Sentencing Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).

(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.

(4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence.

(5) But the court may not impose a sentence that is a heavier penalty than the sentence that was imposed for the original offence.

(6) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (4)—

(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under the Sentencing Code (see section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020);

(b) the Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).

(7) In this section—

‘IPP sentence’ means a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act (including such a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of section 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);

‘original offence’ means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.

(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.

New clause 3—Use of funds raised through income reduction orders—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits and costs of directing the funds raised from income reduction orders into a fund that provides support for victims.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of using the monies raised through income reduction orders to fund support for victims.

New clause 4—Probation caseloads—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations to commence the provisions in this Act, establish maximum caseload limits for probation officers supervising individuals subject to—

(a) licence conditions;

(b) community orders; or

(c) any other form of court-imposed supervision by the probation service.

(2) The Secretary of State must, each year, lay before Parliament a report on compliance with the caseload limits set under this section.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set maximum caseloads for probation before implementation of the Act, and to report annually on compliance.

New clause 5—Access to rehabilitation and support services—

“(1) The probation service must ensure all individuals subject to licence conditions, community orders, or other court-imposed supervision have access to—

(a) NHS mental health and substance misuse services,

(b) education, training and employment support, and

(c) approved behaviour change or offender behaviour programmes.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on the availability and use of the services provided under subsection (1).”

This new clause would require the probation service to ensure people under its supervision can access mental health and substance misuse services; education, training and support; and approved behaviour change or offender management programmes, and to report annually on the availability and uptake of those services.

New clause 6—Digital systems for tracking offender progress—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the benefits and costs of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals who are subject to supervision by the probation service.

(2) The assessment must consider the following potential functions of a sentence management system—

(a) tracking offender progress,

(b) providing for the sharing of information between the courts, probation service, and other relevant agencies, subject to the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018,

(c) monitoring compliance with rehabilitation programmes, and

(d) any other functions that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals subject to supervision by the probation service.

New clause 7—Specialist teams for high-risk or complex offenders—

“(1) The probation service must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise—

(a) high-risk offenders,

(b) offenders with complex mental health needs,

(c) offenders with substance misuse needs, and

(d) young offenders who are transitioning to adult supervision.

(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits of specialist probation teams having lower average caseloads per probation officer.

(3) The assessment must consider the potential arrangements for specialist probation teams accessing support from other relevant agencies.

(4) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the probation service to assess the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise offenders who are high-risk; have complex mental health or substance misuse needs; and young offenders transitioning to adult supervision.

New clause 8—Domestic abuse aggravated offences—

“(1) A court must treat an offence committed in England and Wales as domestic abuse aggravated, if—

(a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other; and

(b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse.

(2) In this section—

‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and

‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”

This new clause would require a court to treat a domestic abuse offence as aggravated.

New clause 9—Rehabilitative programmes for offences relating to violence against women and girls—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for—

(a) assault;

(b) battery; or

(c) actual bodily harm

when the victim is a woman or girl.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for certain offences.

New clause 10—Screening for traumatic brain injuries—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of screening all prisoners for traumatic brain injuries at the start of their custodial sentence.

(2) The assessment should consider—

(a) how screening for traumatic brain injuries could inform the management of a prisoner’s sentence,

(b) the health services and rehabilitation programmes available for prisoners with traumatic brain injuries, and

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

(3) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment made under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of introducing standardised screening for traumatic brain injuries for prisoners starting a custodial sentence.

New clause 11—Suspension of driving licences during bail for driving related offences—

“(1) This section applies where an individual has been granted bail in respect of one of the following offences—

(a) dangerous or careless driving;

(b) drink driving; or

(c) drug driving.

(2) The court may suspend the driving licence of the individual, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings.”

This new clause would allow the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged for certain driving offences, pending the outcome of the trial.

New clause 12—Access to rehabilitation programmes and education for individuals held on remand—

“(1) Where an individual is held in custodial remand pending sentencing, the probation service must provide access to the same rehabilitative programmes that are available to prisoners after sentencing.

(2) Where an individual is held in custodial demand pending trial, the probation service must provide access to the same—

(a) education;

(b) therapy; and

(c) any other support that the probation service deems appropriate,

that is available to prisoners after sentencing.”

This new clause would allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence.

New clause 14—Under-18 anonymity for cases involving serious crime—

“(1) This section applies where a person (‘P’) aged under 18—

(a) has been convicted of an offence; and

(b) will receive a custodial sentence of four or more years.

(2) Where this section applies, prior to delivering sentencing remarks, the court must lift any reporting restrictions identifying P.

(3) This section applies notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter IV of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.”

This new clause would require reporting restrictions to be lifted at the point of sentencing for young offenders who have received a sentence of four or more years.

New clause 15—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—

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

(2) All published sentencing remarks must be made freely available, including online.”

This new clause would require all sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court to be published and made available to all.

New clause 16—Sexual offences: Offender Personality Disorder Pathway—

“(1) The Prison Rules 1999 are amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 20 (Health services), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

‘(1A) Provision under subsection (1) must include access, for all eligible prisoners serving custodial sentences for sexual offences, to services provided under the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway.’”

This new clause would require the Government to provide access to the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway to all eligible prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences.

New clause 17—Sexual offences: chemical suppression—

“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on how most effectively to introduce mandatory chemical suppression for certain individuals serving sentences for sexual offences, with appropriate legal and clinical safeguards.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on mandatory chemical suppression for certain sex offenders.

New clause 18—Sentencing Council: abolition—

“(1) The Sentencing Council (established under section 118 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) is abolished.

(2) The Secretary of State may prepare—

(a) sentencing guidelines which may be general in nature or limited to a particular offence, particular category of offence or particular category of offender;

(b) sentencing guidelines about the discharge of a court's duty under section 73 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentences for guilty pleas); and

(c) sentencing guidelines about the application of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences.

(3) The Secretary of State may prepare sentencing guidelines about any other matter.

(4) When developing sentencing guidelines, the Secretary of State must—

(a) promote understanding of, and public confidence in, the sentencing and criminal justice system;

(b) consult Parliament on all draft guidelines; and

(c) publish the reasons for proposing any guidelines that could result in an offender receiving a shorter sentence than that set out in an Act of Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State may report, from time to time, on the impact of sentencing guidelines on sentencing practice.

(6) The Secretary of State must monitor—

(a) the application of the sentencing guidelines; and

(b) the impact on victims of sentencing decisions.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”

This new clause would abolish the Sentencing Council, give the Secretary of State the power to publish Sentencing guidelines, and impose various requirements linked to consultation and monitoring.

New clause 19—Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after ‘duty,’, insert ‘or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,’”

This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim’s current or former duties.

New clause 20—Child cruelty offences: notification and offender management requirements—

“(1) A person (‘relevant offender’) is subject to the notification requirements of subsections (2) and (3) for the period set out in subsection (4) if the relevant offender is convicted of an offence listed in subsection (6).

(2) A relevant offender must notify to the police within the three days of the time of their conviction or their release from custody, and annually thereafter, providing—

(a) the relevant offender’s date of birth;

(b) their national insurance number;

(c) their name on the notification date and, where using one or more other names on that date, each of those names;

(d) their place of residence on the date of notification;

(e) the address of any other premises in the United Kingdom at which, at the time the notification is given, they regularly reside or stay; and

(f) any information that may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.

(3) A relevant offender must notify to the police, within the period of three days beginning with the event occurring, about—

(a) their use of a name which has not been notified to the police under subsection (2);

(b) a change to their place or residence; and

(c) any other prescribed change of circumstances as defined in regulations made under this section.

(4) The dates of discharge from notification requirements under this section are the same as those set out in Section 88B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

(5) The information required by subsections (2) and (3), once received, must be—

(a) monitored regularly by the police and probation service; and

(b) retained for the purposes of offender management.

(6) The relevant offences are—

(a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004);

(b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933);

(c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938);

(d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);

(e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16;

(f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—

(i) female genital mutilation (section 1);

(ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2);

(iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia (section 3); and

(g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).”

This new clause would create notification requirements for people convicted of child cruelty, analogous to the Sex Offenders Register. Their information and personal details would be kept on record by the police for the purposes of offender management, with the aim of reducing the risk to children from future offences.

New clause 21—Lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous driving—

“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under section 1 the Road Traffic Act 1988.

(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for life.”

This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous driving would be banned from driving for life.

New clause 22—Review of sentence following a change in law—

“(1) Where a person is serving or subject to a sentence imposed for an offence, and—

(a) the offence has been abolished, or

(b) there has been a change in the law which materially alters the sentence that would be imposed for the same offence following that change in the law,

that person may apply to the sentencing court, or to such other court as may be prescribed, for a review of the sentence.

(2) On such an application, the court may—

(a) quash the sentence and resentence the person in accordance with the existing law; or

(b) make such other order as necessary in the interests of justice.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedure and eligibility criteria for applications under this section.”

This new clause would allow a person still serving a sentence under a law that has changed to seek review or resentencing in line with the existing law.

New clause 23—Review of the impact of a change in the law on unspent convictions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—

(a) the effect of changes in the criminal law, whether legislative or judicial, on those serving sentences for offences that would attract a different sentence following the subsequent changes to the criminal law; and

(b) the adequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing any perceived injustice arising from such changes.

(2) The Secretary of State must thereafter lay a further report under subsection (1) every three years.

(3) A report made under this section must include—

(a) recommendations for legislative or administrative steps to prevent any instances of injustice arising from changes in the law; and

(b) data on the number of persons serving sentences in the scenario set out in subsection (1)(a) and, of those, the number who remain imprisoned.”

This new clause would create a statutory duty for the Government to review, on a recurring basis, how changes to the law affect those already convicted or sentenced.

New clause 24—Deportation of foreign criminals: European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—

“(1) Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) At the start of subsection (5), insert ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7A of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and Article 2 of the Windsor Framework,’.”

This new clause would seek to disapply section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended under the Windsor Framework) to the deportation of foreign criminals, with the aim of preventing the courts from disapplying those provisions to Northern Ireland if they are deemed incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

New clause 25—Electronic monitoring: oversight—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In Part 14 of Schedule 9, in paragraph 31 (Electronic monitoring: person responsible for monitoring), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

‘(3) Regulations under this section must ensure that—

(a) electronic monitoring is overseen by the Probation Service;

(b) the fitting of necessary apparatus for the purposes of electronic monitoring may only be undertaken by those in the employment of an organisation with responsibility for delivering electronic monitoring; and

(c) the fitting of necessary apparatus may not be undertaken by an employee of HM Prison and Probation Service unless the responsibility for the delivery of electronic monitoring is held solely by HM Prison and Probation Service.’”

This new clause would ensure that the probation service oversees electronic monitoring, and that prison officers would not be responsible for fitting tags unless tagging contracts are brought into the public sector.

New clause 26—Unpaid work requirements: community work—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 9 (Restriction on imposing unpaid work requirement), after sub-paragraph (1)(b) insert—

‘(c) that the unpaid work is work undertaken for a non-profit organisation, social enterprise, voluntary organisation or local authority.’”

This new clause would prohibit private sector involvement in unpaid work as part of a community sentence.

New clause 27—Probation capacity: independent report—

“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, a report must be published and laid before Parliament by HM Inspectorate of Probation (‘the Inspectorate’) determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service to meet provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service.

(2) If the report under subsection (1) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service may not come into force until a further report determines that the Probation Service has adequate capacity.

(3) Following a report under subsection (1), the Inspectorate must publish and lay before Parliament a further report, no less than once every twelve months, determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service.

