts. That is why it matters, and everyone in the House should realise it.

[Dr Mullan]

My right hon. Friend has frequently raised this issue, and we are in violent agreement. In my experience, there is intellectual snobbery towards people who think there is moral value in, and an ethical basis for, punishing people properly. Anyone who talks about that often gets labelled as some bigot who does not understand patterns of criminality and all these other things. Of course they are important to consider, but none of these things means that we should not appropriately punish people. It shocks me that that still remains not part of the statutory purposes of sentencing. Punishing people is important, and we do not consider it enough.

For all the reasons I have set out, this Bill is incredibly important. Today is incredibly important too, because it is the last chance for Back-Bench MPs to decide for themselves which parts of this very significant Bill they will support. Next week we will have Third Reading, where Labour MPs will have no choice but to vote for or against the entire Bill.

We know that a major part of this Bill is the earlier release of nearly all offenders. The Opposition are opposed to the programme as a whole, but it is clear that this Bill is a major part of the Government’s plans to reform sentencing. It would be asking a lot of Labour MPs to ask them to consider voting against the entire programme, but we are not asking them to do that. Our amendment 24 gives Labour MPs the route through which they can most justifiably say to their Whips and the Prime Minister, “No, I can’t support this.” We are asking them to say no and to vote against the early release of rapists, paedophiles, seriously violent criminals, criminals who cause death by dangerous driving and attempted murderers. We are giving Labour MPs a clear route out of doing what would be absolutely unprecedented in the management of offenders in our prisons and a deep insult to the victims of serious violent and sexual crime.

Labour MPs, many of whom I have got to know, work with and respect, will know that I spent the last week trying my utmost to encourage them to avoid being put in a position where the Whips will make them vote to release rapists, paedophiles and serious violent criminals earlier. Most shadow Ministers would happily sit back and watch Labour MPs vote for something that will blight their time in Parliament in the eyes of their constituents, but we have not done that. That is because whatever damage voting for this Bill might do to the electoral prospects of Labour MPs, what is more important to me is that its measures do not go through.

As I have said before, I understand the frustrations that MPs of different parties have had over decades about the resources provided to our justice system and the prison estate. I mentioned on Second Reading that when Labour was last in power, it released more than 80,000 prisoners early because of the capacity issues built up during its time in office. This Government and the last Government have operated similar programmes. I wish that emergency release measures never had to be used, and if—this is a very big “if”—I had ever been Prime Minister or Chancellor during these periods, I would have taken different decisions. But at least these measures have to be announced in the full glare of the public eye, carry a political price and are genuinely legislated for as responses to short-term emergency challenges.

I want Labour MPs to be absolutely clear-eyed about the fact that what we are voting on today is not a short-term response to prison crowding challenges. It is a medium to long-term plan—a decision about how we as a country want to respond to people who commit serious violent and sexual offences. I have never met a victim of a serious violent or sexual offence who thinks that the present system suitably punishes serious offenders. I have never met a victim who thinks that we should let these sorts of people out of prison earlier, but that is what this Bill will do.

On Second Reading, I explained the sorts of offences that are included in these measures. Ministers have said that the very worst offenders will be excluded. Since Second Reading, the Opposition have been able to review sentencing data to try to understand what that means in reality. It highlights a disturbing truth and leaves the Government and any MP who votes for this Bill with a difficult question to answer. Those serving extended determinate sentences and life sentences will be excluded from the early release elements of this Bill, whereas those serving standard determinate sentences will not. Prisoners on standard determinate sentences will have their prison time cut.

Every year, more than 60% of criminals sent to prison for rape are on a standard determinate sentence. Over 90% of criminals sent to prison for child grooming are on a standard determinate sentence. Around half of criminals sent to prison for attempted murder are on a standard determinate sentence. Hundreds of criminals guilty of child rape and sexual assault, including rape of children under 13, are in prison on standard determinate sentences. In total, more than 6,500 criminals sent to prison every year for serious violent, sexual and other offences are given determinate sentences. If Labour MPs vote against our amendment 24, every single one of those criminals will be able to get out of prison earlier. Labour MPs will be voting to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier.

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

indicated dissent.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister shakes his head. If he wants to intervene and explain why that is not the case, he can. No, he is not going to do so.

Let us be clear: earlier releases will not be done on a retrospective basis. When the measure is enacted, every criminal in prison at that point in time will be able to benefit from these measures, including thousands of serious criminals. It is very clear to me that what is being said by Ministers—I anticipate that they will say the same later in defence of these plans—is in danger of misleading MPs. As it stands, Labour MPs will have to vote in support of the Government’s position that the most serious offenders are excluded. I invite MPs to reflect on how the Justice Secretary can possibly say that any rape—let alone hundreds of them—is not one of the most serious offences. Will Labour MPs who vote against amendment 24 tonight be able to say to survivors of child sex abuse that they supported a Government who wanted to classify thousands of child sex offences as not being the most serious offences?

The Government have said that earlier releases will have to be earned through good behaviour, but that is simply not true. I appreciate that it can be difficult to always believe what MPs from Opposition parties are saying, but MPs do not need to take my word for it. The House of Commons Library briefing note on this Bill is there in black and white for everyone to read. It says:

“As currently drafted, the provisions of the bill do not bring in any new criteria for people to adhere to prior to being released at the one third or halfway point, or any discretionary elements to release.”

I will repeat that: the Bill’s provisions do not bring in any new criteria.

Labour MPs need not look any further than emergency release measures and contrast them with this permanent, long-term change to find evidence that the Government’s approach is totally unprecedented. The SDS40 scheme and other schemes that have come before and sat alongside it have many more exclusions—for example, sex offenders—yet this permanent, non-emergency approach does not. What Ministers have been telling Labour MPs to secure their support is not accurate, which should always make Back-Bench MPs wary. If the Government are making inaccurate statements about a measure in a Bill that they want MPs to support because they cannot face the reality of what it does, then MPs should think very carefully about voting for it, because there is no going back. They will have to defend that decision.

This morning, I emailed every single Labour MP the Library briefing note so that they could see it for themselves, regardless of whether they listen to this debate. Ignorance will be no excuse, because today will not be the end of it. I guarantee Members that the harsh reality is that history tells us that some of the criminals whom Labour MPs are being asked to vote to release will almost certainly commit further serious offences, at a time when they would otherwise have been locked up. MPs will then have to explain why they voted for non-emergency changes that let such people out earlier. I would not be surprised if one of these cases is sufficiently serious that the Government amend the Bill’s measures in future, in response to a public backlash. There is every chance that they will make Labour MPs go through the Lobby tonight and vote for the indefensible, and then at some point pull the rug from under them. I appreciate that a lot of Labour Members are new to this place, and they can speak to longer-serving Members about how it will make them look when they are forced to follow a line that is later withdrawn.

I have made our position clear, and I have set out the consequences. MPs voting against our amendment 24 this evening will be voting to reduce jail time for extremely violent criminals, paedophiles, child groomers and rapists. I have done as much as I can to stop that happening. Ministers are resorting to saying things about the Bill’s measures that are inaccurate to secure support from their Back Benchers, and MPs should not let them get away with it. We have set out clearly how our amendment would ensure that appalling criminals do not see their punishment cut. I know it is difficult for Back Benchers to stand up to the Government and say no, but if we do not, thousands of the worst criminals will get out of prison earlier.

