Early Release of Prisoners

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy]

I agree; prison works. It works because it punishes the guilty, gives justice to the innocent and takes dangerous people out of circulation, away from the rest of society, and, in doing so, reduces crime. This is a matter of common sense for most people in the country, but it is a deeply controversial thing to say among many criminologists and policy wonks. I am very clear in my belief that prison works and that we need to use prison far more than we do.

Only last week, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) asked the Minister to guarantee that convicted rape gang members would serve their sentences properly, he refused to do so. Lord Timpson, speaking for the Government on Channel 4, went even further:

“It is impossible for us to say exactly who will be released, where and when”.

The first 700 released prisoners are due to walk free on 2 September, and more will follow every month thereafter.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, the constituents of Members across the House just want a clear undertaking that dangerous criminals—rapists and others—will not be set free. The Government have obviously dug themselves into a hole and have thrown in the towel this afternoon. We have a limited amount of time left before the summer recess. Is my hon. Friend in a position to say very clearly, for the benefit of those in this Chamber and outside, that the Opposition are willing to throw our weight in behind the Government if they will make the necessary amendments to win the time that they need to get this right?

[Nick Timothy]

I completely agree. I am happy to say that if the Government want to bring forward emergency legislation to fix this in primary legislation or, if they want to buy themselves a little more time to consider things more fully, to introduce new commencement regulations delaying the introduction of the early release scheme, the Opposition will completely support them in doing that.

For now, however, we do not know. The Government are not in a position to tell us who will be released, what crimes they have committed and when exactly they will be released. When will Ministers know the identity of, and the crimes that have been committed by, those who are due to be released? Are we to wait until they have re-offended, and the details emerge as they are arrested, charged and prosecuted all over again? Is the cost of this ineptitude yet more crime, yet more victims of crime and yet more lives ruined? A Government who cannot tell the public who they are releasing from prison have no business releasing any of these dangerous criminals.

Today, the Government have caved under Conservative pressure, but we still do not know what the policy will be. We have a Minister unable to answer: a political eunuch humiliated by his current boss, the Justice Secretary, and his next boss—if he gets a job—with nothing to say but “Wait for Andy”.

The approach of Ministers to all these concerns—legitimate concerns, shared by people up and down the country—has been to say, “Nothing to see here.” They still tell us that it will all be fine, but they have not had the nerve to ask their MPs to vote on it. The Government say that the criminals they release early will be managed “under strict licence conditions” and can be recalled if those conditions are breached, as though this is some kind of special new initiative. Of course they are released under licence, but the Government refuse to say what those conditions will entail, whether they are new conditions or tougher conditions, what safeguards are in place and what resources will be deployed to ensure that these criminals do not reoffend or disappear from the radar. If they will not even tell us how many prisoners released under SDS40 have been recalled to prison, how can we trust them with what they say about SDS33?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He has been consistent on this, although we do not agree on everything when it comes to criminal justice matters. The Government have looked at all options, including whether we can reopen those prisons closed by the last Conservative Government. I was struck by the shadow Justice Secretary’s welcoming of the suggestion that there should be new planning reforms around how we build prisons, because every time we try to build a new prison in a Conservative MP’s constituency, the Conservatives oppose it. It has happened time and again, with one thing being said at the Dispatch Box and their MPs arguing something completely different in their local media.

[Sir Roger Gale]

There are people in the Gallery and in the public out there who want to know that dangerous criminals will not be released at the start of September. That is what they want to hear; we do not want to hear the history. We want an answer from the Minister. He heard the offer from the shadow Secretary of State in reply to my question. We are prepared to back the necessary legislation before the recess to put a stop to this. Is he prepared to take that offer—yes or no?