(4) If a report under subsections (1) or (3) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, the Inspectorate may direct that a prioritisation framework must be issued to the areas in which the capacity concerns apply, in order to provide local services with guidance about which activities to deprioritise.

(5) The Secretary of State must, within two weeks of the laying of a report under subsections (1) or (3) with a finding of inadequate capacity, make a statement to Parliament setting out how probation capacity will be increased to an adequate level.”

This new clause would ensure that the provisions of this Bill likely to increase demand on the Probation Service cannot be implemented until HM Inspectorate of Probation determines that there is adequate capacity to address those demands, and would enable the Inspectorate to trigger the issuing of a prioritisation framework to help local areas to identify which activities to deprioritise.

New clause 28—Management of offenders: devolution to Wales—

“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In Paragraph 175 (Prisons and offender management)—

(a) omit sub-paragraph (2); and

(b) in sub-paragraph (3), omit ‘probation’

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”

This new clause seeks to devolve probation services and offender management to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.

New clause 29—Foreign criminals: risk assessments prior to deportation—

“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—

‘32A Deportation following stalking offences: risk assessments

(1) This section applies where a foreign criminal—

(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and

(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.

(2) Where this section applies, prior to deportation, a risk assessment must be prepared to assess the likelihood after deportation of the foreign criminal—

(a) committing an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or

(b) contacting or seeking to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.

(3) A risk assessment prepared under this section must be shared, subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, with the relevant authorities in the country to which the foreign criminal will be deported.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’”

This new clause would require the preparation of a risk assessment for any foreign criminal being deported after a stalking conviction, and for the assessment to be shared with the authorities in the country to which the offender is returning.

New clause 30—Foreign criminals: potential stalking offences following deportation—

“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—

‘32A Potential stalking offences following deportation

(1) This section applies where the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) apply.

(2) Condition 1 is that a foreign criminal—

(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and

(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.

(3) Condition 2 is that they have—

(a) committed an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or

(b) they have contacted or sought to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.

(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to the relevant authorities, setting out—

(a) a police point of contact in the country to which the offender is returning;

(b) steps to protect and safeguard the victim in the UK; and

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

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance in dealing with foreign criminals who have been deported after a stalking conviction, and who seek to continue to stalk the victim.

New clause 31—Exclusion from automatic release following fixed-term recall for specified serious offences—

“(1) An offender shall not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed-term recall where they have been convicted of any of the following offences—

(a) rape;

(b) assault by penetration;

(c) rape of a child under 13;

(d) assault of a child under 13 by penetration;

(e) inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity;

(f) paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13;

(g) kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence;

(h) creating or possessing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children;

(i) grievous bodily harm (under section 18 or section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);

(j) grooming (under section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003);

(k) stalking (under section 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997);

(l) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult (under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004); or

(m) causing death by dangerous driving (under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988).

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person shall also be ineligible for release following a fixed-term recall if they have been convicted of an attempt, conspiracy, or incitement to commit any of the offences listed in subsection (1).

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations add or remove offences from the list in subsection (1).”

This new clause would mean offenders who had committed certain serious offences would not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed term recall.

New clause 32—Powers of the probation service to impose and vary conditions of supervision—

“(1) Where an offender is—

(a) subject to a community order, a suspended sentence order, or a period of probation supervision; and

(b) required to reside at a specified address as a condition of that order or supervision,

the Probation Service may, in accordance with this section, direct that the offender reside at an alternative address.

(2) A direction under subsection (1) may be given where—

(a) it is necessary to protect another person (including a partner, former partner, or family member) from risk of harm;

(b) it is necessary for the effective management or rehabilitation of the offender; or

(c) it is otherwise in the interests of justice.

(3) Where the probation service has made a direction under subsection (1), it may recommend or determine other terms of supervision, including—

(a) restrictions on contact or association with specified individuals;

(b) requirements relating to participation in programmes addressing offending behaviour; or

(c) curfew or exclusion requirements, subject to approval by the sentencing court.

(4) Where a direction or variation made under this section materially alters the conditions imposed by the sentencing court, the probation service must—

(a) notify the court and the offender as soon as possible; and

(b) seek confirmation by the sentencing court of the varied terms within 14 days.

(5) Any direction or variation made under this section shall have effect as if imposed by the sentencing court, until it has been confirmed, revoked, or amended by the court.

(6) In this section, “the probation service” includes any person or body authorised to supervise offenders under the Offender Management Act 2007.”

This new clause would give the probation service the power to change the residence requirement of an individual subject to supervision in certain circumstances, and to make other changes to the terms of supervision, subject to confirmation by the sentencing court.

New clause 33—Mandatory dependent support orders upon sentencing—

“(1) Where an offender is known to have dependents who rely on them for financial or other material support, the court shall, at the time of sentencing, inquire into the circumstances and reasonable needs of those dependents.

(2) In addition to any sentence imposed, the court must make an order requiring the offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents (‘dependent support order’), unless the court determines that such an order would be manifestly unjust or impracticable.

(3) The amount, frequency, and method of payment made under subsection (2) shall be determined by the court having regard to—

(a) the offender’s financial means, earning capacity, and assets;

(b) the reasonable living costs and needs of the dependents; and

(c) any other relevant circumstances.

(4) The court may direct that payments be made—

(a) through a designated collection authority; or

(b) directly to the dependent’s guardian, caregiver, or other appointed representative.

(5) An order made under this section shall remain in effect—

(a) for such time as specified by the court; or

(b) until it is varied or discharged by the court on application by any interested party.

(6) A failure to comply with an order made under this section shall constitute a breach of the sentence.”

This new clause would create a power for a sentencing court to require an offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents.

New clause 34—10-year driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—

“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under sections 1, 2B, 3ZB, 3ZC or 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for 10 years.”

This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous or careless driving (or related offences) would be banned from driving for ten years.

New clause 35—Causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving: statutory aggravating factor—

“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 3A, insert—

‘3B Causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless of inconsiderate driving: aggravating factor for sentencing

In considering the seriousness of any offence committed under sections 1, 1A, 2B, 2C, 3ZB, 3ZC, 3ZS or 3A for the purposes of sentencing, the court must treat failure to—

(a) stop at the scene of the accident;

(b) call the emergency services; or

(c) administer first aid, where it is possible to do so;

as an aggravating factor, and state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.’”

This new clause would create statutory aggravating factors, for the purposes of sentencing, of failure to stop, call the emergency services, or administer first aid where it is possible to do so, in cases of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless of inconsiderate driving.

New clause 36—Earned progression for prisoner release—

“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 244, after subsection (4), insert—

‘(5) The duty to release under subsection (1) is subject to the prisoner demonstrating compliance with the earned progression scheme during the course of their custodial sentence.

(6) The Secretary of State must issue regulations, under section 267 (alteration by order of the relevant proportion of sentence) setting a higher requisite custodial period for prisoners who have not demonstrated compliance with the earned progression scheme during their sentence.

(7) In this section, ‘the earned progression scheme’ must include—

(a) compliance with prison rules;

(b) engagement in purposeful activity;

(c) attendance at any required work, education, treatment or training obligations, where these are available; and

(d) any other factors that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further guidance to prisons on the operation of the earned progression scheme.’”

This new clause seeks to implement the recommendation of the independent review on sentencing for the release of prisoners at the one third point of their sentence to be subject to their compliance with an earned progression scheme.

New clause 38—Sentencing Council—

“(1) The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.”

New clause 39—Deportation of foreign criminals—

“(1) A foreign criminal who has been sentenced to—

(a) a custodial sentence of at least 6 months; or

(b) a community sentence of at least 6 months,

must be the subject of an immediate deportation order, subject to subsection (2) below.

(2) The Secretary of State may determine, in exceptional cases, that a deportation order under subsection (1) does not apply.

(3) In this section, ‘foreign criminal’ means a person who—

(a) is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen, and

(b) is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence.”

This new clause would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six month community sentence.

New clause 40—Criminal cases review—

“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), insert—

‘Part IVB

CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (PUBLIC PETITION)

36A Scope of this Part

(1) A case to which this Part applies may be referred to the Court of Appeal under section 2 below.

(2) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under section 36B shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this Part shall be construed as references to that division.

(3) This Part applies to any case—

(a) of a description specified in an order under this section; or

(b) in which sentence is passed on a person—

(i) for an offence triable only on indictment; or

(ii) for an offence of a description specified in an order under this section.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that this section shall apply to any case of a description specified in the order or to any case in which sentence is passed on a person for an offence triable either way of a description specified in the order.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(6) In this Part, ‘sentence’ has the same meaning as in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, except that it does not include an interim hospital order under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983, and ‘sentencing’ shall be construed accordingly.

(7) In its application to Northern Ireland, this section shall have effect subject to the modifications set out in subsections (8) to (11).

(8) Subsection (2) shall not apply to Northern Ireland.

(9) In this section—

‘offence triable only on indictment’ means an offence punishable only on conviction on indictment;

‘offence triable either way’ means an offence punishable on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction; and

any reference in subsection (4) to the Secretary of State must be construed as a reference to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

(10) For subsection (5), in Northern Ireland an order under subsection (4) shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (and not a statutory instrument), and any such order shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).

(11) References in subsection (6) to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall be respectively construed as references to Part I of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 and Part III of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

36B Criminal cases review (public petition)

(1) If it appears to any adult British citizen aged 18 or over—

(a) that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the Crown Court (‘the person sentenced’) has been unduly lenient or unduly harsh; and

(b) that the case is one to which section 36A applies,

that British citizen (‘the petitioner’) may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (‘the Commission’) for it to review the sentencing of the person sentenced, in accordance with section 36C below, and if the Commission refers the case to the Court of Appeal, upon such a reference the Court of Appeal may—

(a) quash any sentence passed on the person sentenced; and

(b) in place of it pass such sentence as they think appropriate for the case and as the lower court had power to pass when dealing with the person sentenced,

provided that the petitioner has filed the reference with the Commission in writing, signed by at least 500 signatures (‘the co-petitioners’) including his own.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations stipulate the information and form that the petitioner must provide when filing the reference.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the condition specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection may be satisfied whether or not it appears that the judge—

(a) erred in law as to his powers of sentencing; or

(b) failed to comply with a mandatory sentence requirement under section 399(b) or (c) of the Sentencing Code.

(4) For the purposes of this Part, any two or more sentences are to be treated as passed in the same proceeding if they would be so treated for the purposes of section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

(5) Where a reference under this section relates to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code, the Court of Appeal shall not, in deciding what order under that section is appropriate for the case, make any allowance for the fact that the person to whom it relates is being sentenced for a second time.

(6) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of, or shall determine any application in proceedings incidental or preliminary to, a reference under this section of a sentence passed by himself.

(7) Where the Court of Appeal has concluded its review of a case referred to it under this section, and given its judgment thereon, the Court of Appeal, the petitioner or the person sentenced may refer a point of law involved in any sentence passed on the person sentenced to the Supreme Court for its opinion, and the Supreme Court shall consider the point and give its opinion on it accordingly, and either remit the case to the Court of Appeal to be dealt with or itself deal with the case.

(8) A reference under subsection (6) shall be made only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal that the point of law is of general public importance and it appears to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (as the case may be) that the point is one which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.

(9) For the purpose of dealing with a case under this section, the Supreme Court may exercise any powers of the Court of Appeal.