Labour MPs now have to decide whether to vote for what victims of child abuse, family members of people killed by dangerous drivers, victims of rape and others want—victims whom many of them care about—or for what the Prime Minister and his Whips want. Tell the Prime Minister no, tell the Whips no, and vote for our amendment tonight.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I will try to make my remarks fairly brief—not because I am against short sentences, but because I recognise that there are time pressures. I would like to record my support for three amendments to the Bill in the form of new clauses 2 to 4. I might say that I agreed with virtually everything that my good friend my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell]

I broadly agree with the hon. Member on the overall topic: we should look at whether those offences are dealt with with sufficient severity. I also agree that the impact on people’s families cannot be overstated.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Russell]

I will make some progress and speak to amendment 31 to clause 6. That clause is the one that I am most proud of. It was the result of cross-party work between the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and the Government Front Bench and it needs to be given the prominence it deserves.

For the first time, the clause will enable the recording and tracking of when domestic abuse is a factor in an offence. Amendment 31, which I support, discusses the ability to call for evidence as to whether there has been domestic abuse. I start from the fundamental position that we should believe women on domestic abuse—I add that victims are predominantly, though by no means exclusively, female. None the less, I also strongly believe in the rule of law and the importance of having evidence. That is why I have sponsored the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) will more thoroughly address new clauses 28 and 29, which are about gambling treatment being considered on a par with treatment for drugs and alcohol in the courts. Those on the Conservative Benches have suggested that Government Members are in some way anti-punishment. We are not. I absolutely believe that crime should be punished, but I also absolutely believe that rehabilitation services are critical to preventing the recurrence of crime. When 80% of criminal offending is reoffending, we have to look seriously at how we break those cycles of offending. I welcome and applaud the clauses put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. Gambling creates significant social problems in our society and when that extends to crime, we need solutions.

New clauses 15 and 24 both address the potential abolition of the Sentencing Council. The language with which they have been addressed by Opposition Members today has been a bit more circumspect than some of what we have heard them say previously about the Sentencing Council in this Chamber. Our judges in the UK are some of the best in the world. The independence of our judiciary is an absolutely fundamental premise of our democracy, and the way in which it has been talked about recently treats it with complete disdain. That terrifies me. It is one of the most important principles that our country stands upon.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said that the Conservatives still respect the independence of the rule of law, but I have heard Members on those Benches refer to lefty activist judges as if somehow the judiciary in Britain were populated by radical Marxists. That is not the case. I am a lawyer and I spent 13 years in practice. I have never met a judge who was anything but genuinely committed to the apolitical upholding of the law. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is incredibly important that we continue to recognise and promote those principles. I say that partly from a genuine ideological position and partly from experience.

Britain has exported £9.5 billion in legal services in the last year. One of the reasons for that level of success is that there is genuine belief in our judiciary—people in multiple jurisdictions across the world trust that our judges will hear disputes impartially. When we talk like Conservative Members have in a criminal or civil context, we damage not only our institutions but our economy. We have to understand the importance of the British rule of law and we need to promote and uphold it at all costs. Those who do not do so damage our country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Dr Mullan]

Does the hon. Member think it appropriate for an immigration judge to support and advocate for a charity that is actively trying to stop asylum laws being implemented? Should an immigration judge be involved in an organisation like that?

[Sarah Russell]

I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Member refers, which makes it impossible for me to give an informed comment by return. None the less, I can genuinely say, speaking from 13 or 14 years’ experience practising as a solicitor before I came to this place, as well as a lot of time spent in the Labour party and meeting leftie people, that the two did not really overlap. They just did not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Pochin]

We proposed an amendment to remove clause 20 all together. The clause proposes to reduce the time served of a custodial sentence from a half to a third in order to free up prison capacity. This means that dangerous criminals who have been locked up for some of the worst possible offences, including paedophiles, could be let back into the community after serving only a third of their sentence behind bars. Only the most serious offenders, including those convicted of rape, will serve half their sentences in jail, reduced from two thirds. [Interruption.]

[Dr Mullan]

As the hon. Lady is laying out the reality, Government Members are chuntering and suggesting that what she is saying is not true, so may I point out that the Library briefing clearly says that those with sentences of over four years for a violent or sexual offence who are currently released at the two thirds point of sentence would be released at the halfway point under the new provisions? That is a fact.

[Sarah Pochin]

I thank shadow Minister for supporting me on that point.

I turn to clauses 24, 36 and 37 with respect to licences. These clauses all give powers to the Probation Service to reduce the length of a community order imposed by the judge or magistrate. The Probation Service is underfunded and overstretched already, and the real risk is that offenders will have their requirements reduced by probation officers in order to free up capacity in the service. The probation officer already has discretion on the number of days of rehabilitation required, and it is dangerous to give any more quasi-judicial power to the Probation Service.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly in the tradition of community service as it was founded and developed over the years, but the experiments with privatisation have been a disaster. There is an argument that once a system starts using the private sector, as in America, offenders become economic units for exploitation and profiteering. The Justice Unions Parliamentary Group warns that we should not venture down that path, both as a result of historical failures, and given what has happened in other countries when the private sector has been able to use offenders in that way. The new clause is about returning to the traditional community service approach in this country. It was relatively effective, but in this new Sentencing Bill, which we welcome, it will be expanded on a scale perhaps not envisaged in the past. It is as simple as that.

[Dr Mullan]

The right hon. Member is well known for his long-term support for the Prison Officers Association. While he is on his feet, will he commit to supporting our new clause 16, which would close the loophole relating to whole life orders for the murder of prison officers?

[John McDonnell]

I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. This is about the only time I have disagreed with it. I will not support that measure, although I understand where it is coming from, and I understand that there may well be a review of sentencing, and what is taken into account, when these actions tragically occur. To have a mandatory sentence like that would most probably not be appropriate, although the shadow Minister is right that the Prison Officers Association has argued strongly for the measure, and I respect that.

My final point relates not to new clause 3, but to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) on the naming and shaming of offenders and the idea that offenders’ photographs will be publicised locally. He suggests in his amendments that there should be much wider consultation on the issue, and probation officers are saying exactly the same thing. A lot of their role in rehabilitation is about ensuring that people have a connection with their families once again. They are concerned about the effect that naming and shaming has on the family, and in particular the children. Sometimes, the family serves the sentence alongside the offender, and we would not want any actions taken that increase the stigma for family members of offenders. If the Government are going down this path, there is a need for more detailed and widespread consultation and discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I had not intended to start this way but I will do so, following the last remarks by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) about acquired brain injury. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, and we recently held a session specifically on the relationship between acquired brain injury and the criminal justice system. She is quite right to emphasise that. I will say no more in detail about it, except to refer the Minister to the report that we published, which includes a section on criminal justice and acquired brain injury.

Beyond that, in talking about the fundamental consideration of this Bill, I want to speak about the facts, the reasons for them, their effects and the alternative, very much in the spirit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke in when moving her amendment. I recommend her amendments, almost without reservation. They are a bold attempt to rescue the Bill from the damage it might do. I do not claim that that damage is intentional, because I do not think that anyone in this House intends to do harm—we would not be here if we did. None the less, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said, harm, whether unintended or otherwise, will be the result of this legislation.

