Tuesday 21st October 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberSentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 21 October 2025 - (21 Oct 2025)
17:56 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 381 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:11 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 389 / Noes: 102 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:29 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:55 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 104 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:07 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 390 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend has frequently raised this issue, and we are in violent agreement. In my experience, there is intellectual snobbery towards people who think there is moral value in, and an ethical basis for, punishing people properly. Anyone who talks about that often gets labelled as some bigot who does not understand patterns of criminality and all these other things. Of course they are important to consider, but none of these things means that we should not appropriately punish people. It shocks me that that still remains not part of the statutory purposes of sentencing. Punishing people is important, and we do not consider it enough.
For all the reasons I have set out, this Bill is incredibly important. Today is incredibly important too, because it is the last chance for Back-Bench MPs to decide for themselves which parts of this very significant Bill they will support. Next week we will have Third Reading, where Labour MPs will have no choice but to vote for or against the entire Bill.
We know that a major part of this Bill is the earlier release of nearly all offenders. The Opposition are opposed to the programme as a whole, but it is clear that this Bill is a major part of the Government’s plans to reform sentencing. It would be asking a lot of Labour MPs to ask them to consider voting against the entire programme, but we are not asking them to do that. Our amendment 24 gives Labour MPs the route through which they can most justifiably say to their Whips and the Prime Minister, “No, I can’t support this.” We are asking them to say no and to vote against the early release of rapists, paedophiles, seriously violent criminals, criminals who cause death by dangerous driving and attempted murderers. We are giving Labour MPs a clear route out of doing what would be absolutely unprecedented in the management of offenders in our prisons and a deep insult to the victims of serious violent and sexual crime.
Labour MPs, many of whom I have got to know, work with and respect, will know that I spent the last week trying my utmost to encourage them to avoid being put in a position where the Whips will make them vote to release rapists, paedophiles and serious violent criminals earlier. Most shadow Ministers would happily sit back and watch Labour MPs vote for something that will blight their time in Parliament in the eyes of their constituents, but we have not done that. That is because whatever damage voting for this Bill might do to the electoral prospects of Labour MPs, what is more important to me is that its measures do not go through.
As I have said before, I understand the frustrations that MPs of different parties have had over decades about the resources provided to our justice system and the prison estate. I mentioned on Second Reading that when Labour was last in power, it released more than 80,000 prisoners early because of the capacity issues built up during its time in office. This Government and the last Government have operated similar programmes. I wish that emergency release measures never had to be used, and if—this is a very big “if”—I had ever been Prime Minister or Chancellor during these periods, I would have taken different decisions. But at least these measures have to be announced in the full glare of the public eye, carry a political price and are genuinely legislated for as responses to short-term emergency challenges.
I want Labour MPs to be absolutely clear-eyed about the fact that what we are voting on today is not a short-term response to prison crowding challenges. It is a medium to long-term plan—a decision about how we as a country want to respond to people who commit serious violent and sexual offences. I have never met a victim of a serious violent or sexual offence who thinks that the present system suitably punishes serious offenders. I have never met a victim who thinks that we should let these sorts of people out of prison earlier, but that is what this Bill will do.
On Second Reading, I explained the sorts of offences that are included in these measures. Ministers have said that the very worst offenders will be excluded. Since Second Reading, the Opposition have been able to review sentencing data to try to understand what that means in reality. It highlights a disturbing truth and leaves the Government and any MP who votes for this Bill with a difficult question to answer. Those serving extended determinate sentences and life sentences will be excluded from the early release elements of this Bill, whereas those serving standard determinate sentences will not. Prisoners on standard determinate sentences will have their prison time cut.
Every year, more than 60% of criminals sent to prison for rape are on a standard determinate sentence. Over 90% of criminals sent to prison for child grooming are on a standard determinate sentence. Around half of criminals sent to prison for attempted murder are on a standard determinate sentence. Hundreds of criminals guilty of child rape and sexual assault, including rape of children under 13, are in prison on standard determinate sentences. In total, more than 6,500 criminals sent to prison every year for serious violent, sexual and other offences are given determinate sentences. If Labour MPs vote against our amendment 24, every single one of those criminals will be able to get out of prison earlier. Labour MPs will be voting to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
indicated dissent.