[Jake Richards]

What we will not do is put our head in the sand, which would lead to another prison capacity crisis, which would lead to another urgent, chaotic early release scheme as we saw under the last Conservative Government time and again. I cannot look victims in the eye and tell them that is good for them or for the country, and I will not do so. That is why, when the Home Secretary was Justice Secretary—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s kind words, personally, but I gently say that the Opposition party has no plan for how to deal with the prison crisis that its amendment would have brought about later this year—there is no plan; there is no suggestion; there is no idea of where they would put the criminals we are locking up every day. By the end of this Parliament there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before under a Labour Government. We are building more prisons than since the Victorian era. There is no plan from the Opposition. It is very easy and straightforward to bemoan the changes in the Sentencing Act, which received Royal Assent in January, but the Opposition have to come Parliament with a credible plan for capacity.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Richards]

I will not give way another time.

Once prisoners are released, offenders will be subject to strict licence conditions. We are adding tougher restrictions as part of the Probation Service’s toolkit for managing offenders when they leave prison. That includes restriction zones, which can be used for the most serious sexual and violent offenders, pinning the offender to certain areas rather than restricting the movements of victims.

We are ramping up tagging to monitor offenders in the community, with thousands more subject to 24/7 monitoring and curfews. We are already tagging at record levels, and we will invest a further £100 million to expand our ability to monitor even more offenders. That is the biggest expansion of tagging in history. Also, while on licence, offenders can be recalled immediately if they cannot be safely managed in the community.

To carry out all that additional supervision, we need a Probation Service that is fighting fit. That is why we are increasing probation—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale]

I am sorry to labour this point, but given the consensus that I think there is in the House this afternoon, and in the light of what the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) said, let me say this. By my reckoning, we have five working days, or a maximum of six, before the summer recess, and some potentially dangerous people are likely to be released in September. We can use the time that we have, and can work with the Government to get whatever is necessary on the statute book to address this issue in the short term, while we deal with the longer-term issue. Am I right?

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is right. We are perfectly entitled to make that request of Government, as he has done in eloquent terms. It seems to me that the plan to release up to 6,000 criminals in September needs to be stalled, so that we can think again. There is a good argument for removing sex offenders, rapists, those guilty of manslaughter and those involved in grooming children from the list of those to be released. That is the least that could be done, and the opportunity is there to do it. If I may say so, the fact that a Member as senior as my right hon. Friend has made that suggestion should in itself carry significant weight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her consistent and proactive support for domestic abuse victims. Ensuring that it is perpetrators and not victims who are punished and restricted is key to the DAPOL—domestic abuse perpetrators on licence—pilot that will be rolled out nationally from September. Offenders are tagged on release and subjected to strict conditions, such as exclusion zones and curfews. DAPOL will allow the Probation Service to tag any and all offenders who are considered to be at risk of perpetrating domestic abuse. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Further to the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), and on the basis that justice delayed is justice denied, will she seek to use her good offices with the Home Office to ensure that the Metropolitan police expedite their investigations so that the hundreds of women who suffered at the hands of Fayed can at last have the justice that they deserve?

[Catherine Atkinson]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that justice delayed is justice denied, which is why this Government are taking such proactive steps to reduce the delays that victims are experiencing. I would be happy to meet him and other Members who I know are hugely concerned about the impact of these cases on victims and survivors.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Violence against women and girls comes in many forms. I have discovered that, incredibly, while current legislation provides some protection for women and girls against revenge porn, it offers no such protection where images are clothed but accompanied by offensive material. Will the Minister take a long, hard look at that to see how the law can be strengthened so that those protections are afforded?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that question. Just last week I was in the United States discussing the fact that the UK is a world leader in tackling non-consensual online intimate image abuse, and the proliferation of such abuse on social media platforms. We have been tackling it when individuals are clothed but there is offensive material on top of those images—for example, semen imagery. That is a vile, degrading crime that affects many people, and we are determined to tackle this degrading form of abuse wherever it occurs, including when individuals are clothed. If they are being degraded, and if it is non-consensual, this Government will come for those responsible.

Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 728715 relating to penalties for offences arising from social media posts.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, let me say that it is always encouraging to witness public participation in politics. With more than 100,000 signatures, it is evident that this petition has engaged a large number of people all across the country.

This e-petition was created by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). This is the first time that an elected Member of the House of Commons has the e-petition system in this way to garner enough support to secure a debate, making this a unique instance. He explained to me that he believes that this Government have taken a two-tier approach to policing, which needs to be urgently reviewed.