It is undeniable, I am afraid, that the Government present to the House a paradox. On one hand, they say that this Bill is necessary because of practicalities, including the inadequate number of prison places. That is a plausible argument, because the prison population has grown, as we heard earlier in the debate, and we simply do not have enough places to accommodate all those who might be sent to prison. On the other hand, they say that it is a matter of principle, and they tell us that short sentences do not work. In doing so, they are conceding to the rehabilitationist argument that has pervaded criminal justice thinking and criminology more generally for the whole of my lifetime. I remember that when I was studying criminology at university, there was exactly that narrative. Other academics challenged it: Philip Bean, the criminologist, wrote a definitive book called “Rehabilitation and Deviance”, in which he made the case for just retribution. The public certainly believe that the criminal justice system should be retributive.

[Dr Mullan]

My right hon. Friend is talking about a contradiction in the Government’s position, but is there not another one? Labour Members and Ministers in particular talk about the volume of people who are going to be released as a result of their measures, but whenever they are confronted with examples of actual offences committed by the sorts of offenders they will be letting go, they always say, “Well, it wouldn’t apply to them.” The Government cannot have it both ways: either a lot of people are getting out of prison, including some of these people, or they are not. They have to make up their mind.

[Sir John Hayes]

It is certainly true that a very significant proportion of criminals are repeat offenders, and there are people who choose to live a life of crime. This is not an illness to be treated; it is a malevolent choice to be dealt with through punishment, because we need to punish people for doing harm. That is not complicated—it is what all our constituents would take as read—yet, as I say, we seem to agonise about it perpetually.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful, Madam Chairman.

[Dr Mullan]

This is very much still on topic. The challenge with the argument that Labour Members put forward on rehabilitation is that it presupposes that all we need to do is put someone on a drug rehabilitation course once, and they will stop offending and it is all fantastic. The evidence shows the complete opposite. Even the very best drug rehabilitation courses that money can buy at the Priory have a long-term success rate of about 50%. In reality, whatever we do, some of these offenders are going down a path from which they will not be turned for a significant length of time, and that is when we have to put them in prison.

[Sir John Hayes]

I do agree with my hon. Friend.

Just stepping back a moment, Ms Ghani, I am mindful that the only female Speaker we have ever had once famously declared, “Call me Madam”, so I will from now on call you Madam Chairman rather than anything else.

It is certainly true that we need a war against drugs, drug dealing and all the effects of drugs, but it would be quite wrong to separate that from the public desire to see people who do bad things dealt with appropriately. When those bad things are at their extreme, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton pointed out, we are speaking of extremes—acts of violence against women, minors and, let us face it, men—they need to be dealt with with severity. There is nothing wrong with saying that because it is what most people intuitively feel, and it is right that they do. Grotius, the jurist, once said that criminal justice was about

“the infliction of an ill suffered for an ill done”,

and that sense that the punishment must fit the crime rings true now, as it did when he made that observation.

The Minister needs to explain whether the Bill is about practicalities or principle. I have yet to determine which position the Government have taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I am going to speak in favour of Government new clause 1, but I first want to take the opportunity to mention the Conservatives party’s record in government. A lot has been made during this debate about the prisons that were built during the last Government, so let us place it on record that, between 2010 and 2024, there was a net addition of 482 prison places. If that is a record that the Conservatives are proud to stand on, I will happily give it to them.

Secondly, a lot has been said about lefty lawyers. I would like to draw to the Chamber’s attention that, almost two years ago to the day, the then Conservative Lord Chancellor—presumably a well-known lefty lawyer—spoke about suspended sentences. Of reoffending rates, he said:

“The fact is that more than 50% of people who leave prison after serving less than 12 months go on to commit further crimes…However, the figure for those who are on suspended sentence orders with conditions is 22%.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 60.]

It is important that we understand what we are talking about when we are talking about suspended sentences. That point is relevant to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) as well.

[Dr Mullan]

I did try to explain that there is a difference between association and causality. The hon. Member is comparing two different cohorts. If she were to match the cohorts properly, the difference in reoffending rates is nothing like that; it is more like 3% or 4%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I begin by thanking all those who have contributed to this important debate about sentencing policy and the future of our criminal justice system. Before I turn to the specifics of various amendments, there are two overarching principles that inform this piece of legislation and the Government’s position today. The first is the legacy that this Government inherited from the Conservative party, with prisons at breaking point, the risk that the most serious offenders would avoid arrest or custody altogether, and the need for emergency action to release offenders early to avoid the prison system collapsing. That was the conclusion of 14 years of Tory failure. Alongside the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era, this Sentencing Bill fixes that mess—under this Government, never again.

Secondly, while we stabilise the system that was so shamefully vandalised by the previous Tory Government, we can build a better justice system—one that protects the public and reduces reoffending. This Government will prioritise punishment, but punishment that works, not the broken system we have today. That is why we are introducing important measures on short custodial sentences, which robust evidence shows will reduce offending, save the taxpayer money and assist with the prison capacity crisis. Fixing the mess we inherited and building a more robust and effective justice system are at the heart of today’s Bill.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition and the shadow Justice team. I am simply aghast at the chutzpah of the Conservative party on justice issues. The piece of legislation we are considering is only before the Committee today because of the mess that the Tories left behind. Whereas they turned their backs on the mounting crisis, this Government will not shrink from the challenges we face, however difficult they may be.

Amendment 24 would undermine a central purpose of the legislation, which is to solve the Tory prisons capacity crisis. Let me be absolutely clear: what victims of crime and our communities fear the most is the situation the Tories left behind, in which criminals—murderers, rapists and child abusers—might not face prison at all because the Tories left our system teetering on the brink, without the capacity to lock up even the most serious offenders. We will not apologise for the measures in this Bill that clear up their mess.

The inspiration for the changes that the Tories oppose is the earned progression model from Texas, where crime has been slashed by improving rehabilitation and cutting reoffending. Tackling reoffending and boosting efforts to rehabilitate offenders used to be Conservative policies; indeed, the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who is not in his normal place, used to believe in rehabilitation and initiatives to cut reoffending. Eight years ago, when I think he was still a one-nation Cameroon, he argued that

“the statutory definition of the purpose of a prison”

should

“include rehabilitation and reform”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 850.]

Now he opposes every single measure in this Bill that furthers that cause. He was a moderate; now, he is a pound-shop populist. One wonders whether he believes in anything other than his campaign to become Leader of the Opposition—simply not serious, Madam Chair.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister has described what is in the Bill as an earned progression model. I have read out to the Committee the independent Library briefing note, which says that progression will not be earned; it will be automatic. On what basis is the Minister continuing to describe it as an earned model?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I am always happy to pay tribute to the brilliant “Loose Women”, and, diary permitting, I will be there at 12.30 pm with the hon. Gentleman. Their campaign has been serious and has had a real effect, and we are very grateful to them.