Dr Mullan
The Minister shakes his head. If he wants to intervene and explain why that is not the case, he can. No, he is not going to do so.
Let us be clear: earlier releases will not be done on a retrospective basis. When the measure is enacted, every criminal in prison at that point in time will be able to benefit from these measures, including thousands of serious criminals. It is very clear to me that what is being said by Ministers—I anticipate that they will say the same later in defence of these plans—is in danger of misleading MPs. As it stands, Labour MPs will have to vote in support of the Government’s position that the most serious offenders are excluded. I invite MPs to reflect on how the Justice Secretary can possibly say that any rape—let alone hundreds of them—is not one of the most serious offences. Will Labour MPs who vote against amendment 24 tonight be able to say to survivors of child sex abuse that they supported a Government who wanted to classify thousands of child sex offences as not being the most serious offences?
The Government have said that earlier releases will have to be earned through good behaviour, but that is simply not true. I appreciate that it can be difficult to always believe what MPs from Opposition parties are saying, but MPs do not need to take my word for it. The House of Commons Library briefing note on this Bill is there in black and white for everyone to read. It says:
“As currently drafted, the provisions of the bill do not bring in any new criteria for people to adhere to prior to being released at the one third or halfway point, or any discretionary elements to release.”
I will repeat that: the Bill’s provisions do not bring in any new criteria.
Labour MPs need not look any further than emergency release measures and contrast them with this permanent, long-term change to find evidence that the Government’s approach is totally unprecedented. The SDS40 scheme and other schemes that have come before and sat alongside it have many more exclusions—for example, sex offenders—yet this permanent, non-emergency approach does not. What Ministers have been telling Labour MPs to secure their support is not accurate, which should always make Back-Bench MPs wary. If the Government are making inaccurate statements about a measure in a Bill that they want MPs to support because they cannot face the reality of what it does, then MPs should think very carefully about voting for it, because there is no going back. They will have to defend that decision.
This morning, I emailed every single Labour MP the Library briefing note so that they could see it for themselves, regardless of whether they listen to this debate. Ignorance will be no excuse, because today will not be the end of it. I guarantee Members that the harsh reality is that history tells us that some of the criminals whom Labour MPs are being asked to vote to release will almost certainly commit further serious offences, at a time when they would otherwise have been locked up. MPs will then have to explain why they voted for non-emergency changes that let such people out earlier. I would not be surprised if one of these cases is sufficiently serious that the Government amend the Bill’s measures in future, in response to a public backlash. There is every chance that they will make Labour MPs go through the Lobby tonight and vote for the indefensible, and then at some point pull the rug from under them. I appreciate that a lot of Labour Members are new to this place, and they can speak to longer-serving Members about how it will make them look when they are forced to follow a line that is later withdrawn.
I have made our position clear, and I have set out the consequences. MPs voting against our amendment 24 this evening will be voting to reduce jail time for extremely violent criminals, paedophiles, child groomers and rapists. I have done as much as I can to stop that happening. Ministers are resorting to saying things about the Bill’s measures that are inaccurate to secure support from their Back Benchers, and MPs should not let them get away with it. We have set out clearly how our amendment would ensure that appalling criminals do not see their punishment cut. I know it is difficult for Back Benchers to stand up to the Government and say no, but if we do not, thousands of the worst criminals will get out of prison earlier.
Labour MPs now have to decide whether to vote for what victims of child abuse, family members of people killed by dangerous drivers, victims of rape and others want—victims whom many of them care about—or for what the Prime Minister and his Whips want. Tell the Prime Minister no, tell the Whips no, and vote for our amendment tonight.
Zöe Franklin
This is indeed a highly significant issue, which is why I have put forward the new clauses.
Since his conviction, Alex has been diagnosed with autism, a condition that fundamentally affects how he perceives and reacts to social situations. That diagnosis raises serious questions about whether it was even fair to suggest that he could have foreseen a friend’s violent act, let alone intended it. Alex’s story is not unique. Many others—overwhelmingly young men, disproportionately from minority ethnic backgrounds—remain imprisoned under a doctrine that our highest court has disowned.
I recognise today Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association—JENGbA—whose members have worked tirelessly for more than a decade to support families and campaign for reform. Many of them, and the families of those affected, are also here in the Gallery. I place on record my gratitude for their courage and persistence in seeking justice. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for her support this afternoon.