(10) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—

(a) subsection (2)(b) shall read as if for the words after ‘failed to’ there were substituted ‘impose a sentence required by—

(i) Article 70(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004,

(ii) paragraph 2(4) or (5) of Schedule 2 to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006,

(iii) Article 13 or 14 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, or

(iv) section 7(2) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015’.

(b) the references to sections 11 and 35(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall be read as references to sections 10(2) and 33(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, respectively; and

(c) the reference in subsection (3A) to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code shall be read as a reference to an order under Article 5(1) of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.

36C The Commission

(1) The Commission under section 36B is the same body as that established under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the provisions of section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to the role of the Commission under this Part.

(2) Sections 9, 10, and 12A to 25 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to this Part.

(3) The Commission must review all cases referred to it within 8 weeks of receiving any such referral and must, within that time, make its decision.

(4) If the Commission decides that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal by reason of an unduly harsh sentence then, immediately upon receipt of the referral, the Court of Appeal must make an order that the person sentenced be released on temporary licence (‘ROTL’) until further order of the court, and the Court of Appeal must also determine suitable bail conditions, if any and the person sentenced must remain ROTL until the Court of Appeal has determined the referral.’”

This new clause would allow any British citizen to refer a sentence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, for the Commission to review the sentence and consider whether to refer it to the Court of Appeal.

New clause 41—Sentencing statistics: duty to publish—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, direct His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) to record and retain, in relation to all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court or Magistrates’ courts, the offender’s—

(a) country of birth

(b) nationality,

(c) ethnicity,

(d) immigration status, and

(e) the offence(s) for which they were sentenced.

(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the data recorded under subsection (1) to be published and laid before Parliament—

(a) within twelve months of the passing of this Act, and

(b) annually thereafter.”

This new clause would require the Government to record and publish statistics on convicted offenders’ birthplace, nationality, ethnicity and immigration status.

New clause 42—Crown Court sitting days for the delivery of sentencing—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sittings day in the Crown Court in so far as it applies to sentencing hearings.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment made under subsection (1) before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sittings days in the Crown Court in so far as it applies to sentencing hearings.

New clause 43—Expiry—

“This Act expires at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”

This new clause is a sunset clause, meaning the Act would cease to have effect after two years.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.

Amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “months” insert

“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.

Amendment 35, page 1, line 17, after “order” insert

“with the maximum operational period”.

This amendment would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.

Amendment 33, page 3, line 9, after “individual” insert “or the public”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put the public (as well as an individual) at significant risk of harm.

Amendment 34, page 3, line 9, leave out “significant”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the risk of harm applies, removing the requirement for the harm to be significant.

Amendment 14, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) Where a court has passed a suspended sentence under this section, it must also require the offender to be subject to an electronic monitoring requirement for the duration of the sentence.”

This amendment would require offenders (under the age of 21) given suspended sentences to be subject to electronic monitoring.

Amendment 15, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”

Amendment 16, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender—

(a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the ‘current offence’);

(b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence;

(c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions;

(d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence;

(e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence;

(f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence;

(g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer;

(h) at the time of the current offence, was—

(i) subject to a supervision order; or

(ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).

(i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or

(j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.”

This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances.

Amendment 17, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence—

(a) under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996; or

(b) aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”

Amendment 18, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving a firearm or ammunition, including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”

Amendment 19, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a burglary offence.”

Amendment 20, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon,”

Amendment 21, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a terrorism offence.”

Amendment 22, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”

Amendment 36, page 4, line 4, after “months” insert

“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.

Amendment 39, page 4, line 7, after “order” insert

“with the maximum operational period”.

This amendment would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.

Amendment 37, page 5, line 20, after “individual” insert “or the public”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put the public (as well as an individual) at significant risk of harm.

Amendment 38, page 5, line 20, leave out “significant”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the risk of harm applies, removing the requirement for the harm to be significant.

Amendment 23, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) Where a court has passed a suspended sentence under this section, it must also require the offender to be subject to an electronic monitoring requirement for the duration of the sentence.”

This amendment would require offenders (aged 21 or over) given suspended sentences to be subject to electronic monitoring.

Amendment 24, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”

Amendment 25, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender—

(a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the ‘current offence’);

(b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence;

(c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions;

(d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence;

(e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence;

(f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence;

(g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer;

(h) at the time of the current offence, was—

(i) subject to a supervision order; or

(ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).

(i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or

(j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.”

This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances.

Amendment 26, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence—

(c) under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996; or

(d) aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”

Amendment 27, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving a firearm or ammunition, including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”

Amendment 28, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a burglary offence.”

Amendment 29, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon,”.

Amendment 30, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a terrorism offence.”

Amendment 31, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”

Amendment 6, page 6, line 28, leave out clause 2.

Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 14, line 10, after “(including victims of crime” insert

“, ensuring their protection from further physical or psychological harm”.

This amendment would amend the statutory purposes of sentencing to incorporate safeguarding victims from further physical or psychological harm.

Amendment 9, page 36, line 9, leave out clauses 18 and 19.

Amendment 7, page 37, line 9, leave out clause 20.

Amendment 11, page 47, leave out lines 16 to 19.

This amendment would leave out the Bill's provision to give probation officers more discretion in relation to licence conditions

Amendment 2, in clause 24, page 49, line 14, at end insert—

“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (4) of this section, undertake an assessment of the potential effects of a driving prohibition condition on a person’s ability to attend—

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

(11) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the assessment carried out under subsection (10) including recommendations on—

(a) offender rehabilitation,

(b) offender reintegration, and

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

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before commencing the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill, to publish a report on their potential effects on the ability of ex-offenders to attend employment, education and rehabilitation providers.

Amendment 3, page 49, line 14, at end insert—

“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (7) of this section, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on a person’s ability to attend—

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

(11) The court may provide for exemptions in a restriction zone condition to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.

(12) A probation officer may vary a restriction zone condition imposed by the court to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.

(13) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on—

(a) the number of people subject to a restriction zone condition,

(b) the number of cases where a restriction zone condition has included an exemption or modification to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme, and

(c) evidence on the effects of restriction zone conditions on reoffending and rehabilitation.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before implementing the relevant provisions, to assess the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on an ex-offender’s ability to attend education, employment or a rehabilitation programme. It would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, and require an annual report on their use and effectiveness.

Amendment 12, page 66, line 34, leave out clause 36.

Amendment 13, page 68, line 8, leave out clause 37.

Amendment 4, page 68, line 24, leave out clause 38.

[Mr Bedford]

In September 2024, my constituents and, indeed, the country were left shocked by the senseless killing of Braunstone Town resident Bhim Kohli. Mr Kohli, a well-respected and decent man, was just walking through Franklin park as he usually did, accompanied by his dog Rocky, when he was targeted and assaulted to death by a 14-year-old boy, egged on by a 12-year-old girl.

Since this horrific event, I have been working with Mr Kohli’s daughter Susan, and I pay tribute to the Kohli family for the dignified manner in which they have dealt with the emotional and tragic aftermath of such a horrific incident. Susan is not looking for retribution; she is simply looking to promote justice for the families of victims, who at the moment do not feel that the justice system works for them. I pay tribute to Susan, who I know is sitting at home, alongside Rocky, watching today’s debate.

I have tabled new clauses 1 and 14 in memory of Mr Kohli, and I would like hon. Members across the House to support them. They would place greater responsibility on child offenders and the parents of child offenders. New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness and use of parental orders throughout the justice system. For hon. Members who do not know, parental orders are measures that either require parents of child offenders to pay for their children’s crimes, or force them to attend parenting classes. Yet, despite those powers being on the statute book, they are rarely used. In fact, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that their use has decreased from over 1,000 in 2010 to just 27 in recent years. That is woefully inadequate.

These measures are designed not to punish, but to support; to help families restore discipline and stability; and to prevent the next crime before it happens. Susan put it to me that if the parents of the two individuals in this case were placed under parental orders, they would perhaps appreciate the damage and impact that their negligent behaviour has caused. The fact that one of the parents recently asked for their child’s tag to be removed so that they could go on a family holiday is shameful.

New clause 14 would bring an end to anonymity protections for young offenders who commit the most heinous and serious crimes. I believe in deterrence, and I believe that when an individual commits an act so vile and abhorrent, the full weight of justice must be felt, including being named publicly. The boy—15 years old by the time of the trial—should not be shielded. Our judicial system should not protect those who have shown such disregard for human life; they should be named, just as Axel Rudakubana was following a court order, and as Mohammed Umar Khan was last week.

New clause 14 is simple: if an individual under the age of 18 commits a serious crime, they will be named—no ifs, no buts. In my eyes, if someone is old enough to commit such an appalling crime, they are old enough to face the full consequences of their actions.

[Mr Bedford]

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend mentions the rumours that the Government are planning to lower the voting age, and it would seem contradictory to have two ages of responsibility.

I will turn now to new clause 18, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). It is shocking that the girl who was with the 14-year-old boy, and who egged him on to commit the assault—quite literally to kill a man—did not receive a custodial sentence. Sentencing guidelines make it nearly impossible for individuals of that age to receive a custodial sentence. But what can we in this House do about that? The answer is “very little” because we have an unelected and unaccountable quango determining sentencing guidelines, rather than democratically elected Members in this place. That is wrong and must change.

We must abolish the Sentencing Council and restore democratic accountability to our judicial system to promote equality before the law and ensure that serious crimes are treated with the tough punishment that they deserve, irrespective of a defendant’s sob story. Crime is crime. That is why I also support new clauses 17 and 19, which would ensure tough sentences for those who commit sexual abuse or murder.

I also support new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would deliver a powerful message: someone who takes a life through dangerous or reckless driving should forfeit the privilege of driving. It would prioritise public safety and provide justice for families who have lost loved ones, like my constituent Emma Johnson who lost her parents to the actions of a careless driver.

I sincerely hope that the Government support the amendments. We in this place must ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Does the Chair of the Justice Committee wish to make a speech?

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

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Then I call John McDonnell.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I have only a couple of sentences, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To remind the Minister, in last week’s Committee, my new clause—which is effectively new clause 26 today—represented the views of a number of organisations, including the National Association of Probation Officers, recalling the problems that we faced with privatisation, particularly in relation to community service and unpaid work. In London in 2013, the supervision of unpaid work was privatised to Serco, and it was a catastrophic failure in providing both effective work and security for the community overall. It left a stain on the old process of managing community work. That was reflected when the previous Government totally privatised probation, which then had to be brought back in-house.

New clause 26 simply asks for an assurance from the Government that, although we will want to engage with voluntary organisations, charities and non-profit bodies, we will not seek the privatisation of community service and unpaid work, in particular the placement of former prisoners in work in which they could be exploited.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I can only draw on the experience that my hon. Friend and I had when Serco was in charge, which was about profiteering and reducing costs, largely through a reduction in staff. He might recall that on occasion we had reports that community service volunteers were turning up, and the tools were not available for them to do their work. There was a lack of supervision, and in a few instances we discovered that some of the vehicles that they used had been forced into and were unsafe.

We do not want to go back to that profiteering. That is why an assurance that this provision will be managed and orientated by the state, using non-profit-making voluntary organisations and charities, would reassure those professionals who have unfortunately experienced the privatisation that has taken place in the past, to the detriment of us all.

[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 ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I greatly trust and rely on his opinion. It is essential that rehabilitative work is available to all in prisons, as I will go on to talk about in a little more detail.