Offenders who pose a greater risk are already excluded from the measures in the Bill, including those recalled on account of being charged with a further offence—such as, importantly, an offence relating to a breach of a civil domestic violence protection order—and those subject to multi-agency supervision levels 2 and 3, which apply to many sexual violence and domestic abuse offenders. These offenders can only receive a standard recall.

New clause 36, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), builds on the work of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. It would require the courts to treat any offence involving domestic abuse as aggravated. Again, I recognise and sympathise with the intent behind the new clause, but domestic abuse is already treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing through the guidelines that make it clear that judges should consider domestic abuse as increasing the seriousness of an offence, allowing for tougher sentences where appropriate. We believe that any change might complicate the sentencing framework unnecessarily, without any real practical benefit.

Let me now deal with the issue of driving offences. We have heard many powerful speeches, including one from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who also made a powerful speech on Second Reading. He is not currently in the Chamber—oh, he is here, but he has changed, and is looking very dapper. I have had a brief conversation with him about some of his proposals. While we do not support the mandatory ban for careless and dangerous driving that results in death, I am determined to look at it, along with my colleagues at the Department for Transport. I was shocked by some of the statistics that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) produced on Second Reading, and in meetings that I have had with them since then. I want to get into the details, but there is certainly more that we can do, and I know that other Members have raised important cases in this connection. I will be looking at measures that we can take to strengthen driving bans, on an interim and permanent basis, for the most reckless offenders. Again, I praise all the Members who have made such powerful speeches today, some of them on behalf of constituents who have suffered significant tragedies.

New clauses 28 and 29 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I have met her twice to discuss the new clauses and the policy aims that sit behind them. I commend her for tabling them, raising the importance of tackling the hidden harms of problematic gambling, and for her ongoing collaboration on this topic. Let me briefly explain the ways in which we already identify and support those with gambling issues, and how we are seeking to increase the support that we provide.

Pre-sentencing reports help the courts to identify underlying issues such as harmful gambling, mental health problems and addiction, which may influence offending behaviour. Mental health conditions and addictions can be taken into account at sentencing, and courts are encouraged to take an individualised approach, particularly when the condition contributes to the offending. Where individuals demonstrate a commitment to address those issues, courts may consider community sentence treatment requirements, and in particular mental health treatment requirements, as part of a community or suspended sentence order. This can be undertaken only with the consent of the individual, and new clause 28 as drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South provides for the treatment to be mandatory, which is an issue. As I have discussed with her, there is the issue of the scale of demand and the current lack of any reliable data on how this would look in the criminal justice system. That is why I have already committed to work with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care—indeed, I have been in correspondence with them just this week—to ensure that the Ministry of Justice is involved in the developing work on gambling addiction treatment and use of the statutory levy that is led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

I will briefly deal with new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Clacton, who did not bother to turn up for any of the debate. His new clause would introduce automatic deportation for foreign nationals who are given sentences of at least six months. Although the state would be forced to seek the deportation of an individual in such circumstances, that individual would clearly have cause for challenge—not just on ECHR grounds but, in particular, on the grounds of judicial review and proportionality, which has been a long-held principle of common law in this country for hundreds of years.

Let me be clear: this Government are urgently removing foreign national offenders, with removals up by 14% since we came into office. Through Government new clause 1, we are extending the Home Secretary’s duty to deport under the UK Borders Act 2007 to foreign nationals who are given a suspended sentence of at least 12 months. Upholding our values and keeping our nation safe is a priority, and new clause 1 sends a clear message. Regardless of whether a court chooses to impose an immediate custodial sentence or pass a suspended sentence, if the sentence is for a period of at least 12 months, it is sufficiently serious to merit automatic deportation. New clause 25, tabled by Reform, would make a mockery of our efforts more generally, putting scant resource into needless litigation and often unnecessary deportations—another Reform policy that crashes and burns on contact with reality.

I will briefly speak about new clause 27 and the powerful story told by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about her constituent Sophie. It is an issue that first came across my desk as part of preparations for Committee. Although the Government are absolutely determined to deport foreign offenders for serious offences, the risk assessment in her new clause may inhibit the Government’s efforts in that regard. This is something that I will look at very closely in the coming weeks, and I hope that I can have a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss the details and how we can make it work.

I want to raise briefly the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on tool theft, which has been such an important part of the reforms to the sentencing and criminal justice policy. Her efforts have been successful.

Today’s debate, which has lasted nearly four hours, shows that the dividing line in British politics is increasingly clear: it is between those who recognise the tough choices facing our country and are willing to make them in order to clean up the mess left behind by the last Tory Government, and the unserious, populist Opposition carping from the sidelines.

[Dr Mullan]

I am sure the Minister will hope that Back Benchers have listened closely to what he has said, but more important is what he has not said. The Government have been briefing journalists that what we were saying about rapists and paedophiles getting out earlier was not true, and they have told the same to a number of Labour Back Benchers. To be clear, can the Minister put on the record whether any rapists or paedophiles serving standard determinate sentences will be released earlier as a result of this Bill—yes or no?

[Jake Richards]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, sentencing decisions are for the judiciary. Every single offence in his amendment 24 can be given an extended determinate sentence. As I have said before—I will say it again—what victims of crime fear the most is the situation that this Government inherited, in which we were running out of prison places and the most serious offenders might not have faced prison at all. Bizarrely, the shadow Justice Minister said earlier in the debate, “If I had been Prime Minister or Chancellor, this wouldn’t have happened.” Well, you were not, I am afraid. A lot of you lot had a go at being Chancellor or Prime Minister, and none of you did a good job.

Draft Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 General Committees

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The draft order will increase the limits on the overall compensation that may be paid to individuals who have suffered a miscarriage of justice and are eligible for compensation under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or the Armed Forces Act 2006.

As the Minister said, in simple terms, the measure will raise the maximum amount that can be awarded to someone whose conviction has been quashed after serving time in custody. The existing caps, which have been in place since 2008, are £1 million for those who have spent 10 years or more in qualifying detention, and £500,000 in other cases. The draft order increases those limits by 30% to £1.3 million and £650,000, respectively. It also makes corresponding changes to ensure that the civilian and armed forces compensation schemes remain aligned.

When the state deprives someone of their liberty and it later transpires that they were innocent, the damage done to their life is profound. No amount of money can make up for the lost years and lost relationships, but the law rightly recognises that society owes something to such individuals. Those who have suffered a miscarriage of justice deserve to be treated with dignity and fairness, which includes ensuring that compensation is not eroded by inflation or the passage of time. It has been 17 years since the caps were first introduced, and their real value has inevitably diminished. The draft order is the Government’s approach to addressing that, and the Opposition have nothing further to add to what the Minister said in that regard.

Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I begin by warmly congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this important debate. He set out with characteristic thoughtfulness the context for today’s discussion: the pressures facing our criminal courts and the enormous impact on victims, as a number of Members pointed out, and the far-reaching recommendations in Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that the House should have a meaningful opportunity to examine the principles at stake and the implications of the reforms.