New clause 22 would allow people still serving sentences under laws that have materially changed to apply for a review. It would give courts discretion to resentence in line with the law as it now stands or to make any other order necessary in the interests of justice. This is not about reopening every case or granting automatic releases; it is about restoring fairness. New clause 23 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State for Justice to review and report to Parliament on how changes in criminal law affect existing convictions and sentences. It would ensure that when the law evolves, we look back and ask what the changes mean for the people already affected. This is not just a moral necessity, but a practical one.
We face a severe crisis in our prisons, which are overcrowded, understaffed and at breaking point. It makes no sense to fill cells with people serving sentences under laws that no longer reflect justice, while those who genuinely threaten public safety wait for space. We need prison places for those who are truly dangerous, not for those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong law. The Secretary of State for Justice has long recognised the injustice of joint enterprise. In 2021, he called it “shoddy law”, “outdated” and “backward”, and pledged to change it. Families across the country, including many in the Gallery, remember that promise; today’s Bill gives the Secretary of State and the Government the chance to make good on it.
The new clauses provide a practical, proportionate and fair way to ensure that our justice system can correct itself when the law gets it wrong. As such, my ask today is for the Secretary of State and the Government to champion these clauses from the Government Benches. Work with me and campaigners to refine the detail if needed, but do not let the principle fall away, because the strength of our justice system lies not in its perfection, but in its capacity to put right its own mistakes. For Alex Henry, for the families in the Gallery today, and for everyone who is still serving a sentence under a law that our courts have already rejected, I urge all Members on both sides of the Committee and the Government to support new clauses 22 and 23.
Jake Richards
I begin by thanking all those who have contributed to this important debate about sentencing policy and the future of our criminal justice system. Before I turn to the specifics of various amendments, there are two overarching principles that inform this piece of legislation and the Government’s position today. The first is the legacy that this Government inherited from the Conservative party, with prisons at breaking point, the risk that the most serious offenders would avoid arrest or custody altogether, and the need for emergency action to release offenders early to avoid the prison system collapsing. That was the conclusion of 14 years of Tory failure. Alongside the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era, this Sentencing Bill fixes that mess—under this Government, never again.
Secondly, while we stabilise the system that was so shamefully vandalised by the previous Tory Government, we can build a better justice system—one that protects the public and reduces reoffending. This Government will prioritise punishment, but punishment that works, not the broken system we have today. That is why we are introducing important measures on short custodial sentences, which robust evidence shows will reduce offending, save the taxpayer money and assist with the prison capacity crisis. Fixing the mess we inherited and building a more robust and effective justice system are at the heart of today’s Bill.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition and the shadow Justice team. I am simply aghast at the chutzpah of the Conservative party on justice issues. The piece of legislation we are considering is only before the Committee today because of the mess that the Tories left behind. Whereas they turned their backs on the mounting crisis, this Government will not shrink from the challenges we face, however difficult they may be.
Amendment 24 would undermine a central purpose of the legislation, which is to solve the Tory prisons capacity crisis. Let me be absolutely clear: what victims of crime and our communities fear the most is the situation the Tories left behind, in which criminals—murderers, rapists and child abusers—might not face prison at all because the Tories left our system teetering on the brink, without the capacity to lock up even the most serious offenders. We will not apologise for the measures in this Bill that clear up their mess.
The inspiration for the changes that the Tories oppose is the earned progression model from Texas, where crime has been slashed by improving rehabilitation and cutting reoffending. Tackling reoffending and boosting efforts to rehabilitate offenders used to be Conservative policies; indeed, the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who is not in his normal place, used to believe in rehabilitation and initiatives to cut reoffending. Eight years ago, when I think he was still a one-nation Cameroon, he argued that
“the statutory definition of the purpose of a prison”
should
“include rehabilitation and reform”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 850.]
Now he opposes every single measure in this Bill that furthers that cause. He was a moderate; now, he is a pound-shop populist. One wonders whether he believes in anything other than his campaign to become Leader of the Opposition—simply not serious, Madam Chair.
Dr Mullan
The Minister has described what is in the Bill as an earned progression model. I have read out to the Committee the independent Library briefing note, which says that progression will not be earned; it will be automatic. On what basis is the Minister continuing to describe it as an earned model?