When I use the phrase “two-tier”, I am referring to the belief that police in this country are overtly lenient towards protestors in favour of progressive causes and racial minority protestors, compared with others. To put it simply, those who subscribe to this criticism of our justice system do not believe that citizens are being punished fairly or impartially. That is why the signatories of this petition believe the system needs to be reviewed. Specifically, they are calling on the Government to urgently review the possible penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, including the use of prison. During our meeting, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth explained that it is his belief that, when it comes to punishing individuals for something they have posted on a social media platform, previous sentences issued for offences under this Government have risked encroaching on the individual liberty of the defendant, particularly their freedom of speech.

Freedom of expression has always been a cornerstone of our democracy. In the UK, people are free to demonstrate their views regardless of any discomfort caused to the majority. However, the freedom to express these opinions does exempt any criminal motivation behind them from being prosecuted. Just as we are a country that takes pride in our citizen’s liberties and freedoms, we also take pride in a criminal justice system that protects our citizens from harm. The former will never override the latter.

Under section 22 of the Online Safety Act 2023, a statutory duty to consider free expression protects the rights of users within the law. Crucially, the Act explicitly defines “freedom of expression” in terms compatible with the European convention on human rights. That is the right

“to receive and impart ideas, opinions or information…by means of speech, writing or images”.

However, section 59 of that same Act makes it clear that the boundary of that freedom extends only as far as the legality of the content. In other words, content is judged not just by whether it is unpopular, offensive or controversial but, crucially, whether it violates criminal law. Examples of such violations include—to name but a few—types of intimate image abuse, harassment or the incitement of hate crimes.

That brings us to the question of criminality and prosecution for such an offence, which I believe is the very crux of this petition. When I spoke to the Sentencing Council, it made it clear to me that intent matters a lot in many of these offences. The Sentencing Council’s definition of intent ranges from the highest culpability, for a deliberate intention to cause harm, to lower levels of culpability, for recklessness, knowledge of risk or sheer negligence.

The council considers an offender’s intent to be a key factor in determining the seriousness of an offence and the appropriate sentence, which will often be based on the level of harm that was intended even if it was not actually caused. In our modern age of social media, where communication is instant, rapid and far-reaching, the question of culpability, intent and widespread dissemination does indeed hold serious weight. It is reasonable to assume that all citizens realise that when using sites such as X, Instagram or Facebook.

When it comes to calling on the Government to review the penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, it is imperative to clarify the particulars of existing sentencing guidelines. In the UK, the Government on their own cannot simply change criminal penalties, because the power to set or alter penalties is controlled by Parliament and the courts, not Ministers. Any change to maximum or minimum penalties for an offence must be made through primary legislation. That means that a new law or amendment must pass through the full parliamentary process: drafting, scrutiny, debate and, of course, approval by both Houses—the Commons and the Lords. The Government may propose changes, but they absolutely cannot impose them without Parliament voting them into law.

Even after Parliament sets the legal penalty ranges, the Government still cannot decide individual sentences, because those are often carried out independently by judges, who must follow the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and not—absolutely not—the preferences of Ministers. The Government also cannot order judges to give harsher or more lenient sentences in specific cases, because judicial independence, as we know, protects courts from political interference; indeed, I would suggest that it is a crucial pillar of our political and justice systems. Neither the courts nor Parliament stand alone; that ensures that balanced decisions are made independently in the public interest.

All of that is seriously complex, and addresses a large scale of harm and, in some cases, prejudice. That is to say that I am absolutely certain my colleagues will debate this question with respect, rationality and indeed nuance this evening. I can see that lots of them hope to speak, so I will bring my remarks to a close to allow as many as possible to participate.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

There appear to be other attractions in the main Chamber today, and a number of Members who indicated that they wished to participate are not present. For that reason, I have no need, I think, to put any time limit on contributions.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.

The first duty of Government is to keep their citizens safe. We do that with the police and our court system; and, although they are not perfect, we could not do it without them. The online space is an integral part of our modern lives, and we need to treat it as such, because what happens online does not stay online.