Turning to the Leveson review, I acknowledge the serious intent with which Sir Brian approached the task. His report contains thoughtful proposals: consistency in the use of out-of-court disposals; updating legal aid to better recognise work done at plea and trial preparation hearings, as has been pointed out; and changes to permission to appeal, giving more options for defendants to elect to have a judge-led trial. But several recommendations raised profound constitutional and practical concerns. Sir Brian proposes removing the right to elect to have a jury trial for some 220 offences and allowing more judge-only trials in the Crown court. He also recommends raising the sentence discount for an early guilty plea from one third to 40%. At the heart of this debate is a simple but serious problem. The approach to the problem is being tackled the wrong way round.

Sir Brian Leveson’s part 1 report focuses on radical reform proposals, as I have discussed, to do with jury trials, discounts for guilty pleas and creating a new Crown court bench division. Yet the efficiency review, part 2 of Sir Brian’s work, which will look at technology, workforce capacity, case progression and the better use of the court estate, has not even been published. We are being asked to consider endorsing fundamental structural change, including the curtailing of a centuries-old constitutional right, without seeing the full picture. The Government will struggle to build support for changes that should only be considered as a last resort, when they have not even set out the full range of options before us, and we cannot consider such a Bill in isolation. The proposals for early discounts for guilty pleas would sit alongside plans to let offenders serve only one third of their custodial sentences. What a mockery of justice that would make. In fact, the vast majority of what Sir Brian himself identifies as necessary to address the backlog can be achieved without altering the constitutional foundations of our courts. He is clear that we should focus on maximising sitting days, using the existing judiciary and estate to their full potential, and improving case management.

Those who have experience of Government—such as the sponsoring Member of this debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam—will recognise that there is a real risk that, in setting out to create a whole new Crown court bench division, as proposed in part 1, we would divert both ministerial and judicial energy away from the urgent task of improving and expanding the capacity that we already have. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), has highlighted that it will require some 6,000 more magistrates, a point also echoed by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne).

Establishing new structures consumes time, money and management focus that should instead be directed towards using every courtroom and sitting day available to reduce the backlog that is paralysing the system. The backlog in the Crown court is now up 10% from when this Government took office just over a year ago. It has increased by 2% since March alone, when it first passed 75,000. Since Labour entered office in July 2024, the backlog has grown by more than 7,400 cases.

The former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), claimed that she had taken every possible measure to tackle the backlog, but the facts tell a very different story. In August 2024, the judiciary confirmed that they could sit for up to 113,000 days in 2024-25, yet the then Justice Secretary chose not to fund that capacity. Instead, she initially supported only an additional 500 sitting days in September and then a further 2,000 in December—a drip by drip increase in capacity.

The Government deliberately decided not to fund the courts to sit at full capacity, leaving 4,500 potential sitting days on the table. The Lady Chief Justice took the extraordinary step of telling the Justice Committee that the initial decision to limit Crown court sitting days had,

“frankly had a drastic effect across the board”

causing the “most distressing time” for victims and staff alike.

Even after facing this public criticism, the former Justice Secretary’s response was inadequate. In March 2025, the Ministry of Justice announced that the total would rise to 110,000 sitting days, still below the full 113,000 available. So much for every possible measure.

Sir Brian’s report is clear: the most important step is to add 20,000 extra sitting days per year, reaching 130,000. That would mean tens of thousands more victims finally receiving justice in a timely manner. It requires commitment across the system, but above all, leadership from Government. Instead of focusing on efficiency and capacity, Ministers risk being sidetracked by structural reform.

Part 2 of the review will show how to achieve efficiencies through technology, leadership and better use of the estate. Yet the Government seem intent on pressing ahead with reforms that water down key rights before those recommendations are even known. Whatever the Government might say, the Conservatives in office had to tackle the single biggest barrier to the delivery of justice when the pandemic hit. Labour Members would be taking the public for fools if they think they can convince them—given their record in government so far—that it would all have been different under them. Prior to the pandemic, we actually got the backlog down lower than the level it had been during Labour’s previous period in office.

We inherited a backlog of 47,000 cases and got that down to 39,000 before the pandemic hit. During the pandemic we kept jury trials running, a decision that the Labour Opposition supported at the time. We opened and extended 20 Nightingale courts, appointed 1,000 additional judges and raised the judicial retirement age. We also allocated £220 million for the modernisation and repair of court buildings and, crucially, removed the cap on Crown court sitting days—something Labour has still not done in its period in office.

In just 15 months under Labour, we have seen drift and indecision. Despite inheriting a recovery plan, Ministers have allowed the backlog to worsen, as I have outlined. Even Sir Brian acknowledges that curtailing jury trials would only at best have a limited effect on the backlog, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and other Members, and in fact represents just 0.2% of the Department’s budget. That is a negligible return for an erosion of centuries of civic participation in justice.

The better course is clear: make full use of existing court capacity, build greater capacity, employ modern case management tools and strengthen the legal profession’s ability to progress cases swiftly, not rewrite our constitutional settlement. We will continue to make that case as any legislation is brought before this House.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing a debate on this crucial subject, and for the typical expertise and measured, analytical tone that he brings to it. I thought, until the speech of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), that something of a consensus had broken out among us. To quote the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, “something must be done about it”—I think we can all agree on that.

In the opening words of part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, he tells us that

“Criminal justice is in crisis.”

Indeed, it is. This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. As of June 2025, the open Crown court caseload stood at over 79,000 cases and it is rising. Other hon. Members have spoken to the human impact of that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for raising her constituent’s case. It is a graphic illustration of the impact of the Crown court backlog bequeathed to us by the previous Government, and particularly the impact of the appalling delays on victims.

The backlog not only places a psychological strain on victims, disrupting their ability to function, work and maintain relationships; it corrodes justice, because many of those victims—and indeed witnesses—pull out of the process, meaning that trials become ineffective. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it also has an impact on defendants—those who are accused of a crime—as well as on our prisons, and on all those who serve within the system. It creates increasingly perverse incentives to exploit the delays and ultimately undermines the public’s confidence in justice. As many hon. Members have said, justice delayed is justice denied.

I reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that this Government have sat idly by. Far from it. We inherited a crisis, in both our prisons and our courts, and we have gripped that crisis. It is a fact that, as of today, the Government have added record, historic numbers of sitting days for our courts: 5,000 sitting days more than the number allocated by the previous Government. As other hon. Members have pointed out, we have invested in the workforce crucial to running our criminal courts, and in our solicitors, with an additional £92 million in legal aid on top of a £24 million investment in our duty solicitors. We also, of course, commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of our greatest jurists, to undertake his review. If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had bothered to read beyond the first couple of paragraphs of the 388-page report—

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will conclude my point, then give way.

Sir Brian tells us that “greater financial investment”—which by the way, the Government have already begun to make—

“on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”

That is a premise that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam set out in his remarks, and it is absolutely right. We cannot sit our way out of this crisis. Of course, additional sitting days are part of the solution but, as Sir Brian Leveson and his team have told us, greater financial investment—namely sitting days on their own, without systemic reform—cannot solve the crisis. The Government will heed that lesson.

[Dr Mullan]

Just for information, I have read the whole report and it does not do the Minister justice, given her usual, sensible approach, to suggest that the fact I and many other hon. Members, including some in her own party, do not agree with her means that we have not read the report.