Jake Richards
Within the Sentencing Bill and primary legislation are specific punishments for offenders who do not play by the rules while they are in prison. That will affect the earned progression model. Further details about exactly how one can gain credit will be delivered in due course.
The Opposition and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) have tabled amendments to the provisions on the Sentencing Council with the aim of abolishing the council, and the Tory amendment would transfer its functions to the Secretary of State for Justice. That would amount to constitutional vandalism—it is an attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary. The Sentencing Council holds a pivotal role as a bridge between Parliament and the judiciary. The council is widely acknowledged to have brought greater consistency to the sentencing process. Even before the council’s creation, it was not for the Justice Secretary or Lord Chancellor to fulfil the function of creating these guidelines. It is right that the council is held to account by Parliament, but it would be offensive to the principle of the separation of powers to dissolve the council entirely. This is a classic case of the populists going too far and not reaffirming the sovereignty of this place, as clauses 18 and 19 successfully achieve, but trashing constitutional norms for media headlines. I urge the Committee to reject such performative politics.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), tabled new clause 12 on the unduly lenient sentence scheme, on which the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made a powerful speech. While the Government understand that the 28-day time limit can be difficult for victims and their families, it is important that there is finality in sentencing and that we avoid ongoing uncertainty about the sentence to be served. The Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal appeals and held a public consultation inviting views on a range of reforms to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, including extending the time limit. We will wait for the Law Commission’s response before responding. I have heard the points that Members have made about communication, and over the coming weeks I will look at changes we can make to processes and functions within the Ministry of Justice to improve the system.
I shall move on to short sentences and the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I want to be clear about this, because her speech simply did not accept the reality. Clause 1 does not ban short custodial sentences. At the end of this Parliament there will be more offenders in jail than there have ever been before. That is not being soft on crime. There is an important exemption in the legislation for cases where there is a significant risk of harm to a particular individual, whether psychological or physical. It will always be up to the courts to decide how to apply the presumption in any given case. The right hon. Lady’s amendments to widen the scope of the exemption or to eat away at the 12-month definition of a short sentence would render the provision meaningless. It is not the right direction.
The provision also includes an exemption for a breach of a court order. We have strengthened that further with Government amendments 2 and 4, which clarify that it includes repeat offenders who commit a further offence while on a suspended sentence. Government amendments 3 and 5 further expand the scope of the exemption so that it applies where an offence has been committed in circumstances that are closely connected to the breach of a court order, even where the breach is not in and of itself a criminal offence. Together, those amendments ensure that repeat offenders will not benefit from the presumption when they are already subject to a court order.
Where we can do so safely, we should be moving away from short-term sentences. Putting people in prison for a few weeks costs the taxpayer huge amounts and leads to further reoffending. We know that reoffending rates among those serving short-term sentences are scandalously high. Rigorous research shows that equivalent sentences in the community will tackle reoffending, preventing thousands of crimes each year. Indeed, the rigorous research, which the shadow Minister cited, showing that these measures will cut crime was commissioned by the last Conservative Government. They even put this precise provision—copied and pasted—in legislation that they introduced prior to the election, but it never came before Parliament. The Conservatives know it is the right thing to do, but now they oppose it for opposition’s sake. It is a good example of how far they have fallen. They are simply not serious.
I will not be able to speak to all the various amendments tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), as I am sure he will appreciate. I met him earlier this week, and I will no doubt meet him and members of the Committee in the weeks ahead. I am grateful to him and his Committee for their work. New clause 19 addresses the important issue of the imprisonment for public protection sentence. It is right that the IPP sentence was abolished, and the Government are determined to support those in prison to progress towards a safe and sustainable release, but not in a way that undermines public protection. Changes we have implemented through the IPP action plan have contributed to a fall of around 14% in the number of unreleased IPP prisoners between June 2024 and June 2025.
I recognise the Chair’s desire to see the previous Justice Committee’s recommendation on resentencing implemented, but despite its detailed consideration of the issue, the Committee, like various other organisations, was unable to identify an approach to resentencing that would not involve releasing offenders whom the Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public. The Chair of the Committee has put forward other amendments to the IPP scheme relating to the review of licence conditions. The Government will look into that over the coming days and weeks and no doubt have conversations with him.