On my second point, structured rehabilitation during custody prepares individuals for life after release. As the earned progression model stands, the emphasis on rehabilitation begins largely during the intensive supervision stage. While I welcome the focus and measures in the Bill to tackle the root causes of crime, we should not wait until release from custody to begin that important work. Too often, individuals return upon release to the same environments, the same pressures and the same risks that contributed to their offending in the first place. Why wait, when we can intervene when they are most reachable? We literally have a captive audience. If people leave custody having already engaged in structured rehabilitation, they are more likely to respond positively to supervision and less likely to reoffend. That in turn reduces pressure on the Probation Service, which is also already under immense strain.

To summarise, the model proposed by new clause 36 is fair and proportionate, actively rewarding good behaviour while existing provisions in the Bill punish bad behaviour. Those who engage constructively while in custody through an earned progression scheme may be released as early as a third in. Those who break the rules will serve more days. Meanwhile, those who neither engage positively nor breach rules will see no change in their release date. That ensures that rehabilitation, positive behaviour, purposeful activity and steps towards reintegration are actively incentivised and baked in to the earned progression model from the start.

Having said that, I understand that practicalities have to be considered in implementing this positive requirements scheme, if it is to be successful. Years of neglect by the previous Government have left our prison system overstretched and under-resourced. On 4 February, the Justice Committee heard evidence from Clinks, the Prison Reform Trust, Women in Prison, and Nacro. We were told during that session that only 50% of prisoners are engaged in education or work, which is often part-time and not rehabilitative. That is due to staffing shortages, overcrowding and limited resources and facilities. In essence, we have inherited prisons that cannot offer the programmes people need and access to purposeful activity is highly inconsistent.

I recognise the immense scale of the challenge in getting the prison system to a place where the proposals in my new clause can be implemented fairly, effectively and with the necessary resources across the country. While I do not expect the Government to accept my new clause today, I strongly urge the Minister to commit to incorporating positive requirements on purposeful activity in the earned progression model as soon as conditions allow. This incremental approach is in line with the position that David Gauke outlined in his review.

He said:

“This Review holds the view that, as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding.”

Only by doing this will we truly future-proof our prisons, help people to turn their backs on crime, and ensure, unlike the last Government, that we always have places in our prisons for the most dangerous offenders.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to put it on the record that there has unfortunately been a blip on today’s version of the Sentencing Bill’s amendment paper. While I did put my name to several new clauses, I did not put my name to amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34 or 35.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. I know that House staff would wish to apologise for the error. She has put the facts on the record, so it will now be clear which measures she actually supported, and those to which her name was added in error.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Victims and Courts Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee for holding our feet to the fire as a Government to ensure that we bear down on that backlog. The Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), is ensuring that we deliver for victims by bringing down that backlog, with record investment in our court system, record sitting days and looking at the reforms brought forward and the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson in his once-in-a-generation review. It is only when we get on top of that court backlog that justice can be delivered and victims will feel it has been done.

The Bill is a key part of the Government’s plan for change. It will deliver on many of our manifesto commitments to support and protect victims, restore confidence in our justice system and implement that swifter and fairer justice. I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to support its passage into law. I proudly commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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.

[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

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

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

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument, drawing parallels between gambling addiction and drug and alcohol abuse. Earlier this year, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I questioned Government officials about the endemic use of drugs in prisons. The Carol Black report looked at this back in 2020—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. How long have you been in the Chamber? Have you just walked in?

[Anna Dixon]

No, I have not just walked in. This is the third speech I have listened to.

[The Chairman]

Okay. Make sure your intervention is short.

[Anna Dixon]

A lot of drug users are repeat offenders, as my hon. Friend was saying about those with a gambling addiction. Does she agree that a shift to community provision might enable people to get the rehabilitation they need for their addiction, whether it be drugs, alcohol or gambling?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

indicated dissent.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I can see that the hon. Gentleman in question is shaking his head, so I assume that no swearing has actually taken place. Can he confirm that?

[Luke Taylor]

indicated assent.

[The Chairman]

Sarah Pochin, will you please continue?

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Pochin]

No, I will make some progress; I have given way a lot.

Let me move on and make a point of clarification with respect to clauses 26, 27 and 28, which are on recall. The current system allows for fixed-term recall of 14 days for custodial sentences of less than 12 months and 28 days for custodial sentences of one to four years. Standard recall offenders serve the rest of their sentence. Can the Minister confirm that this Bill introduces FTR and SR of 56 days for all custodial sentences of less than four years, with the exception of terrorists, such that offenders who have committed serious crimes including assault, robbery and possession of knives or other offensive weapons could be out again in two months? That is not protecting the public. However, I welcome the fact that the presumption of 56 days’ recall does not apply for domestic violence offenders who have breached their licence conditions and gone on to reoffend.

Clause 42 is about foreign criminals. I propose to replace the clause and to move new clause 25, which would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six-month community sentence. The Secretary of State wrote to Members of Parliament claiming that he had strengthened the ability of the Government to deport foreign criminals. He said in a letter that it will be the duty of the Home Secretary to deport foreign offenders who receive at least a 12-month custodial sentence, yet in the same letter he stated that

“this is subject to several exceptions, including where to do so would be a breach of a person’s ECHR rights or the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.”

In other words, nothing will change and no one will get deported.

Finally, new clause 26 would make an addition to the Bill referred to as

“Criminal Cases Review (Public Petition)”.

Under the new clause, if it appeared to any British citizen aged 18 or over that the sentencing of a person in the Crown court has been unduly lenient or harsh, that British citizen—the petitioner—may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for it to review the sentence. There would mean that there would be a platform for defendants like Rhys McDonald and Chris Taggart in my constituency, who received an average of 30 months for an ill-advised tweet, to have their sentence appealed.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Catherine Atkinson. [Interruption.] I call John McDonnell.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Ms Ghani; it is nice to be a substitute.

Like others in the Chamber, I am a member of the justice unions parliamentary group, and I will speak very briefly to new clause 3. As many Members know, the justice unions group comprises the probation officers’ union, Napo, as well as the Prison Officers Association and the PCS. It acts as the voice of the frontline workers in Parliament from those particular unions. There is an overall welcoming of the Bill by the unions themselves, which is good, but a specific concern has been raised with us with regard to the development of unpaid work and community service, and how that is managed in the future.

Many Members will also know about the history of community service; in fact, in the past we have had a few Members in this House who did a bit of community service—but that is another issue all together. Historically, it has been a way in which people have been able to avoid prison sentences: by working in the community and making reparation for the damage that they have often caused in it. I think we can report that it has been relatively successful in most of our constituencies.

Unfortunately, though, there have been experiments with privatisation, including of the management of the service; and there has been debate about whether this could be unpaid labour for private companies. In London, in 2013, community service was privatised to Serco. It was an absolute disaster. There was a lack of supervision on site, a lack of workers, and a lack of tools being delivered. It was also exposed that offenders were sometimes being crammed into vehicles that were unsuitable and unsafe. As a result, that privatisation collapsed. The last Government then engaged in a wholesale privatisation of probation, under the title, “transformation of rehabilitation”. That included unpaid work and community service. Again, even the last Government had to accept that probation would have to be brought back in house because of a combination of incompetence and profiteering, alongside a failure to go for realistically effective rehabilitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

It is certainly true that one perverse choice leads to other consequences, and when people become involved in drugs, it often leads to all kinds of horrors. The key thing is therefore to stop people getting involved in drugs, and successive Governments, including this one, have intended to do that. Through a series of measures, we try to deter people from involvement in drugs, to deal with drug dealers and to do all the other things that you will not allow me to speak about at length, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I would be deviating from the content of the amendments if I did—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. You should learn that one tempers oneself, Sir John.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful, Madam Chairman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Minns]

I think the hon. Gentleman is making a correction to the former Lord Chancellor, because those were his words. I am sorry that the Conservative party has moved so far in two years that you wish to disown the work of a Lord Chancellor who stood in this Chamber just two years ago.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Ms Minns, please—“you wish to disown”? I am not contributing to the debate.

[Ms Minns]

I really do apologise, Ms Ghani.

Moving on, I support new clause 1. It would strengthen our approach to the deportation of foreign criminals by amending the definition of “period of imprisonment” in two key pieces of legislation: the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The amendment is about ensuring that the law reflects the seriousness of the sentence handed down by the courts, whether it is immediate or suspended.

Currently, a suspended sentence of 12 months or more does not count towards the definition of a foreign criminal for deportation purposes. This creates a loophole that risks undermining confidence in our immigration and justice systems. I have met the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to discuss the deportation of foreign criminals with suspended sentences, and I very much welcome the closure of this loophole. It is not an abstract policy change; it is a necessary correction to a real and pressing issue.

New clause 1 ensures that suspended sentences of 12 months or more are treated with the gravity they deserve when considering deportation. It sends a clear message that serious criminal behaviour will not be overlooked simply because the sentence was suspended, and it strengthens our ability to protect communities, uphold justice and maintain public confidence in our immigration system.

Let us be clear: a suspended sentence is still a sentence of imprisonment. It is imposed by a judge who has determined that the offence is serious enough to warrant custody. The fact that the sentence is suspended does not diminish the gravity of the crime.

Sentencing Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Every single one of us is here because we want to deliver justice for every one of our constituents. As a former police officer, it has been really welcome to hear of the lived experiences of barristers, criminal prosecutors and people who have worked in our Prison Service, because it is their expertise that makes this place deliver for people.

As a former police officer, I know that this Government have inherited a criminal justice system on the brink of collapse after 14 years of Conservative neglect. I can see that the early release scheme has been in action tonight, with Conservative Members being absent. Probation was hollowed out and police numbers see-sawed; they were cut in the early part of the Conservatives’ tenure, only to grow later after crime rose. The stark truth is that the Conservatives left prisons full at the end of their term; they know that, and they have never apologised for that derogation of responsibility. The Conservative party is the party of law and disorder, and this is its failure. No matter the gimmicks of the shadow Justice Ministers—whether it be chasing people in tube stations or climbing lamp posts—that record will have been on their watch. That is why this Bill is so urgent.

We know that the number of prison places is growing, with 14,000 more before the end of the decade. We have a Government who are finally stepping up and listening to the public when it comes to putting people in prison, but we know that that cannot be the only solution and that we need to adopt other approaches. That is why the Sentencing Bill is so necessary; it recognises that capacity must be built, but also that sentences must be reformed so that the right people are behind bars for the right length of time and the public can have confidence in justice. Our prisons should not be a revolving door for ever more prison experience and criminals rotating through the system, and we need to change that.

This Bill takes a clear-eyed approach. Let us be clear about this: dangerous offenders and those posing the highest risk will continue to serve long sentences—no ifs, no buts. For most offenders, though, we will move towards an earned progression model. Behaviour in custody will determine how much of a sentence is served. As we have learned from the States, that is a model that works, and I look forward to seeing it develop in action, overseen by Ministers who will consult with the professional bodies and prison staff. I welcome the reforms to the way in which we approach sentencing, listening to professionals such as The Times’ Crime and Justice Commission and David Gauke so that we can have a system that delivers the outcomes we want. This shift is not about being soft; it is about being smart and ensuring that punishment is effective.

I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill is not perfect, and I look forward to improving it in Committee, working with all Members. It learns from the failures of the past, of which there are many; it builds on the findings of an independent review; and it balances punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. I hope Members will support it today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.”]

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right. We want the UK to remain the pre-eminent jurisdiction of choice for legal services, as it currently is. This evolution of our law will enable it to remain a global hub for digital finance and tech. Overall it is a Bill that reflects our legal heritage, embraces technological innovation and prepares our nation for the future.