[Sarah Sackman]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member has read the report. I was not seeking to politicise the discussion. It sounded like, in many respects—other than the issue of jury trials, to which I will turn in due course—there had been an outbreak of consensus that something needed to be done. I want to draw attention to the central premise of Sir Brian Leveson’s report: that, in and of itself, greater financial investment—which of course is a necessary ingredient—will be insufficient to dig our way out of this crisis.

Grip is needed, and it is grip that the Government are showing. Three strands are required. One is investment. That is a question of the number of sitting days. As I said, we are setting record numbers of sitting days. That requires investment in our workforce and, as other hon. Members have pointed out, investment in the infrastructure of justice—investment in the court estate.

Sentencing Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Dangerous and reckless driving that takes innocent lives is a serious and painful issue that causes lots of anguish across our country, so I applaud the work of the hon. Member’s constituents and thank him for raising that issue; no doubt it can be explored further in Committee.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the new Justice Secretary will not want to be accused of misleading the House on such important matters. A moment ago, he referred to the measures before the House not affecting the sentences for people accused of “the gravest crimes”. The measures before the House will reduce sentences for rapists and child abusers. He either thinks that those are grave crimes and wants to correct the record, or he does not—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That is quite simply not a point of order but a point of debate, which the shadow Secretary of State could well come to in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge]

I agree that retail premises need relief from that shoplifting, but I would like that relief to be permanent. I would like to see the causes of shoplifting stopped, and quite often that is drug use and organised criminal behaviour. I do not want just to chuck people in prison for a bit and then let them out to reoffend again.

We need sentences that give offenders proper access to drug and alcohol rehab and mental health care—the kind of support that tackles the root causes of crime. We need sentences that ensure the offender pays back their debt to society. Public safety is the bottom line here. Judges will have discretion to hand out prison sentences of less than 12 months, say, for domestic abusers or violent offenders. They will be able to make sure that survivors have the confidence to rebuild their lives knowing that the perpetrator is behind bars. Rapists and criminals who commit other serious sexual offences will spend their custodial term in prison.

[Dr Mullan]

Rapists and sexual offenders will spend less time in prison as a result of this Bill. Does she know that?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the Bill is correct. I understand that perhaps he has some personal experience here and I appreciate that he has very strong feelings on the matter. Perhaps he will listen again to my former prison officer, who welcomed the changes.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I will not give way—[Interruption.] I think the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not showing the House the respect it deserves—[Interruption.] I would appreciate it if he would allow me to continue without this continuous chuntering.

At their core, these reforms do two things at once. They keep the most dangerous offenders where they belong, in prison, protecting the public, and they end the waste of locking up low-risk offenders. The evidence is really clear. I know that the Conservatives really struggle when the evidence contradicts their instincts and their prejudices, but it is simply true. The hon. Gentleman disagreeing does not make it any less true.

The victims of crime in my constituency deserve better than this current crumbling justice system. They deserve better than our overstuffed prisons that just churn out more and more criminals. They deserve this Sentencing Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I am grateful to colleagues on all sides of the House for their contributions to the debate, and I welcome the Minister to his post—I think today is his first time at the Dispatch Box. As I have said before, wanting to see more consistent delivery of justice for victims of serious crime was one of the primary reasons I sought election to this place, and I do not think that any Government in my lifetime has universally delivered that. For decades, across parties, our justice system has fallen short far too often. I am sure that many Members from all parties can relate to the experience of hearing about some of the most horrific crimes that take place and being appalled by the sentences given. That is not new, but the question we have to ask ourselves today is whether the Bill we are considering will make the situation worse or better. Will more victims get what we would consider justice as a result of this Bill, or fewer?

Since this Labour Government came to power, we have quite rightly been holding them for account for the measures they have already taken to let people out of prison earlier. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar with the consistent debate we have had about pressure on prison places, where responsibility for that lies, and what can be done about it. Labour Members point to our prison-building record, while I point out to them that the pressure on the prison system left by the last Labour Government was worse, and that there are other options for foreign nationals and the remand population. A lot of heat is generated, but there is not much more to it. Labour Members point out that they have had to take emergency steps, and it is true that the measures they have taken have not been permanent changes to our sentencing framework. However, I say to them that the Bill we are considering today does something very different.

As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and others have demonstrated, I am not sure that Labour Members fully recognise what the Government are asking them to support today. There are measures to be welcomed in this Bill—the new restriction zones and the measures to better track domestic abuse cases, which the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), also supported—but there are a number of reasons why I do not support the Bill. We have heard Members including the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), raise criticisms relating to short sentences, community sentences, Parole Board reform, probation and the Sentencing Council, but I am not surprised that Labour Members do not agree with those criticisms.

However, I do not believe Labour Members can sincerely think what I am about to talk about is something they would knowingly want to support. I am going to read out a list of offences: rape; assault by penetration; rape of a child under 13; assault of a child under 13 by penetration; inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13; kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence; and creating or possessing indecent photographs of children. I hope Labour Members felt as uncomfortable being forced to consider those offences and what they entail as I did while reading them out. I am going to read them again: rape; assault by penetration; rape of a child under 13; assault of a child under 13 by penetration; inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13; kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence; and creating or possessing indecent photographs of children. In fact, there are even more of those sorts of offences that we need to have in mind this evening.

Why do we need to consider these offences? Because despite what some Labour Members have said to the contrary—without ill will, I accept—and for all the things it does that Members might support, the Bill we are considering this evening will mean one thing for the vile criminals who commit those sorts of offences. It will mean that they are let out of prison earlier, not as a temporary measure in response to the kind of short-term prison crowding challenge that we have debated and recognised, but as a permanent and profound change to our sentencing laws.

Members who support this Bill will be putting their name to legislation that will forever change our sentencing laws to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier. The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) talked about legacy. I cannot honestly believe that Government Members want to support a Bill that will allow rapists and paedophiles to get out of prison earlier. That is not political posturing or hyperbole or scaremongering, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) described it. It is not an unfair interpretation or misrepresentation of the Bill before the House today. Rapists and paedophiles—those are the people that Members will be voting to let out of prison early if they support this Bill this evening. Is that really what they came to this place to do?

[Gareth Snell]

The shadow Minister is reading out a series of crimes that are reprehensible, and no one in this House would want to see the individuals who commit such crimes having anything but the book thrown at them. In the spirit and tone in which he has read that list out, his Government oversaw a 2.6% charge rate for people who were arrested for rape. Does he want to say anything to the House about that particular damning figure? There are people today who have not been let out of prison early, because they never even got there in the first place. What does he say to that?

[Dr Mullan]

The hon. Member will have noted that at the outset of my remarks I said that I have never been entirely in support of all the policies of a Government of either party on these issues. He has every right to make those criticisms, but they do not change the vote he is being asked to make tonight. They do not change the policy he will be putting his name to and supporting. There is no excuse for the things he will be changing on a permanent—not temporary—basis to deal with a short-term prison crisis. I do not think that that is what any Government Member’s constituents want.