Let me say a little about new clause 18, which deals with tagging, an issue that was also raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). The Government agree that it is important to report on key metrics relating to electronic monitoring, which is why the Ministry of Justice publishes statistical reports on the use of electronic monitoring in England and Wales both quarterly and annually. Our next annual report, which we expect to be published next summer, will include details on key performance indicators that the Department uses to hold the electronic monitoring provider to account. As the hon. Gentleman will know, owing to commercial sensitivities I am unable to specify the fines that have been enforced on those private companies relating to the tagging systems, but we will continue to hold their feet to the fire, which I hope will reassure him.
Josh Babarinde
It has been great to work with Ministers at the Ministry of Justice and to help drive that identifier forward. Will the Minister join me in celebrating the incredible bravery of ITV’s “Loose Women”, many of whom, through their “Facing It Together” campaign, have spoken out about their experiences of domestic abuse, and will he, or a fellow Minister from the MOJ, come and meet them next Wednesday from 12.30 pm onwards, in the Attlee Suite, where I shall be hosting them and we will be bringing the “Facing It Together” campaign to Parliament?
Jake Richards
I am always happy to pay tribute to the brilliant “Loose Women”, and, diary permitting, I will be there at 12.30 pm with the hon. Gentleman. Their campaign has been serious and has had a real effect, and we are very grateful to them.
Offenders who pose a greater risk are already excluded from the measures in the Bill, including those recalled on account of being charged with a further offence—such as, importantly, an offence relating to a breach of a civil domestic violence protection order—and those subject to multi-agency supervision levels 2 and 3, which apply to many sexual violence and domestic abuse offenders. These offenders can only receive a standard recall.
New clause 36, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), builds on the work of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. It would require the courts to treat any offence involving domestic abuse as aggravated. Again, I recognise and sympathise with the intent behind the new clause, but domestic abuse is already treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing through the guidelines that make it clear that judges should consider domestic abuse as increasing the seriousness of an offence, allowing for tougher sentences where appropriate. We believe that any change might complicate the sentencing framework unnecessarily, without any real practical benefit.
Let me now deal with the issue of driving offences. We have heard many powerful speeches, including one from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who also made a powerful speech on Second Reading. He is not currently in the Chamber—oh, he is here, but he has changed, and is looking very dapper. I have had a brief conversation with him about some of his proposals. While we do not support the mandatory ban for careless and dangerous driving that results in death, I am determined to look at it, along with my colleagues at the Department for Transport. I was shocked by some of the statistics that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) produced on Second Reading, and in meetings that I have had with them since then. I want to get into the details, but there is certainly more that we can do, and I know that other Members have raised important cases in this connection. I will be looking at measures that we can take to strengthen driving bans, on an interim and permanent basis, for the most reckless offenders. Again, I praise all the Members who have made such powerful speeches today, some of them on behalf of constituents who have suffered significant tragedies.
New clauses 28 and 29 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I have met her twice to discuss the new clauses and the policy aims that sit behind them. I commend her for tabling them, raising the importance of tackling the hidden harms of problematic gambling, and for her ongoing collaboration on this topic. Let me briefly explain the ways in which we already identify and support those with gambling issues, and how we are seeking to increase the support that we provide.
Pre-sentencing reports help the courts to identify underlying issues such as harmful gambling, mental health problems and addiction, which may influence offending behaviour. Mental health conditions and addictions can be taken into account at sentencing, and courts are encouraged to take an individualised approach, particularly when the condition contributes to the offending. Where individuals demonstrate a commitment to address those issues, courts may consider community sentence treatment requirements, and in particular mental health treatment requirements, as part of a community or suspended sentence order. This can be undertaken only with the consent of the individual, and new clause 28 as drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South provides for the treatment to be mandatory, which is an issue. As I have discussed with her, there is the issue of the scale of demand and the current lack of any reliable data on how this would look in the criminal justice system. That is why I have already committed to work with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care—indeed, I have been in correspondence with them just this week—to ensure that the Ministry of Justice is involved in the developing work on gambling addiction treatment and use of the statutory levy that is led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
I will briefly deal with new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Clacton, who did not bother to turn up for any of the debate. His new clause would introduce automatic deportation for foreign nationals who are given sentences of at least six months. Although the state would be forced to seek the deportation of an individual in such circumstances, that individual would clearly have cause for challenge—not just on ECHR grounds but, in particular, on the grounds of judicial review and proportionality, which has been a long-held principle of common law in this country for hundreds of years.
