Fathers and Positive Male Role Models

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sam Rushworth]

I fully agree, and I am setting out the evidence base for that.

In 2018, Tracy et al found that higher levels of father involvement in children aged nine to 10 were associated with lower self-reported “violent perpetration” by both boys and girls when they reach 18 to 20. In 2010, Keung and Rees found that the frequency with which young people talked to their father about the things that mattered to them was positively associated with higher wellbeing and self-esteem. On the other hand, the Centre for Social Justice has warned:

“The disappearance of male role models is creating a generation of unhappy young boys.”

Its report “Lost Boys” found that fatherlessness and a lack of mentorship is deeply harming young men’s mental health, education and life paths.

Those are all things that I know from my own personal experience. We have this culture in politics—particularly those of us in the Labour party—of everyone needing a backstory to prove how working class they are, but while there are probably not many Members in this place whose family struggled financially like mine did, I want to be honest about how absolutely privileged I am. I grew up in a stable, loving home with a mum and dad who made raising us children their world.

Early memories of my dad include being taken on hikes through the countryside, and being dragged around old cathedrals and art galleries, if they were free—he was from Yorkshire—and taught to appreciate history and culture. We did not have a car in my early childhood, but mum and dad insisted I was a member of the “strong legs brigade” as I learned to walk everywhere. Rain was no problem; we had cagoules. Most of my clothes were hand-me-downs, but dad insisted on buying me Clarks shoes because he thought they were better for my growing feet, even though I noticed that his own shoes were often falling apart—he always gave us the best. As a lay church leader, dad would take me to visit older people and do acts of service for them. At Christmas we would spend our pocket money on gifts from B&M Bargains for kids less fortunate than us and drop them off on their doorsteps on Christmas eve.

Dad taught me to think of others. Sometimes that was explicit. We had a programme encouraged by our church, which we called family home evening, where one night a week was set aside for family time. It would include some sort of instruction—I remember being taught words like “integrity” and “kindness”—some fun game or activity, and always a home-made dessert.

As a junior civil servant in the auditing department, dad used to travel away from home, and when others were at the bar, he would always phone home to talk to us all. Wherever he went, he would get us a postcard with information about the place, expressions of love and some bad attempt at humour. I have kept them in a folder to this day. Another thing my dad taught me, and still teaches me today, is that the kindest thing I can do for my children is to love their mother. He taught me respect for women and womanhood.

Active fatherhood is not only good for children and youth; it is good for dads too. The Fatherhood Institute found that more active and involved fathers report lower levels of depression and higher relationship satisfaction than less involved fathers. That is certainly true for me; I am never happier than when spending time with Siobhain and the kids at home. Whenever I have faced disappointments or setbacks in my career, financial setbacks or times of stress and anxiety, and whenever I have questioned my worth, I have always known that I can walk through my front door and find my biggest fan club to welcome me back. They put my life in perspective.

I think my dad jokes are rubbing off on them, too. The other day, my 16-year-old daughter Jesse said to me, “Dad, you know you shouldn’t brush your teeth with your right hand?” I said, “No? Why’s that?” She said, “You’re supposed to use a toothbrush.”

But we have to be honest and recognise, too, that fatherhood is tough. The men’s health report commissioned by the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), notes that

“the transition to fatherhood can be a stressful and isolating experience. Men may turn towards unhealthy coping mechanisms, such as alcohol and drugs, or neglect their own health and wellbeing by prioritising supporting their family…

Estimates suggest 5 to 15% of fathers experience anxiety during the perinatal period and 5 to 10% of fathers experience depression. The mental health of fathers during this period is not routinely assessed, which can result in fathers missing out on opportunities for diagnosis, support and interventions. Fathers frequently report feeling ignored or considered unimportant by healthcare professionals during the perinatal period. Additionally, fathers often question the legitimacy of their own mental health challenges and entitlement to support, emphasising their partner’s needs over their own.”

That brings me to my final point: good public policy can be pivotal in making fatherhood a positive experience for dads and children, while bad policy or the absence of support can limit fathers’ potential positive impacts. I will quickly highlight two ways in which I think that matters. I will not go into great detail, because I imagine that other people will do so in their speeches.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I applaud the hon. Gentleman for raising this topic. Although he and I are in different parties, we have long been on the same page about how important it is to have male role models and about the role of men and boys. Under the previous leadership, we were making progress, with a men and boys summit due to take place this summer. Unfortunately, it did not happen, but I am keen to see the Government bring it forward again. I hope he shares my ambition for it to happen, because for all the reasons he has talked about, it is imperative that the new leadership—the new Administration—keep grasping the nettle and take this forward. Does he agree?