These profound and permanent changes to our sentencing laws are the exact opposite of what the vast majority of victims, their families and the public want. They will sit on the record of those Members and this Government until the next election. They will need to justify themselves to their voters. I do not believe that the majority of Labour Members, deep down, want to support such changes tonight. It will be a great compliment to party managers if, after this reality has been spelled out to Labour Members, they decide to support this Bill anyway. If they speak to their constituents like I speak to mine, and ask them about child abusers and rapists, their constituents will tell them that they are already concerned by the limited time they spend in prison, which undermines justice. We have heard so many times from Members in this House about the horror of rape and other sexual offences, about the victims of grooming gangs and about the horror of all kinds of sexual abuse. Not once do I recall a campaign or a concern raised by Members that the answer is to make such offenders spend less time in prison.

I accept that there is a different debate to be had about different cohorts of offenders and different offences. There is always a tension between prison time as a punishment and helping to rehabilitate offenders. As others have said, and I agree, I do not think the Bill strikes the right balance in that area, but I respect those Government Members and members of the public who would draw the line in a different place from me for certain types of offences and offenders. However, we are not talking about drug addicts stealing to fund their habit, or the young man from a broken home who spent their childhood in care and vandalises the local playground. The hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), and others coherently and sensibly raised the debates we might have about how long those individuals spend in prison and how we rehabilitate them.

However, here we are talking about rapists and paedophiles—criminals who sexually assault children, criminals who create sexual images of children and circulate them around the world and criminals who snatch unsuspecting women walking home through a park, drag them into the bushes and rape them. Those are the sorts of criminals that Labour Members will agree should be let out of prison earlier if they support this Bill.

We should be clear that not a single voice among victims’ representatives supports this element of the Bill—not a single one. The Victims’ Commissioner does not support it. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner does not support it. Justice for Victims does not support it. Victim Support does not support it. The Victims’ Commissioner for London does not support it. Apparently, however, we will see this evening that Labour MPs do.

Let me also clear up any confusion about the circumstances under which these violent and sexual offenders will be released early. Members, innocently, may have been led to believe that prisoners will have to jump over considerable hurdles to secure early release. In fact, the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) told us they would need to “earn” their release. The reality of the proposals in the Bill make clear what a complete sham that suggestion was. Actually, prisoners will actively need to break prison rules to run the risk of losing early release. That is not earning anything. That is doing what the majority of the public do day in, day out, without any reward—just behaving themselves and not breaking the rules. Apparently, however, if a rapist or a child abuser does it, Labour Members think that should entitle them to walk away from the proper punishment that they have been given for their crimes.

In fact, what Labour said to the press in an attempt to manage the news of this terrible set of policies gave the impression that the large discounts amounting to, in some cases, many years off prison time could be quickly reversed for bad behaviour, and that this was a radical departure. While the amount of time after which the Government are choosing to let people out is certainly radical, the mechanism to keep people in is nothing of the sort. As we see in the detail of the Bill, they will simply make use of the existing prison punishment legislation.

I wonder whether Labour Members are aware of the average number of days in prison that is added by the prison punishment regime. According to the latest data I could find, the average number of additional days given to a prisoner who breaks the rules is 16. When sentences for rapists and child abusers will be discounted by many months and years, they run the risk of having a handful of days added back on for breaking prison rules. That is shameful, and it does not apply only to the offences that I have mentioned. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) spoke about a 15 year sentence, and about how the victims of the person concerned would feel about their not being given a lifelong driving ban. How will they feel when they are told that instead of serving 15 years in prison, that person will spend five years there?

The parlous state of this Government is a blessing for Labour Members tonight. There are many other issues receiving media coverage at present—the political survival of the Prime Minister himself is in question—so they may get away with voting this Bill through unnoticed. However, this is just the first stage. I know that the timetable for the Bill is as short as the Government could make it—just a day of Committee of the whole House, which also means that the many victims groups will not be able to come before the House and voice their objections, and then one day for Report and Third Reading. The Government clearly hope that the Bill will also go through its future stages unnoticed by their constituents, who, they hope, will not know that Labour MPs want to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier. [Interruption.] That is the reality of the Bill that they are voting through. Labour Members are chuntering and saying, “Shameful.” What is shameful is that they are preparing to vote for that policy this evening. Shame on all of them.

The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Justice Secretary and I will do our utmost to hold Labour Members to account for this grave, grave injustice to victims and their families. We will do our best to make sure that their constituents do know, do hold them to account, and do understand the choice that they make in the end. I honestly do not believe, despite the chuntering, that that is a choice many of them would want to make if they had listened clearly to the position that I have set out. I do not think it is a choice that any of them came to this place to make.

We have seen Labour Back Benchers exercise their power over the welfare Bill. They can do that again—if not tonight, in future stages of the Bill, because we will seek to amend it. Labour Members can support us in that. Rape, assault by penetration, rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration, inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, paying for the sexual services of a child under 13, kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence, creating or possessing indecent photographs of children—tell your Whips that you will not support people responsible for those offences being let out of prison early. Do your job as representatives of your constituents, do your job as advocates for women and girls—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. “You” and “your”—it has to stop, Dr Mullan.

[Dr Mullan]

Labour Members should do their job as advocates for women and girls and advocates for all victims of crime, and vote against these horrendous proposals this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I see that we have a fresh Minister, whom I congratulate and welcome to the Dispatch Box. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the murdered prison officer Lenny Scott, whose killer was found guilty and sentenced over the recess. It is hard to overstate the seriousness of the case: this was a prison officer murdered simply for doing his job. Like police officers, we ask prison officers every day to stand up to some of the most violent people in our society. Does the new Lord Chancellor agree that prison officers deserve the same legal protections as police officers?

[Mr Lammy]

The work that our prison officers do is incredible. The work that our prison governors do is incredible. Over the course of both my career in law and my career in the House, I have visited very many prisons, and I pay tribute to their work. I will certainly be looking closely at this issue. I hope to come forward with more announcements in the coming days.

[Dr Mullan]

I am sure that prison officers will welcome any future announcements that the Lord Chancellor makes. We have talked this morning about preventive measures we can take to ensure prison officer safety, but police officers benefit from legal protections in terms of the consequences for murdering them, with mandatory whole-life orders imposed on people who do that. The Opposition will table an amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would give the same protection to prison officers. I think they deserve it, and I would welcome his support for that measure.

[Mr Lammy]

It is a serious issue and I will certainly consider it. I know that the Law Commission is looking at similar provisions.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate. He has been a tireless advocate for bereaved families and communities affected by tragedy. His determination to keep these issues before Parliament commands respect across the House. We owe a debt of gratitude to the campaigners and families themselves. From Hillsborough to Grenfell, from the infected blood scandal to the Post Office Horizon affair, they have shown extraordinary courage in pressing for truth and accountability. Their persistence is the reason why we are here today, and it must not be forgotten.

The Hillsborough disaster in 1989 is the clearest example of why the call for a duty of candour has become louder over the years: 97 lives were lost and countless other people were traumatised, and it was very powerful for us all to hear from the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, who was there on that day at a young age. In the years that followed, there were inquiries, judicial reviews and inquests, yet for far too long, the true circumstances of what happened were hidden.