Online safety naysayers want us to think that regulating the online space is a conspiracy to end freedom of speech. Some, such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), try to make that case, while his online followers send women and members of minorities death and rape threats when they speak freely, and that includes Members of this House—like many women MPs, I receive at least one a week.

Rather than taking away free speech and democracy, we are ensuring that everybody has a voice, so that people, including the alleged victims of Andrew and Tristan Tate, can one day have an online profile again, without getting their home addresses splashed all over the internet and being doxed, as young people like to call it.

Democracy should be about ideas and debates, yet the online environment that some Members of this House want is one where people can make deepfakes, misleading the electorate; where they can threaten women with rape, to shut up those they do not agree with; and where they can make £300,000 by making 128 Facebook pages, spreading racist and AI-generated misinformation, which is then amplified by members of the Reform party—monetising hate, as the piece in The Times exposed this morning. Without an extension of our election laws to online spaces, single platforms or platform owners with specific political or financial agendas can continue to spread lies and misinformation, even going so far as to incite violence in another country. That is not democracy; that is not free speech. It is up to this Government to ward against it and ensure that our laws and sentencing are appropriate. As I said, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe.

In real life, a 12-year-old cannot go to the cinema to see a film if it is rated 15, and pornography is put on the top shelf at the newsagents, out of reach. Kids cannot buy a video game that is adult-only rated without identification. Online, however, our kids can find any kind of graphic or sexual content, of any level of extremity, as easily as they can text their friends.

The Online Safety Act is there to protect everyone. It is there to put porn back on the top shelf and out of reach of kids. It works to prevent 10-year-olds from finding graphic depictions of violence, being encouraged to become violent themselves or being groomed by strangers. Those who want to scrap the Act and the sentencing that goes along with it actually put at risk our free speech—the free speech of those who are intimidated every day for trying to express their views online—and, even more so, they put at risk our democracy. Let us bring back common sense and protect this country.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, this is the first time that an e-petition debate has been instigated by a Member of this House, so it gives me great pleasure to call the culprit, Rupert Lowe.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I reiterate the admonition that Mr Speaker has offered. This is one of the most far-reaching considerations that the House—even those of us who have been here for a very long time—can remember. It is understandable that a lot of Members will wish to take part, from across the House and on both sides of the argument, but looking around, it is quite clear that we cannot accommodate everybody. This means there will inevitably be a considerable number of interventions. All I would say, gently, is that interventions will be taken into account when considering the order of priority in which Members are called.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The previous Government were fully involved in the consultation, and not only were they fully involved, but they welcomed it.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Coming to this fresh, as one without a legal background, it seems to me that there are matters here of very great importance that ought to be properly debated by this House. Does the Minister agree that this is yet another classic example of where the much-vaunted separation of powers is likely to interfere with the process?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

This is the third consecutive week in which we have discussed this in the House. We discussed it in the Lord Chancellor’s statement, we discussed it at Justice questions last week, and we are discussing it again today.

Children of Prisoners

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that, this being a half-hour debate, there will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for and identification of the children of prisoners.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am delighted to have secured this Westminster Hall debate. First, I want to thank the Government for their manifesto commitment, which states:

“The children of those who are imprisoned are at far greater risk of being drawn into crime than their peers. We will ensure that…young people are identified and offered support to break the cycle.”

That is an important commitment that I know the Minister feels strongly about. Some important work backs that up. Around half of prisoners are parents of children aged 17 or younger, according to a report by the London School of Economics. Often, they and their care givers will both be in need of assistance and support, to provide a stable and nurturing environment, when a partner or former partner is in prison. In some cases, both parents might be in prison and relying on grandparents, and that support is also often required when a mother is in prison.