To appreciate the significance of the Bill, we must begin with the foundations of property law in England and Wales. For centuries, our legal system has categorised personal property as two distinct types: first, things in possession—tangible items that can be physically held or possessed, such as a book, jewellery or gold; and secondly, things in action—intangible rights that can only be claimed or enforced through legal action, such as debts, shares or contractual rights. These categories have served us well for hundreds of years, providing clarity in ownership and facilitating commerce. They have helped to create legal certainty in matters ranging from succession and insolvency to trust structures and collateral arrangements.

The digital revolution introduced a new class of assets—digital assets—that do not fit neatly into either of the traditional categories. As things stand, we look to 19th-century case law, which sets out that a thing can only be property if it fits into the two traditional categories of things in action and things in possession. The unique characteristics of digital assets, like crypto tokens, challenge the boundaries of these legal categories.

Unlike physical objects, digital assets cannot be held in one’s hand. Unlike debts or contractual rights, digital assets have an independent existence in the world that is not dependent on their recognition by a legal system. Yet certain digital assets possess the characteristics that the common law recognises as making them suitable to attract property rights. For example, certain digital assets, like crypto tokens, are rivalrous, meaning their use by one person prevents simultaneous use by others. By contrast to crypto tokens, some digital things, like Word documents, are not rivalrous and so are not recognised by the common law as being capable of attracting property rights. For example, if I were to send you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a Word document, I retain a copy, but if I transfer a crypto token, I no longer possess it. This is due to the underlying blockchain technology that ensures immutability, scarcity and non-duplicability—features that make certain digital assets capable of attracting personal property rights even if they are not a thing in possession or a thing in action.

Recent case law has begun to recognise that certain digital assets can attract personal property rights. However, these decisions have not come forward in precedent-setting courts, and thus the legal landscape remains uncertain. This ambiguity risks stifling innovation, as innovators are unsure what protections they have or whether they will be able to monetise their creation. It also puts off investors from investing in crypto tokens in favour of more traditional and predictable forms of investment. If we do not act, we risk our global competitors getting ahead and putting in place the kind of certainty in their own legal systems that will divert investment away from this country.

Recognising the urgency of this issue, in 2020, under the previous Government, the Ministry of Justice commissioned the Law Commission to review the legal framework surrounding crypto tokens and other digital assets. The commission’s 2023 report was unequivocal: certain digital assets should be recognised as capable of attracting property rights, and legislation was needed to reflect this. The Government have responded decisively. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is the result—a concise yet powerful piece of legislation that affirms our commitment to legal clarity, economic growth and technological leadership.

The Bill contains a single operative clause. It recognises that a thing, including a thing that is digital or electronic, is not prevented from attracting personal property rights merely because it is not a thing in possession nor a thing in action. The Bill allows the courts to develop a further category of personal property through our common law.

Importantly, the Bill does not attempt to define which digital assets may qualify, nor does it prescribe the legal consequences of falling within this category. These matters are rightly left to the common law, which, with its flexibility and nuance, is best suited to assess each asset on its characteristics. This is in accordance with long-established common-law tests for property. This approach reflects the strength of our tradition. It capitalises on the adaptability and flexibility of the common law by empowering the courts to apply established legal tests to emerging technologies. This ensures that our legal system remains responsive, relevant and resilient.

We stand today at the intersection of law and innovation, where centuries of legal tradition meet the boundless potential of the digital age. The Bill is not just legal reform: it is an important step for our law and for the global digital economy, because digital assets are here to stay. From crypto tokens to voluntary carbon credits, these assets are reshaping how we transact, invest and interact—and yet, until now, our private law has struggled to keep pace. This Bill changes that.

First and foremost, the Bill provides legal certainty. It confirms that certain digital assets can be recognised as personal property. This is a fundamental shift. It means that individuals and businesses can now rely on clear legal rights and protections when dealing with things such as crypto tokens. That is because certain digital assets can now attract the same legal protection as other forms of property, which means that owners of things such as crypto tokens can enforce their rights if the asset is stolen. Whether it is theft, insolvency or inheritance, the law will now stand ready to protect those property rights.

By clarifying the legal status of digital assets, the Bill reduces ambiguity and streamlines litigation. That is because the courts will no longer have to spend time debating whether further categories exist or trying to force digital assets into the traditional categories. That clarity will save time, reduce costs and ensure fairer outcomes for all parties involved.

As I have said, the Bill also supports our ambition to be a centre of innovation and growth. It encourages fintech start-ups, scale-ups and global enterprises to choose English and Welsh or Northern Irish law for their transactions, knowing that these legal systems are equipped to handle the complexities of digital assets. The Bill thus unlocks practical economic benefits. It assists in allowing digital assets to be included in estates for inheritance and claimed by creditors in insolvency. These capabilities will fuel innovation, support new financial products and drive economic growth.

Crucially, the Bill does not attempt rigidly to define every type of digital asset. Instead, as I have said, it allows the common law to evolve, giving our courts the flexibility to adapt to technologies that have not yet even been imagined. That is one of the hallmarks of a progressive, forward-thinking legal system such as ours.

This Bill attracted significant cross-party support in the other place. For example, it was described by Lord Holmes as

“a short Bill, but one with significant impact for the UK, and indeed beyond our shores”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1695.]

It was also described as a Bill that

“sends a signal to all those involved in digital assets”

that

“London and the United Kingdom is an excellent place”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 1696, c. 845.]

to do business.

In the same vein, Lord Sandhurst noted that the Bill was “small but perfectly formed” and that it will

“make an important contribution to the development of the law...and assist judges and litigants in ensuring that necessary protection is given to activities and things in the digital sphere...which might otherwise fail to be protected”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1696.]

Those are not just words of praise: they are affirmations of the Bill’s importance, clarity and potential to shape the global legal and economic landscape. One noble Lord remarked on Third Reading that “the world is watching”, and rightly so.

We have a proud tradition of legal excellence and a thriving fintech ecosystem. With trillions of pounds in global economic activity expected to be transacted via digital assets by the end of the decade, we must ensure that our legal infrastructure is not only fit for purpose, but fit for the future. This Bill is a critical step in realising that potential.

Of course, the Bill underwent much scrutiny in the House of Lords, and two amendments were made to it. The first extended the territorial scope of the Bill to include Northern Ireland. We are glad that our laws can be aligned in this area and that the benefits of this Bill will be felt more widely. The second amendment was to the Bill’s long title. That was to ensure consistency between the title and the Bill’s operative clause. I am certain that we now have the best possible version of this Bill before us.

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is a testament to the strength and adaptability of our legal tradition. It reflects our commitment to innovation, our respect for the rule of law and our ambition to lead on the global stage. It was described in the Lords as

“future facing, future-proofing, growth enabling ground-breaking and good for innovation, investment, citizen, consumer and the country”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1297.]

I could not agree more. It is a Bill for the future—a future in which digital assets play a central role in our economy, our society and our lives. By passing this Bill, we are not only clarifying the law, but shaping that future. Let us seize this opportunity and send a clear message to the world that we are ready, willing and able to lead in the digital age.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I rise on behalf of the official Opposition to express our support for the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill. I do not have the benefit of being a learned Member like the Minister, so I have enjoyed getting to understand what property law looks like in the UK.

As the Minister said, this Bill comes before this House from the other place, where it has already received careful and considered scrutiny. I particularly acknowledge the contributions made there by the noble Lord Holmes of Richmond, whose deep expertise in digital and emerging technologies greatly enriched the debate, and the noble Lord Sandhurst, who rightly described this Bill as

“a necessary but appropriately constrained measure.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. GC284.]

This Bill both preserves the inherent flexibility of the common law and provides just enough statutory clarity to support continued innovation and legal certainty in a fast-moving world.

Recognising the need in 2020, the previous Conservative Government asked the Law Commission to examine how the law of personal property should respond to digital assets. The commission undertook extensive consultation and concluded that some assets defy current classification. In response, it recommended confirming in statute that assets need not be things in possession or in action to attract property rights, paving the way for a third category of personal property and ensuring that our common law can continue to evolve with confidence and coherence.

This may be a short Bill, but it carries significant weight for not just the UK’s legal framework, but our global reputation as a leader in digital innovation. As other jurisdictions watch how we respond to technological change, this Bill reaffirms the UK’s commitment to legal clarity, innovation and economic competitiveness. We have a world-leading fintech ecosystem, and with trillions of pounds in digital asset transactions expected globally by the end of the decade, the UK must ensure that it remains at the forefront, supporting innovation, financial inclusion and the future of capital markets.

This Bill also complements a wider programme of regulatory reform already under way in the UK. Since 2023, firms promoting crypto assets have been subject to Financial Conduct Authority rules, including mandatory risk warnings and a 24-hour cooling-off period for new consumers. Anti-money laundering rules apply, and crypto firms must register with the FCA. In 2025, the Government published draft legislation to bring a wider range of crypto assets activities, such as trading platforms and custody services, under full financial regulation. The FCA and the Bank of England are also consulting on new rules for stablecoins, prudential safeguards and the safe custody of digital assets, while the Bank explores the future of a potential central bank digital currency, the “digital pound”. Those efforts, taken together with this Bill, represent a joined-up and forward-looking approach to digital asset regulation in the UK.

As the Minister explained, for centuries the law has recognised two traditional categories of personal property: things in possession, referring to tangible objects such as a bar of gold, and things in action, such as debts or contractual rights enforceable only through legal process. However, the rise of the digital economy has introduced a growing range of assets that defy those historical classifications.

From crypto tokens and digital files to in-game items and carbon credits, individuals and businesses now interact with a third category of asset. This Bill introduces that third category of personal property by confirming what the courts have been increasingly willing to suggest: that a thing is not precluded from being treated as property merely because it does not fit the traditional mould. It does so in a deliberately modest way, allowing the common law to evolve with technological change, rather than attempting to predict or prescribe it.

As Lord Sandhurst put it in the other place, we should champion the flexibility of the common law and legislate only to reinforce and clarify developments already emerging within it. This Bill strikes the right balance: it is principled in substance but careful in its implications. It gives confidence to our courts, clarity to commercial actors and reassurance to individuals navigating digital ownership. We welcome the Government’s amendment in the other place to extend this legislation to Northern Ireland and the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly to that extension. I understand that the Scottish Government have consulted separately on the question of recognising crypto tokens as property under Scots law.

Let me take a moment to welcome the Government’s stated intention in the impact assessment of reducing the burden on businesses by improving clarity in this space. At a time when digital assets are increasingly used as a means of payment, representation or value storage, it is vital that our legal architecture keeps pace—not to control innovation, but to support it with the rule of law. We on the Conservative Benches are committed to ensuring that our legal system remains fit for the 21st century and can accommodate new technologies while safeguarding rights and responsibilities.

While we are pleased to support this Bill, let us not lose sight of the broader context. After a year of downgraded growth forecasts, our economy contracting, unemployment and inflation rising and borrowing costs creeping up, the UK urgently needs legal reforms that drive up competitiveness and economic growth. Like the recent reforms to our international legal procedures, it is no coincidence that this Bill stems from a review commissioned by the last Conservative Administration—a Government who really understood the importance of forward-thinking legal reform to support technological and financial innovation to drive economic growth.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

Deprivation of citizenship order to continue to have effect during appeal

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Chair” and “Madam Chair” are also acceptable.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

“(2BA) But a judge may determine that an order does not continue to have effect for a person “P” during the appeal period if, on granting leave to appeal at any stage, they are satisfied that—

(a) “P” faces a real and substantial threat of serious harm as a result of the order,

(b) continuation of the order would significantly prejudice their ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal, or

(c) the duration of the appeal process has been excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority.”