In 2017, Bishop James Jones was asked to reflect on the experience of the Hillsborough families. His report set out in stark terms the lessons that need to be learned. He said that it was vital that the state ensure “proper participation” of the bereaved at inquests at which public bodies are represented. He identified four strands to achieving that: first, publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families when public bodies are represented; secondly, an end to the practice of public bodies spending limitless sums on their own representation; thirdly, a culture change so that public bodies see inquests not as a reputational threat, but as an opportunity to learn; and finally, changes to procedures and the training of coroners so that bereaved families are placed truly at the centre of the process.

His report also served a reminder that legislation alone is not enough. As others have mentioned, we already have a statutory duty of candour in parts of our system—particularly the NHS—but too often that duty has become a tick-box exercise, satisfying process rather than securing trust. If the Hillsborough law is to mean anything, it must embed a genuine culture of truth-telling and accountability, as well as changing the law.

It is against that backdrop that the idea of a statutory duty of candour has emerged and persisted. Sir Brian Langstaff, in his recent report into the infected blood scandal, reinforced the same point: too often, institutions have closed ranks, failed to disclose information openly and thereby compounded the suffering of victims and families.

The King’s Speech in 2024 committed the Government to bringing forward a Hillsborough law, including a statutory duty of candour and provisions on legal representation. The stated aims were to improve transparency and accountability and reduce the culture of defensiveness, and to ensure that failures such as those on Hillsborough or infected blood are not repeated.

Conservative Members are sympathetic to those aims, and it is worth remembering that some steps have been taken. Part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 legislated for the creation of an independent public advocate to give victims and families a stronger voice in the aftermath of major incidents. The previous Government also worked with police chiefs, prosecutors and fire leaders to establish the Hillsborough charter, which commits signatories to put the public interest above organisational representation.

[Ian Byrne]

Does the shadow Minister reflect on the fact, though, that Bishop Jones’s report was in 2017? He was asked to deliver it by the then Prime Minister, Theresa May. The Conservatives had a long time in government to implement the Hillsborough law. The shadow Minister mentioned some of the things they did, but it was not enough. I have been here since 2019, and I have continuously asked Minister after Minister to deliver the Hillsborough law, but the fact is, you failed us.

[Dr Mullan]

I will go on to talk about some of the other steps that we did take. Labour Members might reflect on the many things that, in opposition, they called for, demanded and promised to deliver, but that they are finding considerably more challenging to get done in government. That is our experience of Government in many respects.

As I said, there are other things that we did. On legal representation, the then Government removed the means test for legal help and representation at inquests, particularly in relation to the exceptional case funding scheme, and measures were introduced to promote candour in policing. The offence of police corruption was created in 2017, and in 2020 a new duty to co-operate was written into the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020.

As the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby highlighted, however, more needs to be done. In its 2023 report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights looked closely at equality of arms at inquests. It highlighted that during the first Hillsborough inquests, public authorities and senior police officers had multiple legal teams, all funded from the public purse, while bereaved families received no public funding at all. As I said, changes we have made would mean that that would not happen again in future in the same way. The Committee concluded that this inequality hindered the effective involvement of families, and risked damaging the ability of inquests to get to the truth.

Yet, as recent events have shown, the issue is not straightforward. As detailed in the letter the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby published earlier this year, the Government’s draft Bill was rejected by Hillsborough families, who argued that its proposed safeguards against dishonesty by public servants were not strong enough. The Prime Minister has met them on several occasions, both since taking office and previously in his role as Director of Public Prosecutions, and has emphasised that any legislation must command their confidence. As yet, however, no Bill has been introduced to Parliament.

In April, further reports suggested that draft legislation did not include provision for funding parity. Campaigners expressed real concern, and Ministers in the House of Lords offered reassurances, but admitted that there was concern in Government about the overall availability of legal aid funding.

Further reports over the summer suggest that resistance in the Treasury is slowing progress. The Justice Secretary has apparently made it clear that her Department could not fund the costs within existing budgets, and the Ministry of Justice was said to have sought over £1 billion in additional legal aid funding.

In July, the Prime Minister made the point that although he was fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, including a duty of candour, he wanted to take the time to get it right before putting it to Parliament. On the same day, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby brought forward his private Member’s Bill on candour and accountability.

The desire for progress is strong, but the practicalities remain contested. We are sympathetic to the principle of a statutory duty of candour. We agree that bereaved families should not face the state’s lawyers without adequate support of their own, and we recognise the force of the campaigns that have led us here. However, we also understand the difficulty of translating principle into workable law. How do we ensure fairness for families without creating unmanageable costs and adverse unintended consequences? Those are not small questions, and they deserve careful thought.

In closing, I return to where I began: the families. Families who lost loved ones at Hillsborough, families devastated by Grenfell, families affected by infected blood and families ruined by Horizon—they have all faced unimaginable grief and years of struggle to uncover the truth. We cannot undo their loss, but we can ensure that the state learns, that institutions are held to account and that families in the future are treated with the openness, honesty and fairness they deserve. Families and victims deserve nothing less.

Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal Of Prisoners For Deportation Order 2025) (First sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 General Committees

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Let me begin by confirming that the Opposition will not be voting against the statutory instrument. We support further reforms to the removal of foreign national offenders from our prisons. It is right that those who have committed crimes here and have no right to remain should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity, both to protect the public and to reduce the pressure on our system.

This measure builds on steps that we took in January of last year to advance the point at which early release can take place, from 12 months from the end of a sentence to 18 months. The order expands the early removal scheme to allow foreign national offenders serving determinate sentences to be removed from prison and deported as early as the later of two points: once they have served one third of their custodial sentence, or when they are four years from their earliest release point. The Government’s own explanatory memorandum for the order confirms that the impact of this change on the prison estate is modest—just 350 to 500 spaces freed up—and those gains will be quickly offset by the forecast growth in the prison population.

Perhaps more telling than what the order does is what it fails to do. First, there is no serious new mechanism for enacting it. Far too many countries simply refuse to take their own nationals back. We in the Opposition have been clear: if a country refuses to accept the return of its own nationals, we should apply visa sanctions, because there must be consequences for countries that are unwilling to co-operate. The Government’s refusal to act on that proves that they are not truly committed to tackling the issue.

Secondly, nothing in the order stops foreign national offenders abusing the Human Rights Act 1998 to block their removal. We all know how that plays out: legal claims made by those abusing the Human Rights Act, appeals, reappeals and endless delays, while taxpayers foot the bill and the dangerous individuals remain in the UK. The Conservatives would disapply the Human Rights Act from all immigration-related cases, ending the cycle of endless appeals and legal loopholes. We would ensure that if someone breaks the law here, they are returned to their country of origin or a third country—no excuses, no exceptions and no delays.

Earlier this year, we tabled to the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill an amendment calling for the automatic removal of any foreign national convicted of any offence or charged with immigration offences. Labour had the chance to back firm action, but it chose to reject that. Right now, removal is triggered only if the offender receives a prison sentence of at least one year. Our amendment would have replaced that broken model with a clear principle: if someone breaks the law here, they are returned to their country of origin. We are not opposed to this order, but let us not pretend that it is a bold step forward. It is a half measure from a Government who refuse to face up to the scale of the challenge.

I will finish by saying that I have enjoyed speaking opposite the Minister over this session and I wish him and his colleagues an enjoyable recess. With all the rumours of a reshuffle, who knows whether we will end up facing each other again?