Children with an imprisoned parent are 25% more likely to suffer from mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, insomnia and eating disorders. Negative school experiences can also come from that—they are common. Many children and families impacted by parental imprisonment also face severe economic hardship—something that can also be worsened by parental imprisonment. Recent data from Oxfordshire county council found that, at the point of a parent’s first imprisonment, half of identified children were receiving free school meals. Following parental imprisonment, that figure rose by at least 20%, if not more. Alarmingly, those children are also more likely to engage in criminal behaviour, with an estimated 65% of young boys of imprisoned parents—two thirds—eventually going on to offend themselves.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is hard, Madam Deputy Speaker. With compassion, we search for ways to best alleviate pain and suffering and ensure that those we love die in peace. Initiated by the Bill, focus has rapidly turned to caring for the dying and optimising every moment of the life that we want to hold on to; it breaks us knowing that at some point we have to let go. That was the mission of Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the hospice movement.

Thankfully, most die in peace, but tragically not all. Funding for palliative care has regressed against rising demand in an ageing society with growing comorbidities. Hospices are paring back services. Research by the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Oxford highlights how jurisdictions with assisted dying fall down the rankings on palliative care, while promised funding never materialises. When more than 100,000 people, predominantly in poverty, from minoritised communities or based on postcode, fail to access any palliative care despite needing it, or when those who access care do so from frequently overstretched services, unable to make timely or optimised interventions, or when, for most, care starts far too late, tragic testimonies follow, as we have heard in recent days.

We all know that the NHS is under significant duress, and just cannot do what it should. Social care is fragmented and costly, and palliative care is significantly underfunded and inequitable. This is a mess. Following Lord Darzi’s devastating report, we must give my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary the opportunity to reset health and care. I believe that that is what we on these Benches were elected to do.

With just 17 days since publication, this Bill has consumed us and that will only intensify if it proceeds. Instead, our focus should be on getting palliation right and then seeing what is really needed. We cannot do both as there is simply not the capacity. More than 70% of the public say that they want a commission on palliative and end-of-life care before we consider assisted dying. Other polls agree. Plans for a commission are well advanced.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Lady entirely: the way forward should be through better palliative care and not through assisted suicide. The Bill does not address the needs of children. Would she recognise that we also need better palliative care for children as well as adults?

[Rachael Maskell]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who makes a pertinent point. After all, we would never write a prescription before making a diagnosis, yet this Bill does that. It is simply prescribing the wrong medicine. Extraordinarily, there is no critical analysis, not even an impact assessment, when such significant matters of life and death are at stake and when our broken health and justice system would be stretched even further.

My constituent was just 46 when she received a terminal diagnosis. She did not have long; the cancer was advancing and the prognosis would have qualified her for an assisted death. Had it been law, she would have consented. Now 54 and in remission, she pleads that the Bill should not pass. Palliative care consultants say that it is nearly impossible to prognosticate at six months; just 46% get it right. Experts say that the arbitrary six-month threshold is insecure. We must recognise its prematurity. Clause 2(2) says that someone for whom treatment only relieves symptoms but does not cure them would qualify for an assisted death if they were within the criteria. We understand someone declining chemotherapy, but the provision extends to any condition where a cocktail of drugs is sustaining life. The person involved may be only 18. That would not need a change in the law; it is written in the Bill.

My greatest concern is coercion. We live in a coercive society; the UK spends £40 billion on advertising and ever more powerful algorithms drive us to content online. We recognise coercion in relationships or elder abuse, but the Bill fails to safeguard against it when someone is dying and there is malign intent. People often recognise coercion only after years have passed, yet within a month someone could be dead. Malign coercion cases may be few, but as a clinician working at the fringes of life, I heard my patients frequently say, “I don’t want to be a burden,” or “I’d rather the money went to the grandchildren than on my care,” or “Somebody is more deserving than me.”

Intrinsic coercion is very real, not least where the law has changed—rapidly becoming an expectation, verbalised as a duty to die. In fact, not wanting to be a burden is cited as a major reason to opt for an assisted death, alongside loss of dignity, loneliness, and needing personal care, yet every day, disabled people live in this reality. We fight in this House to take away stigma and give dignity, equality and worth. That is why disabled people fear the Bill: it devalues them in a society where they fight to live.