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Independent review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, commission an independent review of the effects of the changes made to section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 by section 1.

(2) The review must be completed within two years of the passing of this Act.

(3) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report sent under subsection (3)(b) within one month of receiving the report.”

[Kit Malthouse]

I am pleased to be opening this debate, although, given the turnout in the Chamber, it seems to be a minority interest among Members of Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that the legislation affects some of our most basic freedoms and rights. Before I address amendment 1, I hope you will forgive me, Madam Chair, if I briefly indulge in a preamble. There are a couple of issues that I want to impress on the Minister in the hope that he will respond favourably and, if not accept my amendment, agree to consider the principles it raises in the other place. Given the number of senior lawyers there, this legislation will be examined by some pretty stringent legal eyes.

First, Madam Chair, I hope you will agree that we established on Second Reading that this Bill is highly discriminatory. One of the truisms we always utter in this House is that we all stand equal before the law, but I am afraid that where this legislation is concerned, that is just not true. The Minister would be unable to wield against me the powers he is seeking to bring in under this Bill; it would not be countenanced because I have no right to citizenship elsewhere. However, there are Members of this House against whom the Minister could wield that power. Although he could not wield it against me, he could wield it against two of my children, although not against the other one—I have three. He could wield it against the children of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak); against the children of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt); and against the children of the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). I am trying to illustrate to the Minister that this legislation is highly discriminatory, and unusually so. He is tampering with some of the basic tenets of British justice through this Bill—a principle has been established in the Supreme Court that he is attempting to reverse—and I want him to have in mind that he is trying to embed that discrimination in law. I hope and believe that that is not his primary motivation, but he must comprehend that before he takes this step.

Secondly, I say to the Minister, who has a distinguished record of service in the defence of this country and now serves as Security Minister, that much of the Bill is, let us face it, focused on those accused of committing terrorism here or overseas. Terrorists win in two ways: first, by the physical injury that they inflict and the fear of that physical injury that they are likely to inflict by exploding bombs, killing people and all the horrors we have seen in our lifetimes over the past 30 or 40 years, if not longer; and secondly, by a long, slow undermining of our way of life and by sowing division within our society. Their long game is to force us to twist ourselves in knots around the freedoms that make us different, which they despise, and slowly to erode our standard of living and the atmosphere in which we live, and we have seen that before in this country.

The Minister is old enough to remember the evolution of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, where hearings were held without juries. We dispensed with the basic freedom of the right to a jury trial in Northern Ireland for a while, largely because of accusations of violence towards juries. It was proven later that this was part of a known strategy by the IRA to make the Six Counties ungovernable, other than by military colonial means, so the IRA saw that move as a triumph. What terrorists want in the long term is a twisting of our natural freedoms. They want us to make compromises in our legislation that undermine our sense of belonging in our nation and create a division not just between the governed and the Government, but within society. This legislation, I am afraid, starts to do exactly that.

On Second Reading I pointed out, as I have possibly already done today—I hate to be repetitive—that this legislation and this power create two classes of citizenship in the UK. There are those who can have the order removed and those who never can have it removed. As use of the power has accelerated over the past two decades, and we are using it now more than we ever did, it creates a feeling of unease among those whose citizenship is conditional.

I will explain to the Minister why I tabled amendment 1. As I said on Second Reading, my view is that he is undermining some of the basic tenets of British justice with what he is attempting to do with this legislation. With this amendment, I am attempting to swing the pendulum back a little in the cause of fairness before the law. As he will know, individuals subject to this power have the right to appeal on a number of bases, and courts will decide whether to allow their appeal. Broadly, there are three areas on which they can appeal: the first is whether the decision was proportional; the second is whether it was procedurally fair; and the third is whether the Minister or the Home Secretary has made a mistake over whether the person has a right to citizenship elsewhere and so may in fact be rendered stateless. As he knows, that is not allowed under the legislation.

If I have had my citizenship deprived essentially at the stroke of a pen by the Home Secretary, and I win an appeal, it seems unfair, given that I have won that appeal on the basis of fact, that the Government can continue to deprive me of my citizenship pending a further appeal by them. Ordinarily, I would have got rid of this legislation, but the Minister seems insistent, and he won on principle at Second Reading, and that is fine. I am therefore appealing to his sense of good old British fair play to say, “This individual has won their first appeal on the basis of fact. Unless we have some profound reason to dispute that fact, we will not appeal, in which case they get their citizenship back.” On the basis of the fundamental British value of “innocent until proven guilty”, that person should get their citizenship back, particularly if a judge decides that the three conditions outlined in my amendment are satisfied.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, in my name. As I said on Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats believe there is a need for proper reform of the entire citizenship deprivation process. A transparent and accountable system for citizenship deprivation would ensure that this extraordinary power was used only in the most extreme circumstances, was never deployed for political reasons, and was consistently subjected to thorough parliamentary scrutiny. Sadly, the Bill before us falls short of that standard.

As I also said on Second Reading, the Home Secretary’s description of this Bill as merely closing a legal loophole does not mean that its provisions should escape robust scrutiny and review—quite the opposite; any expansion of powers to deprive individuals of citizenship demands the highest level of oversight. Earlier this year, even before this Bill was introduced, the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the Government’s current approach to citizenship deprivation falls short of the UK’s human rights obligations. It called for significantly greater safeguards, including stronger oversight and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of these powers. The Liberal Democrats fully echo that call.

New clause 1 seeks to embed essential safeguards within the framework of these new powers in the same way. Specifically, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the effects of the changes made to section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 by clause 1 of this legislation. The review must begin within one year and be completed within two years of the passing of the Act. A report of the review must be produced and sent to the Secretary of State, who must then lay it before Parliament within one month.

New clause 1 recognises that although the Bill may appear narrow in scope, its consequences are substantial. The power to deprive someone of their citizenship is one of the most significant powers the state can wield, engaging fundamental rights and liberties. It is particularly serious given that under the current legislation, deprivation can—in some circumstances—leave an individual stateless. This is especially important in the UK, which uses citizenship deprivation orders more frequently than almost any other country. The Home Secretary already needs only to be

“satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”

in order to strip someone of their citizenship—a threshold that is far too low. New clause 1 would simply ensure that any further power granted to the Secretary of State is at least balanced by proper oversight and transparency in its application.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for those comments. We Liberal Democrats believe that the whole deprivation of citizenship regime needs fundamentally looking at and reviewing, and we would welcome any co-operation across the House with hon. and right hon. Members who want to work with us on that.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that deprivation of citizenship must remain an absolute exception, and never be a routine tool of Government policy. New clause 1 would provide the necessary guardrails to help ensure this remains the case, even as further powers are placed in the Secretary of State’s hands. Ultimately, the integrity of British citizenship and our commitment to fundamental rights must never be compromised by practicality. New clause 1 would uphold those principles and ensure that such a grave power was exercised only with full accountability and the closest scrutiny of this Parliament.

[The Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I thank all Members for their contributions, Members who tabled amendments, and the Minister for his work and approach.

As has been set out, the Bill represents an important step towards tightening the existing rules on the deprivation of citizenship, as we discussed on Second Reading. This is a crucial tool that Home Secretaries must be able to exercise as part of their broader efforts to keep our country safe. Membership of a nation does not just imply rights; it also confers responsibilities. When British citizens engage in terrorism, support for terrorism or serious organised crime, they clearly disregard those responsibilities. We cannot deprive such people of citizenship in all cases, but where we can, we should.

Put simply, the intent of this Bill is to make sure that the Home Secretary’s use of deprivation powers is effective. More broadly, it also intends to make it clear that, when considering the use of the deprivation powers, politically accountable Ministers must ultimately be responsible for the final decision. The amendments must be viewed in that light.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly makes some important points, but he makes them from a stance and a point of view that is slightly different from the position of those of us who have to serve in government. He spoke about the Government seeking to drag their heels. This Government and, I am entirely prepared to accept, the previous Government are not seeking to drag our heels; we are seeking to keep the country safe. That is what this is about. It is about ensuring that we have a legal framework that provides the tools we need to make difficult decisions, yes, but also to keep the country safe. He will forgive me if I do not seek to move into a slightly separate debate about proscription, not least because I think I would be in trouble with you, Ms Ghani, but I also want to come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill.

My hon. Friend made the point that deprivation raises concern among certain communities. I am grateful to her for making that point and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond directly to it. Let me say to her and to other hon. Members that the power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths. It is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently or where it is conducive to the public good. Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person’s behaviour that determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith. Finally, my hon. Friend asked about an equalities impact assessment. I can say to her that the impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of the legislation.

Turning now to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, specifically to ensure accountability in the use of deprivation powers. I recall that she is very consistent in raising her concerns about that. However, I must respectfully submit that the hon. Member’s amendment is not necessary, for two reasons. First, the role of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration already provides a well-established framework for independent oversight. She may recall that I mentioned that to her previously. The role was created under the UK Borders Act 2007, which sets out its statutory function. That includes the exercise of deprivation powers by the Home Secretary and by any person acting on their behalf. The independent chief inspector has the authority to conduct inspections, publish reports and make recommendations, ensuring that the powers are subject to rigorous external scrutiny.

Secondly, the Secretary of State already publishes annual statistics on the deprivation of citizenship. Those figures are publicly available and provide transparency on how often the powers are used and the grounds for deprivation. That data enables Parliament and the public to monitor trends and assess the proportionality and fairness of the system. Taken together, the statutory oversight by the independent chief inspector and the routine publication of deprivation statistics already provide a comprehensive framework for accountability. The amendment, therefore, duplicates existing oversight and reporting mechanisms. It would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy without adding meaningful value.

I would again like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I hope for their continued support in ensuring that these important changes can be made.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Malthouse, do you wish to withdraw the amendment?

[Kit Malthouse]

In the hope that the Minister will do the right thing, yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I rise simply to ask the Minister if he might publish the assessment. He has said continuously that the Bill is fair, but I want to impress upon him that it cannot possibly be fair that should such orders be brought about, they would impact me and not him. I do not think that is fair at all.

I would also like the Minister to address his statement that the Bill is not discriminatory. He must understand that some communities may have these provisions applied against them more than others, even though they may be used sparingly, and that fact makes it discriminatory. He has to accept that.

I would also be grateful if the Minister thought specifically about the fact that no matter how sparingly the legislation is applied, it is being used more than in the past, and that is giving people much cause for concern. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) pointed out, the Minister and the Secretary of State may not always be in this place, and there may be others who wish to use the legislation in a way that is not intended. I would be very grateful if the Minister could address those points and see exactly where our concerns remain.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Points of Order

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Along with 6.5 million fellow members, I am a member of the local government pension scheme, through my proud membership of the London Pensions Fund Authority. We are uniquely affected by the Pension Schemes Bill, which we are about to contemplate. I am therefore concerned that it should be a hybrid Bill rather than a public Bill. I seek your guidance, please, as to whether the Bill has been properly certified as a public Bill and whether, in fact, it should be referred to the examiners to decide whether it should go through the hybrid Bill process. If not, and the House decides to proceed today, could the House of Lords independently decide through its examiners whether it is, in fact, a hybrid Bill?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his point of order and for giving notice of it. The Bill was not referred to the examiners at the time of presentation, indicating that the view taken by the relevant House authorities at the time was that the Bill was not prima facie hybrid. He is welcome to refer to any aspect of part 1 of the Bill during today’s proceedings. The Chair cannot be expected to respond substantively today, but I will ensure that he receives a substantive written response this week. His final point was about proceedings in the House of Lords, which are not a matter for the Chair, or indeed for this House. I ask him not to refer to that matter in his speech.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members of the House have been visiting my constituency. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) visited on 1 May, and I saw social media posts of a raid. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) visited on 4 July, which again I saw in social media posts. I understand that Ilford South is the centre of the universe and that any wannabe political party leader would want to visit, but they have shown discourtesy according to the rules of the House in not informing me. I seek your guidance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. Can I confirm that he has given notice to the right hon. Members concerned? They will, no doubt, be aware after this.