[Sam Rushworth]

As I suspected I would, I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I think that there will be cross-party consensus in much of this debate, and I am sure that the Minister was listening to his intervention and may want to comment on it.

The first weeks of a newborn child’s life can be not only stressful, but a beautiful bonding experience. But while mothers, typically, are full-time nurturing and feeding the newborn baby, fathers are often immediately back to work. I therefore support the Dad Shift campaign for six weeks’ paternity leave at 90% of pay. The dads who miss out tend to be working class men—people who are self-employed, people who work on the tools. Paternity leave should not be a preserve of the middle classes, and yet that is too often the case. The evidence for its benefits in terms of early bonding with a child is immense.

This is not just about the early years. It is also about rewarding employers that introduce flexible and family-friendly working practices. That is one of the reasons why I supported the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers campaign to Keep Sunday Special and limit the extension of Sunday trading hours. It is important to have at least a day when parents know they can be with their children. It is also why I will not shop late on Christmas eve. I do not think that shops should be open on Christmas eve; parents should be with their families and able to enjoy that time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I know that the hon. Lady is a great advocate in this regard. I have had the pleasure of meeting Charlotte on a number of occasions, and I know how important her campaign is. The hon. Lady is right: owing to the Government’s commitment to audio recording and the capital investments that we are making to enable it to happen, change is coming soon and fast. We will seek to go as far as we are able while preserving the accuracy of those transcripts.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

One in five homicides are domestic homicides, with women and girls overwhelmingly the victims of these brutal crimes: mothers, sisters and daughters, such as Ellie Gould, Poppy Devey Waterhouse and Megan Newborough, who were cruelly murdered by their current or former partners. However, the gravity of these crimes is not always fully reflected. Under the current sentencing framework, higher starting points place particular weight on a weapon being taken to the scene with intent, whereas domestic homicides often happen in the home involving weapons already present. Today I can announce that we will introduce a 25-year starting point for domestic murders, a change made possible thanks to the Government’s grip on the prison population through the Sentencing Act 2026.

I pay tribute to the mothers of Ellie, Poppy and Megan—Carole, Julie and Elaine—and my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). They have all campaigned tirelessly for this change, which means that those who kill their partners or former partners will spend longer in prison.

[Dr Evans]

The Fuller inquiry called for a strengthening of the safeguards and the law in relation to looking after the deceased, but last week’s mortuary report on Nottingham hospital described some of the abuses and horrors that have taken place—bodies mislabelled, or even left decomposing. Does the Secretary of State share my fear that this could be a pattern across the system, and will he and the Health Secretary look into this to ensure that it certainly is not?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. What we have heard is devastating—absolutely horrific. I will discuss this issue with the Health Secretary. His Department obviously has responsibility for human tissue while we have responsibility for the coroner service and the law regarding death, and we will work together on this issue.

Jury Trials

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the nature of crime and of the evidence presented is altering the way our criminal justice system works, but let me provide this reassurance to the House: as well as modernising and rebuilding our justice system, these measures are designed to protect jury trials for the most serious cases. As I have said, many of those trials are becoming compromised, with many victims of the most serious crimes waiting years for justice. It is right that when we ask jurors to do the most important civic duty, we use their time wisely. Does it make sense that the queue of the victim of rape or of a homicide is shared with someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky and who could be dealt with by a lay magistrate who, by the way, introduces the lay and democratic element into our courts?

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The letter on criminal court reform written by the Justice Secretary to the Justice Committee states on rape and prioritisation:

“We are not introducing a specific target for rape cases, but our overall objective is to drive down these wait times as quickly as possible. Listing is a judicial function and the judiciary already prioritises cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, which includes victims of sexual offences, including rape.”

The Minister’s example about a bottle of whisky is therefore not appropriate; it is fundamentally wrong, according to the letter written by the Justice Secretary himself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

You’re going soft!

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

New year, new David!

[David Davis]

I am losing the House, piece by piece, but that is okay. The Minister should pay some attention to the detail of the speech by the hon. Member for Chichester, because she made some extremely important points.

As for the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), he and I have fought together on some spectacular cases of miscarriage of justice—successfully, I think, in the biggest ones—but I do not agree with him that the Government’s policy does not address matters that are morally fundamental to the justice system, because the jury system is absolutely fundamental, for a few reasons that I will touch on in a minute.