We should understand why Disability Rights UK opposes and why Liberty opposes: to push back against the Bill is the cause of the progressive and the libertarian, not just the domain of the conservative. Under this Bill, a doctor may raise an assisted death with their patient—clause 4(2). Given the trust we place in doctors, not least when people are vulnerable, this is so significantly coercive. Let us suppose there is unconscious bias, which is well known in healthcare. Before people question that assertion, let me cite the industrial application of the Liverpool care pathway, and then, five and a half years after its ban, the covid “Do not actively resuscitate” letters. The evidence shows that disabled and ethnic minority people experience bias in healthcare. Those who stand for equality will recognise the safeguarding failures in the Bill. While not wanting to encourage suicidal ideation, rates are 6% higher in jurisdictions where there is assisted suicide.

On the process, two doctors—possibly unknown to the patient—ask a set of questions. It can take days to establish capacity in the courts, but it only needs a consultation. That is the same for assessing coercion and prognosis. Doctors are proponents of assisted dying. Risk increases in closed environments. At least the Isle of Man is considering a parole board-style approach; this Bill does not. The documentation of the decision fails in its rigour, not even seeking evidence for the decision. It is passed to a judge.

Sir James Munby, former family division president, describes,

“a scheme which does not provide for an open and transparent process but, on the contrary, permits a secret process which can give us no confidence that it will enable the court to identify and prevent possible abuses.”

In decrying how the Bill changes the role of the judge to one of certifying compliance, he states,

“the Leadbeater Bill falls lamentably short of providing adequate safeguards,”

describing the suspension of any appeal as an “extraordinary” omission, not least if the patient’s concerned relative or physician cannot take their case. That is backed by Thomas Teague KC, former chief coroner, who said the safeguards “will not hold” and that they

“amount to nothing more than arbitrary restrictions, with no rational foundation.”

Lord Sumption, former Supreme Court judge, highlights that once the law facilitates assisted suicide, it could be deemed discriminatory to deny others—disabled people—the same right. Barristers say they will take cases. They expect the law to change.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I am conscious that this is a small Bill, but it is an important one. It recognises the need to make sure that the legislation is up to date and does not limit the opportunities for secure academies to proceed. I have two prisons in my constituency, and during my time as an MP one of them has been a young offenders institution. Warren Hill is now a category C prison, but when I visited it as a YOI, I saw how important it was to have that educational ethos. I am conscious that young people who are housed in YOIs have often performed pretty horrific crimes, but I think there is an opportunity with this Bill to expand the focus on education while maintaining aspects of the relevant categories.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on taking on what is perhaps a less attractive area of legislation, but one in which important things need to be done. I know that her Bill, if it flies through the Lords as it has through the Commons, will be a really good legacy for her and for thinking about the future of young children.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I rise to thank again those who have helped with the passage of the Bill. In Sleaford, we have a secure children’s home that runs a small unit providing great education and rehabilitative care to those young people. I welcome the fact that the Bill will help to extend that educational and holistic approach to helping young people to turn their lives around.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I again congratulate the hon. Lady on piloting her Bill through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Road Traffic and Street Works

Roger Gale Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) kindly mentioned in his speech that I brought in a similar Bill, or at least a Bill on the same subject, last year. I commend him on what he has done and put on the record that the roads Minister was here to listen. If my right hon. Friend or I put in for an Adjournment debate to give the roads Minister an opportunity to reply on the subject, perhaps the Chair might be prepared in due course to look favourably on such a request?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know how to apply for an Adjournment debate. However, it is just possible he might find favour with Mr Speaker, as he would probably find favour with me on this subject. Other than that, I do not think it is a matter for the Chair.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill (Business of the House)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill—

Timetable

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.

(b) Notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) As soon as the proceedings on the Motion for this Order have been concluded, the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill shall be read.

(3) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(4) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:

(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (16)(a) of this Order.

(6) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(9) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

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

(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (9) of this Order.

Subsequent stages

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

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

(12) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (11) of this Order.

Reasons Committee

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

Miscellaneous

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

(15) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(16) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

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

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

(18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of such a debate.

(19) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—(Chris Heaton-Harris)