[Jas Athwal]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The booklet on “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” is entirely clear that notice must be given when a Member intends to visit another colleague’s constituency except for purely private purposes. The hon. Gentleman has indeed put on the record that his constituency is the centre of the universe.

Criminal Justice

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £8,813,378,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Sir Nicholas Dakin.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee to open the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As a member of the Select Committee, you will want to be accurate in what you say about prison places—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Dr Mullan, there is no “you” in the Chamber; you are talking through the Chair.

[Dr Mullan]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member will want to be accurate in what she says about prison places. Does she accept that we added 13,000 prison places during our time in office?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I recognise that prison places were created, but we are talking in net terms, and net, there were 500 extra places. [Interruption.] We are certainly not happy with only 500 places, net, over 14 years. That is why this Government are taking action to increase prison places in real terms.

We must sort out the cycle of reoffending, which places a massive strain on the system. Almost 60% of those receiving a prison sentence of 12 months or less reoffended within a year, and in those instances, focusing on what happens after a crime has been committed is the best way to prevent future offending. We do not need a justice system that is bigger; we need one that is fairer and more effective. Our ambition and reforms to make our streets safer cannot be achieved by enforcement alone. They must be backed by proper sustained funding, particularly to support the Probation Service, which is at the heart of a functioning and fair justice system.

That takes me back to a project in Nottingham that I was proud to be involved with in the early 2000s. It was the community justice initiative under the last Labour Government’s “respect” agenda—yes, I am that old, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. For the record, I did not comment on the lady’s age.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for the fact that you did not; I am very conscious of my age myself. The community justice initiative brought the community into the justice process. It allowed community impact statements to be made for certain offences, such as antisocial behaviour, and took a holistic approach to sentencing. It aimed to tackle drivers of offending, including drug misuse, unemployment, and poor education. Although the initiative worked, it was unfortunately short-lived because it lacked the resources and funding that would have made it sustainable in the longer term.

Just like the community justice initiative, the reforms set out in the first year of this Government offer enormous promise. I do not have a crystal ball and do not claim to see into the future, but as we look ahead to the Ministry of Justice’s prescribed spending for the following year, it seems that, as ever, two possible scenarios are before us. In the first we learn from the past; in the second, we repeat its mistakes. Let me be clear: we cannot allow history to repeat itself, and we must not allow ourselves to return to crisis point because we are unable to resource initiatives that will help us to reform the justice system.

As a prosecutor, I saw the same individuals pass through the courts again and again. I saw how the cycle of reoffending devastated lives, clogged up courts, and cost the taxpayer millions. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the shift from short prison sentences, which are proven to do little to reduce reoffending, towards community sentences, which get to the root of the offending behaviour. I am pleased that we have a research-based sentencing review, through which we can work to reduce the problem and tackle the causes of crime, but that work must be financed in a sustained manner if it is to succeed.

The Probation Service is at a crossroads, and its future will be decided by the adequacy of resourcing, staffing, and funding. The Government have promised that it will receive an increase by 2028-29 of up to £700 million to support the reforms set out in the independent sentencing review, and the Minister responsible for prisons, parole and probation has set a target to recruit 1,300 probation staff in the next year. The Ministry of Justice’s budget for 2025-26 shows other welcome increases, including nearly £800 million more for day-to-day spending, £523 million of which is allocated to prisons and probation, and a huge 32% increase in capital expenditure.

The justice system has suffered from years of underfunding and under-resourcing, which has resulted in overcrowding and overburdening. Justice reform is about protecting communities, supporting victims, and giving offenders the opportunity to transform their life and reintegrate into society. If we are to avoid a return to the crisis we inherited, the Probation Service must receive the resources that it desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. I welcome the work of the charity and the charities in his area, as I welcome the work of charities in all our areas. He puts his finger on the issue.

Charities are able to do things that the Probation Service is not. They can create trust in people and refer that trust on to statutory services. They can provide bespoke support that treats individuals as human beings seeking education and skills training, employment support, mental health and addiction support, housing assistance and peer support—in some cases the most powerful support. In providing that bespoke support, charities can help not just to reduce offending rates and rehabilitate and get people into work, but to bring down crime rates and the cost to the public purse of our criminal justice system.

I will say one point on that issue: we need to recognise the link between poverty, exclusion and offending rates. I want to be very clear that that is not to say people who grow up in disadvantage ought to commit crime, but we need to recognise what the evidence shows. There is a correlation and a causation, and as a Government we therefore need to tackle the root causes of poverty and exclusion. In so doing, we can tackle the reasons why people may offend.

I thank the Minister for what he is about to say, which I am sure will be excellent, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions. If our democracy feels fragile, it is because of the record of the last Government in this area. If our democracy is to recover, it will be because of the prompt and proportionate action that I believe this Government will take, building on the action that they have taken to truly address the challenges we face. The British people know what they want—they tell us often enough. It is our job to listen and provide the competence, progress and better outcomes that they are crying out for.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

I agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. This is about much more than just the spend: it is about the efficiency of the spend. Taxpayers deserve far better than what they are getting at the moment from the Serco contract, under which, as I said earlier, many offenders are being left without the proper, robust monitoring that victims, survivors and our communities need and deserve.

Let me come on to reoffending. The Gauke review offered many recommendations to unlock supply in our prisons, but it was fairly light on what can be done to stem the demand going into our prisons. Preventing crime and reoffending was the Cinderella of his review. It may be out of scope in some respects, but it is critical that our criminal justice system is reformed in a holistic way. That is the true means of being able to make our criminal justice system more efficient.

When it comes to victims and survivors, commitments around reversing the damaging impact of the national insurance increases for employers were missing from the spending review. Victims’ charities have written to me to say that the increase in those taxes, as well as cuts to police and crime commissioner core budgets, are tantamount to a 7% real-terms cut in their budgets. This means that victims’ services—services not dissimilar from the independent sexual violence adviser services that I once accessed at SurvivorsUK—will be compromised. I urge the Government to look again at this issue.

The status quo of more reoffending at an exponentially high cost to the taxpayer is both immoral and unsustainable. While this investment will go some way towards reducing backlogs, increasing prison capacity and improving our probation services, vital challenges are still unmet. As I have said just this week—in fact, it may have been yesterday—directly to the Minister, Liberal Democrats stand ready to work constructively with the Government. We will scrutinise their measures, but also give credit where it is due in order to help achieve more justice for victims, survivors, and our communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to this estimates day debate on Ministry of Justice expenditure as it relates to criminal justice. I thank the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for securing and opening the debate. We are in Armed Forces Week, and those of us who have been involved in the criminal justice system in various guises over the years know that in our prison service, around a quarter of prison officers have an armed forces background. In that sector alone, we see the ongoing contribution that people from the armed forces community make to our public services in different ways. It is a pleasure to be able to pay tribute to them on the record today.

Criminal justice is, of course, a very important topic for discussion. Our courts, prisons and probation services are the bedrock of our criminal justice system. This Government have been in charge of these key areas of public expenditure and activity for almost a year now, and we have heard from Members about the challenges that those who are in contact with the criminal justice system continue to face. We all know that, almost from day one, this Government have lurched from crisis to crisis, and sadly the Ministry of Justice has not been spared. As we consider the estimates for expenditure and the Government’s linked plans to overcome challenges in the criminal justice system, we can only have a meaningful debate if we consider the journey we have been on to reach this point.

I will begin by responding to the points that have been raised about the inheritance that this Government had. Their inheritance can only be fairly considered in the light of what we inherited, what we delivered despite the challenges, and what challenges remain. Labour Members talk about challenging inheritances in the criminal justice system, but what did we face upon arriving in office? We have heard a lot in recent months about Labour being forced into early release schemes for prisoners as a sign of the pressures on the system, but what exactly was happening with early release at the end of Labour’s last period in government? Under the last Labour Government, an astonishing 80,000 prisoners were released early—a huge number—with those releases stopping just before the election for purely political reasons. We were left to pick up the pieces across the prison estate that we inherited. During our 14 years in office, we released just 6% of that figure. If the number of prisoners that Labour Members say they have been forced to release since they came into office is a barometer of failure, what exactly do they make of releasing 80,000 prisoners early after more than a decade in charge?

Perhaps Labour had a good excuse for releasing that many prisoners early—maybe it happened because Labour had been spending its time in office rightly toughening up sentencing for the worst offenders. I am afraid not. In fact, in what I consider to be an enormous historical mistake—the consequences of which we are still battling today when it comes to delivering proper punishment through the justice system—Labour introduced automatic halfway release for essentially all offenders when it was last in government. Those offenders were not included in the figure of 80,000 released early under the emergency schemes I have spoken about. Essentially, all offenders were released early, yet Labour still managed to have a sustained crisis in prison capacity, so I do not take any lectures from Labour Members about the history of the Labour party and the criminal justice sector.

Under the previous Conservative Government, we worked to restore public confidence that serious offenders would face the punishment that their crimes deserved, and worked hard to ensure that—unlike when Labour was in government—we did not have to release 80,000 prisoners early through emergency release schemes. We brought in serious reforms. We reduced automatic release from halfway through a sentence to two thirds of a sentence for the most serious offenders, which was a huge step forward in introducing a greater degree of proper punishment into the criminal justice system. Building on that, we introduced whole-life tariffs for the premeditated murder of children. We increased maximum sentences for the worst child abusers through Tony’s law; for killers of emergency service workers through Harper’s law; and for those who kill through driving in memory of victims such as Violet-Grace. I am proud of all those reforms, and make no apologies for them.

Such measures do create challenges for prison capacity, but as I will go on to explain, those changes were necessary. More than any other factor, it was covid that created the challenges we now face. Of course, we had to tackle the enormous challenges presented by covid, which have left a long legacy in the criminal justice arena. We prioritised the right to jury trials in a way that the rest of the world struggled to; we had one of the shortest suspensions of sittings of trials, and did what we could to support the continuation of jury trials. We increased sitting days, allowing the courts to sit at maximum capacity for three years in a row; we invested £220 million in essential modernisation work for courts up to 2025; and we extended the use of 20 Nightingale courtrooms in 2024-25. That kept our justice system moving, despite what Labour now claims.

Undoubtedly, the backlog still presents challenges, but again, I am happy to compare records. Labour MPs are now deeply concerned about the backlog, but how concerned about Crown court backlogs were Labour MPs when they were last in government? I can tell Members that pre-pandemic backlogs in the Crown court reached higher levels during Labour’s time in office than they did under us. The increase in the remand population of approximately 7,000 above the historical average, which is directly linked to covid, is a major factor in the prison capacity challenges we now face.

What has Labour done to make a decisive difference since coming into office? Did the Government rush to maximise sitting days to get the backlog down? No, they did not—they have repeatedly dragged their feet. For almost six months, they did not take the Lady Chief Justice up on her offer of further sitting days, and even now, there are more days available to the Government that they have not funded. With each month that has passed, that has meant more lost court days, more people waiting and more pressure on the system than if they had just increased sitting days from the outset. What has been their biggest celebration when it comes to prison building? It is the opening of a new prison, HMP Millsike, which was planned, paid for and largely built under the previous Conservative Government.