The Minister has a difficult job. Bluntly, her Department—not just the Ministers, but the Department itself—has not done a very good job of managing the system over decades. The system failures have been serially spectacular, and I recommend that she look back at some of the National Audit Office reports. I commissioned one when I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee; it is the longest NAO report that I can remember and the most complex, because these matters are systemically complex and do not lend themselves to off-the-cuff answers. She talks about modernisation, which is often important, but it should not be at the price of taking out the most important building block in our justice system—one that the rest of the world, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, has been copying for centuries.

Of course, the majority of the judiciary does not agree with restricting jury trials. When I raised this matter with the Justice Secretary—I think I did so in oral questions on one occasion—I asked him whether he had read the report by Mr Rivlin KC, which does a formidable job of forensically taking apart the Leveson recommendations. One of the points he makes is that Leveson is making judgments—quite properly, as a very distinguished judge of very long standing—but he is not making them on the basis of empirical data. There was very little empirical data behind what Lord Justice Leveson argued, and it is really important that we look at that. I recommend to the Minister that she read Mr Rivlin’s note. He was the head of Southwark Crown court, which has one of the highest throughputs in the country, and he put this point to all his judges. Not one of those working, active judges agreed with Leveson.

Implicit in Leveson’s comments, and certainly in what the Minister said, is an underlying idea that juries are not quite up to it in certain cases. It is suggested that they cannot quite cope, particularly in technical and financial cases. Well, I have handled about a dozen miscarriage of justice cases over the course of the last decade or two, and in not one of them was the jury the source of the error. More often than not, it was a misdirection by a judge or an error of the system, or the court case was allowed to get out of control in some way or another—I will come back to an example or two in a minute. It was pretty much always down to the judge, and sometimes to the lawyers in court, but not to the jury.

The risks involved in restricting jury trials are significant. When the Minister is modelling the numbers—she talks about the speed of the magistrate system—she should look at the appeal rates for magistrates’ decisions and the number of appeals in which the magistrates’ decisions are overturned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

From prepping for this debate, I know that the policy is one that tries to solve an administrative problem by simply changing a principle. The three areas I will try to cover—we will see how I get on—are the principle, the policy process and the practical side.

To deal with the principle first, we have heard a number of times that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay does harm trust and it can prolong suffering, but justice done wrongly corrupts the system itself. The Justice Secretary knows that, as in his own Lammy report he said that juries act as “a filter for prejudice” during trials.

Moving on to the policy process, on the one hand the Government are saying that the policy is much needed to help with the admin side, but on the other hand they are saying that these are very small changes. We only have to look at the letter written by the Secretary of State to the Justice Committee to pull some of that apart. It states:

“Of the c.3% of criminal trial cases that proceed to a jury trial in the Crown Court, over half would still proceed to the Crown Court and get a jury trial post-reform.”

However, later it says:

“An alternative way of expressing impacts is to account for cases that will be retained in the magistrates’ courts after the reforms. Based on projected case volumes and case mix, of those cases that still proceed to the Crown Court post-reforms, around three-quarters of them are still expected to be allocated a jury trial.”

So we already have a discrepancy, in the same paragraph of the letter, in what the numbers are.

The question, “Has any modelling been done?”, has been asked multiple times. We again know from the letter addressed to the Committee that modelling has been done, because it says:

“The assumptions underpinning the modelling of the reforms I announced last week are subject to the Concordat process that agrees sitting days with the judiciary and it would be improper to pre-empt the conclusion of this process.”

In short, modelling has been done, so if Ministers want to strengthen their argument, why would they not produce that modelling? When we have asked the Minister who is at the Dispatch Box—she was asked again by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for the seventh time—whether an impact assessment has been done and not released, or is being done and will be brought forward, we have not got an answer. One would have thought that if you had done the work—

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am also grateful for the motion and for the opportunity to object, cross-party, to the restrictions on our important rights to a trial by jury. I was, however, hoping that the Conservatives would, in this debate, admit some real responsibility for the awful state of our criminal justice system. Will he correct that gap in any further way in his contribution?

[Dr Evans]

I refer the hon. Lady directly to the opening speech. If she sits and reads Hansard, it was very much different regarding that point.

I will move on to the other practical points we need to talk about—some even in the letter—about process. For example, the letter states:

“judges will assess the likely sentence in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. They will consider the facts of the case to make a determination of likely culpability, harm”—

and so on. It then goes on to say:

“eligibility is based on likely sentence length, any triable either-way offence could be in scope of the CCBD, if it were likely to receive a sentence of 3 years or less”.