Let me be clear: this Government are urgently removing foreign national offenders, with removals up by 14% since we came into office. Through Government new clause 1, we are extending the Home Secretary’s duty to deport under the UK Borders Act 2007 to foreign nationals who are given a suspended sentence of at least 12 months. Upholding our values and keeping our nation safe is a priority, and new clause 1 sends a clear message. Regardless of whether a court chooses to impose an immediate custodial sentence or pass a suspended sentence, if the sentence is for a period of at least 12 months, it is sufficiently serious to merit automatic deportation. New clause 25, tabled by Reform, would make a mockery of our efforts more generally, putting scant resource into needless litigation and often unnecessary deportations—another Reform policy that crashes and burns on contact with reality.
I will briefly speak about new clause 27 and the powerful story told by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about her constituent Sophie. It is an issue that first came across my desk as part of preparations for Committee. Although the Government are absolutely determined to deport foreign offenders for serious offences, the risk assessment in her new clause may inhibit the Government’s efforts in that regard. This is something that I will look at very closely in the coming weeks, and I hope that I can have a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss the details and how we can make it work.
I want to raise briefly the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on tool theft, which has been such an important part of the reforms to the sentencing and criminal justice policy. Her efforts have been successful.
Today’s debate, which has lasted nearly four hours, shows that the dividing line in British politics is increasingly clear: it is between those who recognise the tough choices facing our country and are willing to make them in order to clean up the mess left behind by the last Tory Government, and the unserious, populist Opposition carping from the sidelines.
Dr Mullan
I am sure the Minister will hope that Back Benchers have listened closely to what he has said, but more important is what he has not said. The Government have been briefing journalists that what we were saying about rapists and paedophiles getting out earlier was not true, and they have told the same to a number of Labour Back Benchers. To be clear, can the Minister put on the record whether any rapists or paedophiles serving standard determinate sentences will be released earlier as a result of this Bill—yes or no?
Jake Richards
As the hon. Gentleman knows, sentencing decisions are for the judiciary. Every single offence in his amendment 24 can be given an extended determinate sentence. As I have said before—I will say it again—what victims of crime fear the most is the situation that this Government inherited, in which we were running out of prison places and the most serious offenders might not have faced prison at all. Bizarrely, the shadow Justice Minister said earlier in the debate, “If I had been Prime Minister or Chancellor, this wouldn’t have happened.” Well, you were not, I am afraid. A lot of you lot had a go at being Chancellor or Prime Minister, and none of you did a good job.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. “You lot” and “you” were addressed to me.
Jake Richards
Madam Chair, I do not think that you were Prime Minister or Chancellor. I do apologise.
The Tory legacy in our prisons was lawless disorder, with not enough prison places to arrest or lock up even the most serious offenders. The Conservatives’ howling opposition today rings hollow in the context of their disastrous legacy. This Government have taken action to fix the mess by delivering 2,500 prison places in the first year, compared with 500 over 14 years of Conservative misrule. But we cannot simply build our way out of this crisis; it requires long-term reform for a more sustainable system. This Bill ensures that we will never again face the impossible situation that we faced last summer, but it goes further: it means we will cut reoffending rates, and we will build prisons that produce better citizens, not better criminals. This Bill will help keep our streets and communities safe. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate.
Esther McVey
I am deeply dismayed by what the Minister had to say. This Bill will make the streets of our country less safe. It will both let thousands of criminals out of prison and stop thousands of criminals going to prison. It will have a devastating impact on society. If the Minister is honest and is being truthful about this being an emergency—[Interruption.] I apologise —not “truthful”. If he is being accurate, and the reason really is that there is an emergency because of a lack of prison places, why has he not accepted my new clause 62? That sunset clause would allow two years for three further prisons, initiated by the Conservative Government, to come on line. He has not done so because, as I think we have revealed or exposed, this Government are soft on crime, and they are on the side of the criminal, not the victim.
Esther McVey
“Shocking” actually is the word for this Bill.
As the Minister did not offer any way forward and has not agreed to a sunset clause, I will push my amendment 46 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.