Despite what Labour says, we created 13,000 prison places during our time in office, including in two new prisons, HMP Five Wells and HMP Fosse Way. I am not aware that any of Labour’s projected plans for prison places use net figures, which Labour Members want to use when looking at our record. The Government have announced plans for 14,000 prison places by 2031, supported by £7 billion, but 6,500 of those places were already in the pipeline, having been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Four of their new prisons were already planned or under construction, so this announcement is less a bold new strategy than it is a tired re-announcement. Even more concerning is the funding gap. The Government have allocated £7 billion, but the National Audit Office reports that the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service expect the cost of expansion to be closer to £10 billion. That is a £3 billion shortfall, placing a serious question mark over how the promised places will be delivered.

How are the Government building on their legacy of releasing over 16,000 prisoners early just in their first six months, which is 11,000 more than planned? In the name of what they call sustainability, they are embedding even greater levels of early release into the system, unpicking the positive steps we took in government to turn around Labour’s legacy of weaker punishment. The Government are doing this on the back of a sentencing review carried out by David Gauke, based on the premise that increasing prison populations were unsustainable. I am clear that that review was an insult to the views of victims and their families—many have told me so directly—and it is unfortunate that so many Members speak positively about it. Imagine launching what you describe as a “landmark review of sentencing”, and then giving almost no consideration in the pages of that report to what victims and their families actually want from sentencing.

Worse, instead of a serious attempt to engage with what victims and their families might want, Mr Gauke chose to deploy the all-too-common patronising talking points of those who want us to believe that victims and their families simply do not understand sentencing, and that if they did, they would undoubtedly feel much better about it all. This might be of particular interest to the Chair of the current Select Committee, because Mr Gauke, in particular, cherry-picked quotes from our excellent report from a previous Session on public understanding and expectations of sentencing. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick might remember, that report very much engaged with what the public wanted and how to determine that more effectively. It takes a particular type of intellectual approach to go through a report full of rich detail and just pick out what suits you, hoping no one will notice. Well, I noticed, as did representatives of victims and their families such as Justice for Victims.

That half-baked exercise in considering sentencing has now served as the launch point for the Government’s sentencing policy. If halfway release was not an appalling enough legacy from the last time Labour was in government, the Government are reducing release to a third of the sentence for most offenders, and turning our two-thirds release for the worst offenders back into halfway release. Let us be clear: prisoners will now be rewarded for doing what should be expected of them. Obeying prison rules and engaging in education or working are the basic behaviours of any law-abiding citizen. They should not qualify offenders for early release, and they certainly should not allow them to serve as little as one third of their sentence. That is not justice.

Labour’s model rewards serious offenders, does little to protect the public, and is a dereliction of duty. All the while, our Crown court backlogs have increased by more than 10% and stand in excess of 70,000 cases. Our remand population sits at more than 17,000 people. Wherever we look, problems that Labour promised to fix in opposition are just getting worse. How does the Lord Chancellor now plan to tackle this challenge? The £450 million committed to the courts in the spending review is a perhaps useful, if not fully adequate, indication, but how will the money be spent? Unfortunately, that is where the Government fall short.

The Government have no substantial ideas of their own, with 14 years apparently not long enough for them to think of their own innovations. While we await the findings of yet another independent review that they hope will solve all their issues, they have announced that custodial sentences of under 12 months will all but vanish, replaced by community sentences. The consequences are staggering. Up to 43,000 offenders, including burglars, shoplifters and knife carriers, will avoid jail altogether. I have met local businesses at their wits’ end. They tell me about the rise in shoplifting, staff who are afraid and customers who no longer feel safe. Removing custodial sentences for repeat offenders does not send a message of reform; it sends a message of impunity.

Labour has chosen the easy way out. It is tackling the prison population not with long-term reform or capacity investment, but by quietly reducing sentences and downplaying criminal behaviour. It is short-term thinking that puts public safety at risk. In fact, just last week it was reported that the Government declined to move forward with building a new prison block. They say they are doing everything possible to avoid releasing prisoners early, but how does that square with that decision?

We might think that the Government would grab opportunities that cost nothing, but we have seen them stand in the way of reforms we put forward as amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill this week. Labour did not support making sure victims are awarded compensation equivalent to their losses, or allowing victims the freedom to speak their minds in victim personal statements. Labour did not support increasing the time available to collect courts fines, or giving victims and families a better chance to appeal unduly lenient sentences. All their lofty spending plans will be of little use if this Government’s ongoing mismanagement of the economy leaves us with even less money to spend on the Ministry of Justice.

Across nearly every single major economic metric, Labour has made things worse. Unemployment is up, inflation is up and all the projections of economic growth it inherited from us have been downgraded. Is it any wonder why? The Office for Budget Responsibility is clear about the damaging impact of the Government’s jobs tax, and businesses can see what is on the horizon with the Employment Rights Bill. The costs of borrowing are soaring. The MOJ’s expenditure pales in comparison to what we will be paying on interest in ballooning debt over the course of this Parliament.

I will finish with three short questions. First, given the funding allocated to probation and the increasing reliance on it and given that, as the Justice Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) highlighted, the number of probation officers has gone down since Labour came into power, how do the Government plan to ensure that money is delivering effective services? Secondly, how do they plan to close the £3 billion gap in the prisons budget? Thirdly, given that so much of their own thinking is relying on it, when will Brian Leveson’s report be published? The British people deserve a justice system they can trust—one that protects victims, punishes offenders and keeps our communities safe. This Government’s approach fails on every single count.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins]

I am sorry, but we are short of time.

The changes that have been made, including many proposed by Members who do not support a change in the law but which have been adopted by the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), as well as those proposed during the process she has led in response to evidence submitted during the scrutiny process have led to a better Bill. The Bill has greater safeguards for more vulnerable people, with mandatory training requirements, including in relation to coercion and capacity. The Bill ensures judicial oversight of decision making by a range of experts, including psychiatrists, social workers and senior legal professionals. The Bill will set out statutory protections for those workers who do not wish to take part in the assisted dying process on the basis of conscience, and quite right too.

The Bill will provide for one of the tightest, safest assisted dying laws in the world. Importantly, the Bill has compassion at its core by affording dying people choice at the end of life. I thank every one of my constituents who shared their views with me, whether for or against a change in the law. I particularly thank all those who have disagreed with me, because good democracy and the right to disagree respectfully is hugely important; perhaps it is a debate for another time.

I also thank all those who have shared their personal stories of loved ones’ deaths, some brutal, painful and traumatic—a stark reminder that the status quo is simply unacceptable. Others have shared experiences with loved ones who, in other jurisdictions, such as Australia, were able to have a peaceful death, surrounded by loved ones and at a time of their choosing.

As I come to a close, although not everyone would want to choose an assisted death, I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to choose one if they so wish. It really is time that this House takes the important, compassionate and humane step towards making that a reality by voting for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was a four-minute speech—thank you very much. I now call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Colleagues can see how busy the Chamber is, and will understand that not everybody will get in, but if speeches are longer than five minutes, even fewer colleagues will get in. I call Dr Beccy Cooper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

I will continue.

Nothing I say, however, is intended to simplify the issue, and I acknowledge the fears of many that the palliative care sector is not funded sufficiently for there to be a rational and viable choice between managed care at the end of life and the choice to end one’ own life. I therefore welcome the inclusion of amendment 21, which matches my priority of the improvement of palliative care.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Ahem.

[Luke Taylor]

In conclusion, in the heart-wrenching words of Decca Aitkenhead, who wrote in The Times last week, and which I found particularly moving:

“critics of the bill have begun to frame the debate as if leaving the law as it stands does not hurt anyone. It does.”

She said that opponents

“worry about speculative, hypothetical victims—but the status quo creates indisputable, real life victims”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If colleagues do not want me coughing at the end of their speech, it is best to keep them under five minutes.

Points of Order

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that today we have had the heavy assent from the Foreign Secretary that, ahead of the Palestinian state discussions led by Saudi Arabia and France at the UN in June, the British Government are on their way to recognising a Palestinian state, which I would welcome. But ahead of that, may I seek your guidance on how Members across this House who feel very strongly about this issue will have an opportunity to vote ahead of that meeting in order that the Government have full authority from this Parliament on the issue of recognising a Palestinian state?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I think the right hon. Member knows that that point of order is a matter not for the Chair, but for the Government. No doubt the Foreign Secretary and those on the Front Bench will have heard him and will respond in due course.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can remind the House what the processes are for us to obtain an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24, on the basis that this situation is so dire and so acute that a number of us may wish to apply for such a debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I and the right hon. Member both came into Parliament together. He knows how to obtain a Standing Order No. 24 debate, so he does not need me to remind him of the process. He will get much advice from the Speaker’s Office. Without doubt, the strength of feeling has been heard repeatedly, in the statement and in those two points of order, by the Foreign Secretary and Ministers on the Front Bench.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that I and other colleagues have been raising the issue of UK residents in Northern Ireland, many of whom have lived here for decades as taxpayers and voters, but who were born a few miles across the border in the Irish Republic. They have not been able to avail themselves of a UK passport in the same way as others who live in Northern Ireland can obtain an Irish passport. This was brought to a head by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) exactly one year ago this week, when his Bill received Royal Assent and became law. Despite my repeated parliamentary questions to the Home Secretary, I have been unable even to get a date by which the first UK passports will be issued to people in Northern Ireland. Has the Home Secretary or a Home Office Minister indicated to the Speaker’s Office their intention to make a statement to the House, to finally announce when this injustice will end?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of this point of order. I have had no indication from Ministers that they intend to come to the House to make a statement on this matter, but I note that it is Home Office questions on Monday and he still has time to table an oral question to the Home Secretary.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, which I chair, is responsible for examining cross-cutting issues of national security. You will appreciate that the UK faces a great range of external threats and internal challenges around resilience and the choices it makes about its relationships with allies and partners. The JCNSS is following the Government’s efforts to address these matters very closely, and the work of the National Security Adviser is central to that success.

Since the role’s creation in 2010, every NSA has appeared before the Committee for a public accountability session—until now. Of course, some more sensitive conversations need to be held behind closed doors, but the public sessions are an essential way in which the Prime Minister’s primary adviser on issues of national security is held to account by Parliament.

Despite their commitment to transparency in numerous exchanges, the Government remain steadfast that the NSA will not be accountable to Parliament. I am concerned that the Government are using a quirk of his appointment—as a special adviser rather than the permanent official—to erode democratic norms, which future, less benevolent Governments could exploit. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me on how my Committee can get the Government to prove that they are committed to increasing transparency, to recognise the dangerous precedent that they are setting and to allow the NSA to appear before us?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The attendance of witnesses before Select Committees is not a matter for the Chair. However, it is surprising that the current National Security Adviser has declined to appear before the Joint Committee when all of his predecessors have been willing to do so. The Government’s own guidance on the matter states:

“Parliament has powers to call any individual to give evidence… When a Select Committee indicates that it wishes to take evidence from any particular names official, including special advisers, the presumption is that Ministers will seek to agree such a request.”

I am sure that the Clerks will be able to advise the hon. Member and his Committee on how best to pursue the matter further.

Bill Presented

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Lisa Smart, supported by Ben Maguire and Josh Babarinde, presented a Bill to amend the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 to make provision about the interpretation of that Act in relation to domestic abuse.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 246).