What happens if the judge decides that they would not go to a jury trial? Later on, the same letter states:

“judges will retain the full sentencing powers available in the Crown Court, meaning there is no restriction on the sentence that can be handed down in the case.”

That points out the fact that a judge could make a decision at pre-hearing that the case need not go to trial because the sentence will be less than three years, and after that find out that the sentence will actually be five, six or seven years. There is a real discrepancy.

The letter also states:

“As you know, we do not have minimum sentences in law.”

That is demonstrably not true—think about drug trafficking, firearms or repeat knife offences. We only have to look at section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which talks about how using a knife for a second time will result in a minimum of six months. That was codified and updated in section 315 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The letter is filled with holes.

I thank Joanna Hardy-Susskind, who has pointed out a lot of these issues. She has done a lot of working explaining that the MOJ does not even understand the letters it is putting out in defence of this policy. If the Ministry was to release the modelling and the impact assessment, it could demonstrate to us all why we should make the change.

I am running short of time to talk about the practicality, so I will close where I started.

[David Davis]

I am not just standing to give my hon. Friend a minute. Does he agree with me that even if we accept what it says, being sent down for a couple of years can destroy a life?

[Dr Evans]

Absolutely. That is fundamental. There must be trust in the system and in the decision taken, and I worry that that is being eroded by this proposal.

I am going to change my speech. I started on the presumption that the Government are trying to solve an admin problem with a principled change, but I think, after listening to the Government Front Bench, that I am wrong. The Minister was asked, “Sarah, would you still go with this regardless of the backlog?” and the answer was yes. There we have it. It is clearer than ever before. Efficiency is the excuse and ideology is the aim. Regardless of the vote today, the answer is here for all to see that the Government do not believe in maintaining jury trial. For that reason, Members must stay and vote with the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It will be quite tough to follow that, but here we go.

This has been a very useful debate. Every single contribution, including those from Conservative colleagues, has commented on the crisis in our courts that we inherited from the Conservatives after 14 years. We have heard some suggestions; the gist of the suggestions from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Opposition is, “Let us get more court sitting days.” Would it not have helped if the Conservatives had not closed half of the magistrates courts in England and Wales? Across the entire estate, they sold off more than 40% of all court buildings for far less than they were worth to the communities they served.

As a result of the Conservatives’ vandalism of our court system, there are nearly 80,000 cases waiting to be heard and that number will continue to rise beyond 100,000 without investment, efficiency savings and structural modernisation. Let us be clear: this Government will bring forward a modernisation package that will drag the criminal justice system into the 21st century, ensuring that justice is done fairly and swiftly, that our system meets the challenges that modern criminal cases bring, and that we never again reach a point at which the public’s faith in the criminal justice system is so severely undermined.

The House has heard today a clear and compelling case from my hon. and learned Friend the Courts Minister, who set out the bold but sensible reform we need, bringing down the backlog by the end of the Parliament. It is rooted in evidence, grounded in reality and driven by a simple objective: to fix a criminal court system under unprecedented strain and put it on a sustainable footing for the future.

[Dr Luke Evans]

When the Courts Minister closed her statement, the principle was not about the backlog: she said that she would have gone ahead with scrapping juries to this extent regardless of the backlog. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Is it a principled position or is it about dealing with the administrative burden?

[Jake Richards]

We absolutely have to drag the criminal justice system into the 21st century by modernising its structures, but the context in which we operate clearly has an effect on that programme. The fact that we have inherited an unprecedented backlog in our criminal court system affects the urgency and radicalism of that reform.

Let me take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Sir Brian Leveson, who is no shield. His independent review has driven the reforms that we are taking forward; it is rigorous, thoughtful and absolutely clear about the scale of the challenge before us. Let us be very straight: the reforms being proposed, which will be set out in due course before this House, are not plucked out of thin air but the result of intensive, careful work undertaken by the most senior lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary. The modernisation programme will be built on evidence. These are difficult decisions and no doubt uncomfortable for some in the legal profession, but they are absolutely vital for a properly functioning and robust system that we can be proud of to take into the future.

Let me bust some of the myths that we have heard in the debate. Some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested that these changes tear up a historical right to a jury trial. Let me be abundantly clear that they do not. Article 40 of Magna Carta reminds us that we must not

“deny, or delay right or justice”,

giving us the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. Sadly, in this country today, justice delayed has become justice denied for far too many victims. The Government will not cling to mythological tradition at the expense of fairness, effectiveness and public confidence. We will rise to meet the challenge of the day, rather than living in the past.

I have heard on countless occasions the assertion that this Government are scrapping jury trials. That is not true. Everyone has and will always have the right to a fair trial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) made clear in her compelling speech. There has never been an inalienable or unqualified right to a trial by jury.

Let us set out the maths in some detail, because this is very important. Currently, 10% of all criminal cases are subject to jury trial. Some 7% of those are pleas, where there is no trial, so just 3% are subject to a jury trial. The reforms before the House would reduce that number to just 1.5%. These are modest reforms affecting a small proportion of the criminal cases in our country.

Restriction of Jury Trials

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, when I came to visit the justice centre in Telford with him we spoke a lot about the role that magistrates play, and I want to pay huge tribute to them. The proposals we brought forward last week are, as his question suggests, a huge vote of confidence in our magistrates and in our magistrates courts system to hear cases swiftly and robustly, and we should back them.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on both her passion and her ability to get so many words into Hansard in her responses on an urgent question. However, one bit of detail that we are missing—and she is now being asked about this for the fifth time—is an impact assessment. She has said again that the impact assessment will be brought forward at the appropriate time. The question was: has it been written already and she is keeping hold of it, or has it not been written but will be brought forward at the appropriate time? I would appreciate clarity on that, with a simple yes or no.

Right to Trial by Jury

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I know that we both look forward to the reopening of Harrow Crown court in Harrow. I would push back on the suggestion that the Mayor of London has not led on tackling violence against women and girls in our city, because there are greater policing numbers and there has been a real drive on that.

On supporting the sustainability of lawyers to both prosecute and defend these cases, the Government have announced an injection of £92 million for criminal legal aid solicitors who defend such cases. We are making that investment and looking to see whether we can go further, particularly in relation to advocates. We are making that investment, and it is a shame the hon. Gentleman’s Government did not do it a little earlier, as we might have been in a rather different position today.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Under this Labour Ministry of Justice we have had leaked prisoners and now leaked documents. When we had leaked prisoners, the Justice Secretary came here, demanded a review, put in new checks and made it clear that he would personally look into it. Given that we have had leaked documents, what steps will be taken? Can the Minister rule out the leak having come from special advisers or Ministers, and will there be a leak inquiry to find out how the information got out from the Ministry?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not going to comment on leaks or the circumstances of leaks. I can say, however, that no one was more irritated by the timing of this leak than I was. The issue of our Crown court backlog and the impact it is having on victims has rightly been well ventilated in debate in this House. It is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his expert review to engage with and consult a wide range of stakeholders. We have been very open about the issues and the need to have that debate, but I am simply not going to comment on leaks.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the anxiety that this issue will have caused. In a way, it has been a revelation to the public that people are released in error from our system. I emphasise that the vast majority of people are released in the correct manner—57,000 are released every year—but under successive Governments, for all of my lifetime, there have been releases in error. We want to bring that number down to historic levels, because it has been going up since 2021. I cannot stand here and say that, in a paper-based system often implemented by junior staff, we will eradicate releases in error, but we will reduce them over the course of this Parliament.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Last week in Prime Minister’s questions, the right hon. Gentleman said:

“Get a grip, man! I know I am the Justice Secretary.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 902.]

I am pleased he knows he is the Justice Secretary, and with that comes leadership, so can he guarantee to the public that he has a grip on the issue of prisoners released by mistake?

[Mr Lammy]

This is why I chair the new performance board. This is why I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this issue intensively. This is why I have found £10 million for a digital rapid response unit. This is why, because there is sometimes a gap between our courts and our prisons, I have put in place a new urgent query process. This is why we are taking the Sentencing Bill through this House, which will simplify release. All those measures will begin to bear down on this issue. I am sure that Dame Lynne Owens will come forward with more measures, and we will take them.

Prisoner Release Checks

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

As I have said, it is right and proper that the Home Office has a thorough regime for skilled workers, and I support it in that endeavour. It is also important that we have the bank of prison officers that we need, and it is my job to ensure that we have that, whether they are able to come from abroad or—as the vast majority do—from our own country.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

There are almost a dozen pages in the statement and the Secretary of State has taken questions for almost an hour, but there is one word that I have not heard: “sorry”. That is really important, particularly for the 14-year-old victim and her father. The Justice Secretary has said a number of times that he has personally reached out and thanked the police. Has he personally reached out to the victims? Has he tried to speak to them? Has he tried to say sorry?

[Mr Lammy]

Of course I am sorry—sorry that any victim of crime had the anxious weekend that they had. It was important for me to ensure that police liaison were in touch with them, and I am grateful to Essex police for doing that. It is also important to me that Lynne Owens is able to speak to them so that their concerns are reflected in her full and final report.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

It is worthwhile at the outset of all debates on this Bill to restate that it is about pre-sentence reports that give information to sentencers that may be used in sentencing decisions, not about the passing of sentences themselves. Specifically, the Bill is about the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council to sentencers about the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report should normally be asked for, and about the sort of information about an offender which such a report may provide and which may be appropriate to consider and take into account before deciding on an appropriate sentence in that offender’s case.

There has been broad agreement—I see the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), in her place, so I will not say unanimity—that an offender’s ethnicity, race, culture or faith are on their own not that sort of information and that the Sentencing Council was wrong to suggest that pre-sentence reports should be awarded on that basis. I would argue that is because, even if there may be points to make about the treatment or experience of members of the ethnic, faith or cultural group to which the offender in question happens to belong, what is relevant to the sentencing of that offender can only be the treatment or experience to which the particular offender has themselves been subject, not whether they have arisen in the cases of other members of the same group who are not before the court. That is effectively the impact of amendment 4 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). That is why the Government are right to seek to exclude even from the process of asking for a pre-sentence report—let alone from passing sentence itself—the making of decisions based only on membership of such a group. That is after all what the Government have said this Bill is for.

These groups are described in the explanatory notes to the Bill as “particular demographic cohorts”. Paragraph 8 says,

“The Bill is intended to ensure that Sentencing Guidelines are drafted in such a way as to prevent differential treatment and maintain equality before the law. It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort, rather than the particular circumstances of that individual.”

Despite that explanation in the explanatory notes, the Bill goes further than that by prohibiting the Sentencing Council from including in a sentencing guideline any

“provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender.”

That is what clause 1(2) says in inserting language into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I think that language is significantly wider in impact than reference to membership of particular demographic cohorts—undesirably so, in my view. That is why I have tabled amendment 1, which would adopt the language used in the explanatory notes.

Let me explain why I think that would be preferable. My starting point is that I do not believe all personal characteristics are inappropriate to consider in a sentencing decision. There is, of course, much more to be considered in a sentencing decision than simply information about the offender, particularly the seriousness of the offence and its consequences, but relevant information about the offender is needed as part of the process. It surely cannot be right, then, to prohibit the Sentencing Council from encouraging sentencers to find out more about some of the personal characteristics that are relevant in reaching a more informed and therefore better sentencing decision—for example, a physical or learning difficulty, or a brain injury from which an offender will not recover.

The relevance of that information is not just in forming a fuller picture of the offender to be sentenced, but in assisting a sentencer to know whether that offender is capable of carrying out aspects of a community order, including work in the community, which the sentencer may want to consider as a potential sentencing option. It is worth underlining of course that the ordering of a pre-sentence report—whatever it says when it is produced—does not bind the hands of a sentencer to do as it recommends, but in reality, without one a sentencer’s options are often more limited. That is why guidance on when to ask for a pre-sentence report matters.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I defer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s experience, but is there not an argument for every case to have a pre-sentence report in order to truly understand what an individual has faced and whether there are any mitigating factors? I appreciate that that could create a backlog for these services, but is it not one possible solution to the problem that the Sentencing Council was worried about—namely, that different cohorts might have different sentencing outcomes?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point in relation to offenders who hover on the border between community sentences and custodial sentences, but he will know that, in the Crown court at least, the majority of such offenders already have a pre-sentence report. Of course, there are also offenders who come before the courts for sentencing and it is blindingly obvious either that a custodial sentence will follow, or that neither a community sentence nor a custodial sentence is realistically in prospect, so I do not think it right to say that we should have a pre-sentence report in every case, but there is already in law a presumption that pre-sentence reports should be ordered unless it is unnecessary to do so. What we are seeking to do here is respond to a very specific set of circumstances that have arisen as a result of a Sentencing Council decision. As he may have heard me say on Second Reading, I do not think that the Sentencing Council handled this well, and as a result we are having to do something that we would otherwise not have to do.

Sentencing offenders is, in all circumstances, a difficult business. The fact that different offenders receive different sentences, even for the same offence, is not necessarily evidence of a defect in sentencing practice as a result of guidelines or otherwise, but is more likely a reflection of the reality that every case and every offender is different. We should not, I suggest, try to stop judges reaching the appropriate conclusion, assisted by Sentencing Council guidelines, in each case before them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. As a former solicitor, I am familiar with that provision, and I agree that any defendant who has not yet received a custodial sentence should have the benefit of a pre-sentence report. However, imagine two criminals who both have a criminal record, but one is a member of a religious or ethnic minority and one is not. The guidelines propose treating them differently, and that is not justice.

[Dr Evans]

Is the fact not that the sentencing guidance said that a pre-sentence report would normally be considered necessary, and then went on to talk about race and religion? Making those distinctions immediately apparent in sentencing guidance, which could mean that a white Christian male would be treated differently if they committed the same offence as someone of a different ethnicity, is the fundamental problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I associate myself with every single thing that the Mother of the House has just said, because I could not possibly live up to it. I genuinely believe that this Bill will undermine efforts to ensure that equality before the law is a reality for everyone. It flies in the face of expertise and of the painstaking, authoritative work of the Sentencing Council —a rightly independent body run by, and for, the judiciary. This is a strange and populist Bill that is undermining and delaying good, well-evidenced independent guidelines for effective sentencing that would have made our justice system more fair, rather than less.

I will start my objections to clauses 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill—I am essentially opposing the Bill as a whole—by commenting on the process. We have before us a single-page Bill that in its specificity and intent cannot but bring to my mind how the current President of the United States is using executive orders to interfere intrusively and intricately in the rightly independent decision making of other bodies. This is a micro Bill that micromanages. I worry what else we might see from this Government if such an example is set today. On Second Reading, the shadow Justice Secretary was not shy of telling us about his next targets, which include the long-standing “Equal Treatment Bench Book”. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has outlined other guidelines that might be immediately affected if we pass this Bill today.

My second objection is about the substance of the Bill, which is primarily contained in clause 1. I cannot believe that Ministers and shadow Ministers are unaware that achieving fair and equal outcomes does not mean treating everyone exactly the same. That principle is so fundamental that I think I learned it through the round window. I cannot believe they are unaware that systemic racism and unconscious bias are real things that still affect people at every stage of the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom in 2025. They must be aware that the good practice that we put together must mitigate those things, or else it will compound them.

I do not believe that the Government as a whole think that the findings of the independent Lammy review of 2017 are untrue, or that they and a wealth of other evidence did not demonstrate the need for guidelines of this sort to provide information to help mitigate the impact of systemic racism and prejudice. Yet here we are, being asked to vote for legislation that essentially bans this evidence and these principles from being part of independent judicial guidelines.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My concern and that of Opposition Members is that the guidance gave examples where pre-sentence reports would “normally be considered necessary” and picked out an identity of a religion or a minority, thereby entrenching racism back into the system. That is the very aim that the hon. Member purports to not want to see. That is the fundamental argument that the Government and the Opposition are putting forward. We do not want to see this situation made worse.

[Siân Berry]

This is—

--- Later in debate ---

Let me offer an analogy, or a parallel, with health disparities. According to Public Health England and the Stroke Association, black African and Caribbean men over the age of 55 are almost twice as likely to suffer a stroke as white men of the same age. That is not speculation; it is a clinical fact. If the NHS were to implement a targeted programme to deliver early stroke prevention for that group, not a single person in this Chamber would call it a two-tier health system. We would call it evidence-based care. We would call it a fair and proportionate response to a known disparity. So why, when it comes to justice, are we so afraid to apply the same logic?

[Dr Luke Evans]

From a medical perspective, there would be a genetic predisposition. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people would, on a genetic basis, find themselves affected by the law purely because they were black? The comparison he has just made is exactly that, from a medical standpoint. I do not think he would really make such a suggestion, and I would certainly be against that position.

[Ayoub Khan]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but as a criminal practitioner who has frequented courts over the last 20 years, I have seen disparities. I have seen sentencing which, in my view, was not fair. Lived experiences among certain communities are just as important as those of other minorities, whatever their backgrounds. Ultimately, who has decided that this is an important element that needs to be taken into account in the sentencing guidelines? This went through all the consultation under the last Government. People had seen it, and agreed to it. It did not raise a concern back then, so why should it now?

Addressing inequality is not the same as creating inequality. It is, in fact, the only way in which to ensure real equality—to ensure that justice is not just blind in theory, but fair in practice. I know some will argue that we need to understand the root causes of disparity, and they are right: that longer-term work is essential. However, while it is going on we must act in the present. We must allow the experts to do their jobs and support the guidance that they, not we, have developed through years of experience, research and consultation.

This Bill is not just misguided; it is regressive. I cannot and will not support legislation that sidelines expert insight, ignores data and compromises the principles of fairness that we all claim to defend in the name of political convenience. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and right now the communities that face this disparity will no doubt be concerned about the Government’s approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

I do not know whether the hon. Member has read the Sentencing Council’s summary of the responses to the draft guidance that was in consultation under the Conservative Government, but it paraphrased magistrates and judges as saying that driving the universality of pre-sentence reports would be challenging in the light of the limited resource for the Probation Service and of the court backlogs. I would suggest that he consult that document to see the phrases used by those legal professionals.

[Dr Luke Evans]

How much would universality cost? Have the Lib Dems calculated how much it would cost?

[Josh Babarinde]

If the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) was making the point that these reports should exist come what may, the cash should be ringfenced and earmarked for the use of judges and magistrates to request them, but he and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) cannot have it both ways. We know that if we best tailor a sentence to whether it will result in somebody not reoffending—if we best match the sentence to an offender—we can spend to save. If we can reduce reoffending by ensuring that people get the appropriate sentence, we will keep people out of our crumbling prisons who do not need to be there because they will not reoffend in the first place. We can spend to save.

I regret that this issue has become a political football and one that is sowing the seeds of division. Plainly and simply, this is about the shadow Justice Secretary attempting to hijack our criminal justice system for his own political ends. So desperate is he to score political points that he uses his platform in this House to undermine judges by name, in the full knowledge that they cannot respond and that there is a formal process by which judicial complaints can be investigated and addressed. So desperate are the Conservatives to score political points that they paint judges as activist villains and are working to undermine public confidence in them just because the shadow Justice Secretary does not agree with their rulings.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We are doing everything we can to support women and their children. We have declared this a national emergency, and we have that ambition of targeting and halving violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. My personal ambition is that the names read out at this Dispatch Box next year are far fewer than the ones read out this year.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

10. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of trends in the level of illegal drug use in prisons.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

This Government inherited prisons in crisis: overcrowded, violent and rife with drugs. If we are to have regimes that reduce reoffending and cut crime, we have to crack down on drugs in prison. To do so, we must address the supply of drugs, and prisons use a range of tactics, including X-ray body scanners and baggage scanners. We must also tackle demand. Over 80 of our prisons now have drug-free wings.

[Dr Evans]

Before 2021, less than 1% of seized substances contained anabolic steroids. In 2023, it was 10%, with anabolic steroids being the third most prevalent drug class detected in Scottish prisons. Will the Lord Chancellor meet me and Dr Jayasena and Dr Grant, who are national leads on the topic from Imperial College, to look at conducting research into the impact of steroids on offending and the prison population?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his long record of campaigning on this particular issue. It is an important point, and I will ensure that he can meet the Prisons Minister and look at what further research might be needed in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We know that accommodation is key to reducing reoffending. That is why we are expanding our transitional accommodation service and working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a long-term strategy to put us back on track to ending homelessness and ensuring this issue is tackled correctly.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

5. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of legislation on funerals.

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

The Government recognise that there are serious concerns about the funeral director sector and that the legislation that governs what happens after we die is outdated. We are considering how to ensure that appropriate standards are introduced, including through the potential for some form of regulation. We have asked the Law Commission to create a future-proof legal framework to address what happens to our bodies after we die.

[Dr Luke Evans]

As the Minister knows, we have been in correspondence about that sector. She kindly wrote back to me to say that the Fuller inquiry’s phase 2 interim report has been released. My constituent Joseph Barsby runs G. Seller, one the biggest independent funeral directors. He is passionate about how we can bring forward a compassionate way of looking at people who have died, while ensuring that standards are kept high. Will the Minister consider meeting me and him to further discuss ways that we can bring the sector into the 21st century?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the vast majority of funeral directors treat people in their care with the utmost respect, as that business in his constituency will do. Nevertheless, there are some serious issues of concern in the sector. As I mentioned, the Government are currently considering the full range of possible next steps, including meeting with sector directors. I would be happy to inform the hon. Gentleman when that meeting is taking place, so that he and his constituent can take part.